The Managerial State

socialmatter.net/2017/06/30/what-it-means-to-be-part-of-the-ruling-class/
Is this just false consciousness?

Other urls found in this thread:

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/1939-a-guide-to-the-managerial-revolution/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technostructure
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Who owns the state? In an American context - who purchases the laws?

We nrx now.

Choice tidbit from the comments.

Capitalism died after ww2, replaced by a managerial neo liberal elite who managed the means of production for the bourgeois. And basically since the managers own the means of production now we arent a capitalist state but a managerial state
I made a thread about this a few days ago but it got locked by butt mad mods when i pointed out that the left died at the fall of the Berlin wall and were absorbed by capital and have become the exploiters. And the only ones mounting an actual resistance to the neo liberal managerial elite are nationalists, traditionalists, and Islam.
These things give people another purpose to live for besides being an empty consumer, They form their own communtites outside of the neoliberal paradigm of diversity, globalism, and liberalism, and all western nations are based on consumerism now as the means of production have been outsourced to the third world
The managers love preserving the status quo and expanding surveillance to manage people better.
The worst thing the left did was win the culture war, all it did was give capitalism a kinder face.

The far left are fighting against an enemy that doesnt exist anymore and in fact has been prancing around the world wearing thier body as a skinsuit after the soviets lost.

The neocons have done nothing conservative, they are just a more pro war, pro israel neo liberal

Oh, also mass immigration is supported because it brings more consumers into the country. To the elite we are all just atomized interchangeable cogs Here to buy things in the strip mall called america. Some of them are different colors

[citation needed]
They aren't conservative, but they are capitalist.

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/1939-a-guide-to-the-managerial-revolution/

Is a pretty good tl;dr of Burnham's work


Really? I posted a thread on this half a year ago and only got a few bites

That's why they're "neo-conservative". They believe that the capitalist status quo is the end of history; they worship this status quo like paleoconservatives do, but express it in a different fashion.

Well, no shit. Why do you think we think it is supported?

From Lenin's "Imperialism"

The real left died after the cold war, Clinton warped the democratic party into a neoliberal monstrosity, the democrats dont serve the interest of the proles, they serve the interests of yuppies, university students, wall street, silicon vally, and Hollywood. The democratic party isn't in the union halls they are in the Yale sociology department. The democratic party spews a divisive identity politics that serves the interest of the plutocracy by dividing people of the same material conditions. The workers of the world arent uniting, they are at each others throats over who is the most oppressed.


The thing is this concept, the managerial state it was written by a conservative who used to be a former trot, he has found a resurgence in popularity in the past few years in certain very small segments of the alt right. Burnham was also mostly ignored by neocons.

Oh, if this is what you mean I absolutely agree.

Sounds like ancap BS to me.

NRx is what ancaps degenerate to when they want to be edgy. They gon' be kangz n' shiet!

There is no major difference between the two parties that control america, the elite of the parties.
They both preserve the plutocratic status quo, never change anything, are managerial, only care about power, have this weird obsession with bourgeois politeness and manners, all while they expand wars, slash social services, bail out banks, etc.

In the end the GOP and DNC are two sides of the same coin and serve the interests of the plutocratic elite and donor class.

And the media? They went to the same ivy league as the managers, anderson cooper is legit old money. When they defend the managers is class solidarity, also the corporation or billionaire that owns CNN telling them to defend the status quo

The only real difference is the divisive identity politics they espouse, White identity politics for the republicans, minority identity politics for the democrats. In the end you get to feel good your ball team won, even though your material conditions will never improve because Americans have had the class consciousness beaten out of them

The sad thing is that this is true of most modern conservative thinkers, i.e. they're usually ex-Marxists


Because most of the "neo-cons" were essentially interventionist pro-Israel liberals that didn't much care for the prevailing ideals of conservatism at that time (i.e. social/economic conservatism) - if anything social/economic issues were only a means to their foreign-policy-orientated ends

Anyone feel up to writing a thorough refutation?

Actually a lot of the neocons used to be former trots, also a lot of them are jews, the alt right loves to insult them by calling them neo cohens and also its always been a fun pastime by other wings of the republican party to troll them by calling them commies

smh tbh

While I haven't read the book, I have to wonder if it aligns with the concept of the technostructure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technostructure


This isn't the case, strictly. We live in a shareholder or financial sector state, managers are now just their enforces.
The managers are at their highest power inside government, not inside the private sector - the financial sector is the key beneficiary of the neoliberal revolution. The period from 1945-1975 was not neoliberalism.


This is basically true but the real story is actually much more fascinating.

During the 1980s in New Zealand and Australia, their Labour parties came to power instead of it being their National/Liberal parties. (Liberal in Australia being basically analogous to Republican/Conservative in the UK and US respectively, National in NZ being the same but much more protectionist in 1984 but then realigning by 1993.) and in Australia in particular Bob Hawke and Paul Keating lead a pretty successful transition to neoliberalism. This apparently inspired Clinton greatly, and he in turn helped work with Blair in the UK. This also aligned strongly with the rise of the financial sector.

I'm not really fond of calling it managerialism. "Market Stalinism" (Mark Fisher's phrase) pleases me more, with the target setting and statistical bureaucracy but often enforced via market mechanisms rather than traditional central planning. Blair's UK being the key model - private sector businesses are often more lean, but then slot into chunks of public service provision.

Christ that's idiotic, upper management (functional capitalists) are just as bourgeois as the owners (money capitalists) are, and there's still a great deal of overlap between the two. Not to mention that this division had already started to emerge in Marx's time (both he and Engels spoke of it).

Much of the left had already died during the late 70s/80s. The Democrats were never the "real left" at any point but political functionaries for the ruling class.