N.S., I agree it was the economy's growing complexity that made managers historically necessary, but I think it is possible to imagine a materially complex industrial society with many managers, but without managerialism (i.e. the dominant political power of managers.)
The 19th-20th century class struggle between the proletariat and upper…
N.S., I agree it was the economy's growing complexity that made managers historically necessary, but I think it is possible to imagine a materially complex industrial society with many managers, but without managerialism (i.e. the dominant political power of managers.)
The 19th-20th century class struggle between the proletariat and upper bourgeoisie resulted in many compromises that had to be "managed". At the time, the nation state was viewed as a trusted intermediary laying above the contending classes. Over the 20th century the managers gained control of the state and now we can see that the state and the managers who rely on state power have replaced the upper bourgeoisie. The administrators ended up with political power because the state was trusted to control the process.
At the end of the 19th century, revolutionary Marxists realized that the proletariat had the potential to remove the upper bourgeoisie under their leadership. Today in America, there is a class of residual bourgeoisie. These people make things or provide voluntary services in the capitalist economy. The residual bourgeoisie must become a revolutionary class. It must not seize state power to administer state power, it must seize state power to curtail state power because the state is a petri dish in which managerial power grows. To become a revolutionary class the residual bourgeoise must become aware of itself and its revolutionary role. As long as the residual bourgeoise understands its role as "conservative" it will be unable to carry out its historical potential.
Only a self-conscious revolutionary class can dethrone the current managerial dictatorship.
N.S., I agree it was the economy's growing complexity that made managers historically necessary, but I think it is possible to imagine a materially complex industrial society with many managers, but without managerialism (i.e. the dominant political power of managers.)
The 19th-20th century class struggle between the proletariat and upper bourgeoisie resulted in many compromises that had to be "managed". At the time, the nation state was viewed as a trusted intermediary laying above the contending classes. Over the 20th century the managers gained control of the state and now we can see that the state and the managers who rely on state power have replaced the upper bourgeoisie. The administrators ended up with political power because the state was trusted to control the process.
At the end of the 19th century, revolutionary Marxists realized that the proletariat had the potential to remove the upper bourgeoisie under their leadership. Today in America, there is a class of residual bourgeoisie. These people make things or provide voluntary services in the capitalist economy. The residual bourgeoisie must become a revolutionary class. It must not seize state power to administer state power, it must seize state power to curtail state power because the state is a petri dish in which managerial power grows. To become a revolutionary class the residual bourgeoise must become aware of itself and its revolutionary role. As long as the residual bourgeoise understands its role as "conservative" it will be unable to carry out its historical potential.
Only a self-conscious revolutionary class can dethrone the current managerial dictatorship.