stitutional principles, and hence it hadrnno vested interest in preserving or respectingrnthose formalities.rnWhat it did have an interest in wasrnpreserving the structures of the advancedrneconomy, the mass state, and the functionsrnthey performed, because only sornlong as the economy and the state dependedrnon the technical skills necessaryrnto their functioning would they alsornneed the managers. The overriding interestrnof the managerial class, then, wasrnfirst to get rid of the remnants of “bourgeois”rnsociety (in the form of the limited,rnneutralist, minimalist state and its sloganrnof the “rule of law”), of the smaller, entrepreneurialrnforms of business that werernnot so technical that their owners couldrnnot operate them without managerialrnexpertise, and of the cultural and socialrnframework in which the bourgeois elitesrnflourished; then to advance and perpetuaternthe structures—like the corporationrnand the mass state—that allowed a dominantrnplace for the managers themselves;rnand finally to construct a new culturalrnand social framework that would legitimaterntheir dominance of society.rnThe managerial class, of course, didrnnot gain power all at once, and throughoutrnmost of the 20th century, using thernideology of what came to be known asrn”liberalism,” it competed on a politicalrnand cultural level with its rival, the bourgeoisrnor capitalist class (especially inrnsmaller owner-managed and familyrnfirms), which wrapped itself and its interestsrnand values in what came to bernknown as “conservatism.”rnMr. Hodges’ new book largely acceptsrnthis theory, and in doing so he partsrncompany with most of his fellow Marxists,rnwho have never liked Burnham’srnanalysis. He correctly sees that JohnrnKenneth Galbraith’s “New IndustrialrnState” is mainly a reformulated versionrnof Burnham’s theory and that what Galbraithrncalled the “technostructure” ofrnthe corporation is largely identical tornwhat Burnham had called the “managerialrnclass.” Unlike Burnham in his morernmature writings, however, Mr. Hodgesrnseems to have remained a fairly conventionalrneconomic determinist, and he arguesrnthat the corporate managers orrntechnostructure has simply captured thernstate—not, as Burnham came to see,rnthat the state has evolved its own technostructurernthat weds or fuses with itsrncorporate siblings.rnMr. Hodges believes that what thernmanagerial revolution represents is inrnfact the triumph of socialism—what herncalls “managerial socialism.” Socialismrntriumphed, in his usage, not because thernstate expropriated the capitalists or ownersrnbut because the managers themselvesrndid so, and the managers’ lack of dependencernon property and profit (as opposedrnto corporate growth) means thatrnthey have no fear of the state. On therncontrary, they rely on the state for subsidies,rnfiscal privileges, bailouts, governmentrncontracts, and various policy posturesrnthat benefit managerial as opposedrnto entrepreneurial structures.rnMr. Hodges also reviews the intellectualrnhistory of managerialism in thernUnited States, tracing it back to EdwardrnBellamy’s Utopian novel. Looking Backward,rnwhich described an emerging publicrneconomy similar to what Burnhamrnlater predicted, and showing how variousrntheorists of the early 20th century likernFrederick Winslow Taylor, John Dewey,rnElton Mayo, Thorstein Veblen, and SimonrnPatten, among others, shaped thernmanagerial regime that evolved. Thesernwriters collectively provided a theoreticalrnframework for the new managerial classrnthat offered instruction on what to dornwith the mass or nonelite population.rnThat framework envisaged a populationrnstripped of its social and cultural institutionsrnand values and administratively assimilatedrninto the new social patternsrnimposed by the new class. Patten, for example,rn”the father of consumerism,” arguedrnthat “expanding consumptionrnwould compensate the worker for necessaryrndrudgery and keep him on the job.”rnAs Hodges points out, what Pattenrncalled “welfare management” meant “arnrevival of the ancient Roman program, ofrn’Bread and Circuses.’… By amusing thernunderlying population, they would contributernto pacifying it,” and “acceptancernof both the political and economic systemsrnin America was obtained bv fraudrnrather than by force.”rnMr. Hodges’ book is a useful restatementrnof the Burnham thesis and showsrnthat the theory remains valid despite thernheap of criticism and even vilificationrnthat has been piled upon it. Yet hernmight have carried it further by discussingrnhow the managerial class dismantlesrnbourgeois and premanagerialrnculture and social institutions and generatesrnnew ones suitable to its own interests.rnBecause their power and positions dependrnupon their own acquisition of technicalrnand managerial skills, the managersrnare unable to emulate ruling classes ofrnthe past by creating hereditary structuresrnthat can pass their power on to theirrnheirs. Hence, institutions like the familyrncease to be important to them as powerrnbases, and managerial culture has tendedrnto disintegrate and delegitimize thernfamily structures through law, social policy,rnand continuous ridicule. Nor do thernmanagers need or want any of the institutionsrnand social identities of premanagerialrncivilization in religion, nationality,rncommunity, race and ethnicity, orrnmorals. What they demand is centralizationrnand uniformity, which offerrnblank slates on which their own powerrnand interests can be carved.rnHence, in place of traditional educationalrninstitutions, they create mass universitiesrncentered around the scientificrnand social science curricula that providerntraining in the skills of the new elite andrnadapt the educational institutions to thernmanagerial need for the destruction ofrntraditional culture and beliefs. Universitiesrnand educational institutions in general,rnthen, under the managerial regime,rnare not places for acquiring education inrnthe traditional sense but rather factoriesrnfor the reproduction and perpetuation ofrnthe elite itself and its ideological legitimization.rnIt is possible to quibble with bothrnBurnham’s original formulation of therntheory of the managerial revolution andrnwith Mr. Hodges’ reformulation ofrnit, but the theory as a whole explains arngreat deal about the politics and the culturalrnhistory of 20th-century America.rnAmong other things, it helps explain whyrnthe American ruling class commits itselfrnto such seemingly suicidal and antisocialrnbehavior as its war on the family, nation,rnrace, and religion (the war is not a sign ofrndecadence but rather of the social needsrnand interests of an elite that views thesernsocial identities as obstacles to its power)rnand why conservatism has been such arnflop (it has ceased to represent a socialrnand political force that can compete effectivelyrnwith its managerial rivals).rnMost of all, it helps explain why Americanrnpolitics is so sterile, and why neitherrnthe “liberal” nor the “conservative”rnshade of the political spectrum has anyrnserious quarrel or disagreement with thernother side. When politics becomes interestingrnagain, it will be a sign thatrnsomeone or something other than thernruling class is beginning to reach for thernpower that the managers have all butrnmonopolized. •^””rn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn