Burnham’s originality consisted inntwo daring ideas. First, by adapting thenidea of Berle and Means that thenmodern corporation effects a “separationnof ownership and control,” a separationnbetween the stockholders (thenlegal owners of a corporate firm) andnits managers, Burnham redefinednmanagement to mean those who performnthe technical functions of productionnrather than (as in Berle andnMeans’s theory) those who have acquirednlegal control. In Burnham’snview, those who can perform the technicalnfunctions can wrest effective controlnof the corporation away fromnstockholders, corporate officials, ornothers legally entitled to exercise control.nSecond, using this functional definitionnof manager, Burnham arguednthat the bureaucrats of the modernnstate, as well as the officials of massnlabor unions and the other mass organizationsnof modern society, performntechnical functions analogous to thosenof the corporate managers, that theyntoo are able to usurp control of theirnorganizations and that they all have ancommon material interest and a commonnworld view. In short, a newnmanagerial class emerges that seizesnpower in the state and the economynand becomes a new ruling class.nThe managers, in Burnham’s theory,nmake use of collectivist, socialnengineering ideologies (Marxism, fascism,nmodern liberalism) to rationalizentheir power, seek to suppress theninstitutions and ideas of the traditionalnbourgeois or entrepreneurial elite, andntry to remold society into conformitynwith their interests and mentality. Inninternational affairs the managerialnsuper-states seek to replace the nationstatenwith transnational empires andnengage in a “struggle for the world,”nthe first phase of which was WorldnWar II and the continuation of whichnis the “Third World War” between thenUnited States and the Soviet Union.nThose who recall Burnham’s articlesnand columns in National Review fromn1956 to 1978 will perhaps recognizensome of these themes.nAdmittedly, Burnham’s interpretationnof current world affairs was badlynflawed by the persistence of economicndeterminism in his mind and by hisnuse of the totalitarian regimes in Russianand Germany as models for allnmanagerial societies, including whatnwas happening in the United States.nDespite these conceptual errors, whichnhe later abandoned as his mind maturednaway from Marxism, Burnham’snessential thesis still explains both howntechnically specialized bureaucrats,ntechnocrats, and managers have displacedntraditional elites in the UnitednStates and other developed societiesnand why this new elite or new classnpromotes a world view fundamentallynhostile to the institutions and values ofnthe traditional West.nVery few of these ideas are presentnin Rizzi’s meager contribution, or atnleast in the first part of The Bureaucratizationnof the World, which is allnthat is published here, though Rizzindid perceive the fundamental unity ofnNazi Germany, Stalinism, and thenNew Deal. Certainly there is no similaritynof the texts of Burnham andnRizzi, and the charge of plagiarismnapproaches absurdity. I, for one, fail tonsee how Burnham can be accused ofnstealing Rizzi’s ideas when Rizzi himselfnhad published his ideas two yearsnbefore. Rizzi’s ideas had become publicnproperty, and no one paid muchnattention because there just weren’tnmany ideas there. People did pay attentionnwhen Burnham published twonyears later, because his ideas were farnmore haunting and compelling. Thosenwho have charged Burnham with plagiarism,none begins to suspect, havenacted on ulterior motives, not the leastnof which may have been a desire tondiscredit and dismiss the theory of thenmanagerial revolution without attendingnto its merits.nBurnham’s thesis challenges notnonly Marxist theory by arguing thatnexploitation would not end with anrevolution carried out in the name ofnMarx but also much of the conventionalnwisdom of liberals and conservativesnalike. It challenges liberal platitudesnbecause it portrays “bigngovernment” not as the democraticallynrestrained friend of the common mannbut as the tool of a self-interested elitenof bureaucrats. It challenges conservativenplatitudes because it portrays “bignbusiness” not as a larger version of thenentrepreneurial and morally rootedneconomy of the 19th century but as anform of collectivism, fused with thenstate, controlled by essentially thensame elite, and directed against thennnsocial, economic, political, and intellectualnfabric of traditional culture. Innseeking to protect the business establishmentnand in encouraging governmentnintervention, conservatives andnliberals are merely perpetuating andnextending the managerial regime.nAlthough Burnham did not explicitlyndevelop the implication, his theorynof the managerial revolution pointednto a populist counterrevolution againstnthe managerial establishment, not thendwindling resistance of a moribundnbourgeois class, as the logical challenge,nthe new antithesis, to the managerialnregime. It is no accident that thenAmerican and European left, fromn1941 to the present day, has beennpounding away at the underpinningsnof Burnham’s theory. The left, whichnrepresents the ideological vanguard ofnthe managerial class, understands anthreat when it sees one.nNor is it surprising that Burnham’snideas have never excited mainstreamnAmerican conservatives, who, themselvesnlargely drawn from bourgeoisnstrata, remain enthralled by the fantasynof a restoration of bourgeois society.nExcept for The Ingersoll Prizes (administerednby The Rockford Institute),nwhich honored Burnham in 1983 withnThe Richard M. Weaver Award, andnhis circle of friends at National Review,napparentiy few conservatives remembernhim or appreciate the majorncontributions he made to the politicalnthought of the American right. DespitenGeorge Orwell’s use of The ManagerialnRevolution as the basis for 1984nand despite Irving Kristol’s acknowledgmentnof Burnham’s influence onnneoconservative ideas of the “newnclass,” he remains, in the words of anNational Review editorial, a “nonperson.”nThe republication of Bruno Rizzi’sn”underground classic” will not thereforendo much to preserve or “restore”nRizzi’s reputation as a social thinker.nMore probably it will have much thensame effect that the republication ofnthe underground works of the Marquisnde Sade had on his legend—to dispelnit and expose the basic shallowness ofnhis mind. The renewed interest innRizzi’s book may, however, serve anbetter purpose in alerting serious studentsnof modern society to the achievementsnand insights of another real butnneglected prophet.nJANUARY f987 / 29n