“The social and economic side of the revolution [James] Burnham and his National Review colleagues fought for has now also matured in full, as ever larger homeless camps dot the urban landscape of every American metropolis, and as hollow, rusting hulks are most of what remains of its previous industrial might. Almost seventy years after [William F.] Buckley’s founding of the National Review, one of the most ironic achievements of the anticommunist right has been to vindicate Karl Marx’s polemical description of the bourgeoisie.”
Over the past weekend, while writing Chapter 6 of Zero Hour, I finally decided to purchase a subscription to Compact Magazine to access a few articles that I wanted to read. The articles I chose pertained to the longstanding allegations over the role that relapsed Trotskyites had played in shaping the “Fusionist” tendencies of “American Conservatism” (insofar as this Ideology is supposed to be understood as a post-1945 phenomenon and not a pre-1945 one). Fusionism was of course an amalgamation of free markets, traditional values, unfettered individualism, and rabid anticommunism in support of the Jeffersonian ideal of an Empire of Liberty.
Malcom Kyeyune, in a notable essay he published in Compact, devoted the subject to the life of James Burnham. Similar to Irving Kristol and the Neoconservatives who later influenced the Bush 43 Presidency’s foreign policies, Burnham was an archetypal pre-1945 example of American Trotskyites channeling their opposition to the Soviet Union and Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country” as “American Conservatives.” Ideological concepts related to Trotskyism are self-evident throughout Kyeyune’s writing: the “Permanent Revolution” was recontextualized to justify the “Rollback” (which Burnham himself coined) and eventual destruction of the Soviet Union; the “Deformed Workers’ State” and the “Degenerated Workers’ States” recontextualized under the vague-sounding “Managerialism.”
“Managerialism” is such an interesting term that it can be both broadly specific, yet vaguely unclear at the same time. In the context of Marxist Theory (that is, if contextualized in Trotskyism), Burnham insisted that the “Capitalist Mode of Production” was not being upended by the “Socialist Mode of Production” during the two World Wars. What was ‘replacing’ the “Capitalist Mode of Production” is a “Managerial Mode of Production,” which Burnham believed would disprove all notions that what came after Capitalism is some kind of Socialism. Here, one could argue that the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc countries, Mainland China, Imperial Japan, German Reich, Fascist Italy, Falangist Spain and everyone else opposed to Neoliberalism all represent “‘Degenerated’ and ‘Deformed’ Workers States.” They may claim to be at odds with Neoliberalism, but they are in actuality beholden to both it and the Empire of Liberty.
Back in the 1930s and 1940s, a belief like that did carry some weight among certain kinds of people like Burnham. They believed that the alternate world order emerging in 1941 was something that perverted their peculiar interpretation of the World Revolution. For them, either the entire world was going to be adhering to their interpretation of Marxist Theory or they would be letting Neoliberalism persist. Thus, it was only inevitable that they would end up fighting for the Empire of Liberty during World War II and especially during the Cold War.
This was the part of Burnham’s legacy which Kyeyune sought to emphasize as historical lessons that ought to be learned from. They are historical lessons which can be of immense value for anyone interested in understanding why The Work-Standard (3rd Ed.) and its related works needed to cater to a wide variety of different Ideologies. Not to mention why those same lessons hold the key to appealing to those State Capitalists and Social Capitalists established earlier in Parts I and II.
In essence, how does one convey ideas and beliefs related to one Ideology by recontextualizing it to suit the purposes of another Ideology? How did relapsed American Trotskyists, upon ditching Leon Trotsky’s interpretation Marxist Theory, retain their ideological methodology and redesigned it to help yield the “Fusionism” so prevalent within “American Conservatism?”
Consider for a moment Burnham’s “Managerialism” inasmuch as it has its origins in Trotskyism’s understandings of the “‘Degenerated’ and ‘Deformed’ Workers’ States.” “Managerialism” refers to the Means of Production and therefore the Productive Forces being controlled by a technocratic bureaucracy unbeholden to neither the State nor the Totality of the Nation. If the Social Rank of the Self under the Work-Standard is “Who contributes the most Arbeit?,” then the Social Rank of the Self under Managerialism is “Who possesses the most Knowledge?.”
Yet outside of the parameters of Trotskyism’s interpretations of Marxist Theory, the concept has been reinterpreted by different Non-Trotskyists such as George Orwell, Christopher Lasch, Barbara Ehrenreich or Michael Lind to refer to a specific phenomenon characteristic of Neoliberalism. It is well-known that Neoliberalism underwent a pivotal transformation in response to the Great Depression and the World Wars (of which the Cold War was merely the continuation of World War II). What has kept it going has been its ability to consolidate power from key 20th century trends which I had identified in the follow-ups to The Work-Standard: The Third Place (1st Ed.), Work-Standard Accounting Practices (1st Ed.), and The Digital Realm (1st Ed.). Basically, the implementation of a National Educational System whose purpose is to funnel manpower and talent toward sustaining a Market/Mixed Economy and Fractional-Reserve Banking System governed by Parliament, the activities of all four being supported by the World Wide Web. In the Liberal Capitalist Nation, this technocratic bureaucracy is not necessarily accountable to Parliament, let alone Civil Society because Technology has never been a politically neutral entity.
Based on my understandings of Managerialism, I had maintained in my Treatises that “Managerialism” is actually a Liberal Capitalist concept that happens to go by another name in The Third Place: “Fordism-Taylorism.” The response in that particular Treatise was to advocate for the implementation of Council Democracy and the redevelopment of economic life along the lines of the Work-Standard. That included creating specific distinctions between “Property-as-Power” and “Property-as-Wealth.” It was only natural to anticipate corresponding notions of “Knowledge-as-Power” and “Knowledge-as-Wealth” in Entries pertaining to Technology. Going back to a recurring theme underpinning The Third Place, Work-Standard Accounting Practices, and The Digital Realm, the creations of Arbeit and Geld are not just occurring in the National Economy alone. The National Educational System, the Financial Regime (the “Reciprocal-Reserve Banking System”), the State Council, and the National Intranet also contribute Arbeit and Geld.
More importantly, I am convinced that Managerialism is wasteful and parasitic, even by Liberal Capitalist standards. When it comes to Kapital and Schuld, the technocrats do not need to apply their Knowledge in ways that benefit the Nation. Why teach others when it is way more profitable to rent one’s Knowledge to those who lack it? Why should technocrats be concerned about whether it can accomplish the terms of their government contract, when they need to compete to win it? Or why should another technocrat, unaccountable to governmental or popular scrutiny, need not worry that their own jobs create more Schuld than Kapital because there are always taxpayers willing to absorb the costs? How about the ones who are allowed to charge higher Rents associated with Private Properties or Fees associated with Intellectual Properties?
From the standpoint of the State Capitalist and Social Capitalist, they would prefer that economic activities are productive and have tangible results. Kapital investments that would lead to, say, the opening of a new manufactory could be considered as a worthwhile return on investment for the Nation. It is obvious in various articles published in Compact Magazine or American Affairs that some State Capitalists and Social Capitalists are finding Kapital being squandered on frivolous ventures by both the so-called “Private and Public Sectors.” There is no doubt that they are witnessing the degeneration of a centuries-old political-economic order which is becoming increasingly abstract and divorced from economic realities. I am confident that certain aspects of the Work-Standard could be reconceptualized or recontextualized to appeal to them as it would with the rest of The Work-Standard’s target audience.
In closing, this brings me to one final observation: Should one be participating in Financial Markets and investing Kapital to earn Kapital? Should one’s Kapital be recirculated in a Market/Mixed Economy, be it a Social-Democratic, Social Corporatist, or State Capitalist framework? If so, how should those ventures be used to gain the sympathy and respect of those aforementioned State Capitalists and Social Capitalists?
Categories: Blog Post, Uncategorized
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment