[In this comment I will be using various labels such as "Trotskyist", "Marxist", "Liberal", "reactionary", etc. Unless explicitly stated otherwise I use them for their denotation, not moral connotation]
Burnham started out as a Trotskyist. Although he later converted out of it and became one of the leading anti-Liberal intellectuals, it seems to me that the analytical tools he learnt as young stayed with him. And that's why he uses the term "class" when describing the elites that emerged around the turn of the last century. Where the "managerial class" extends the Marxist class taxonomy.
I like better a different approach, though. That which for lack of a better word can be described as the "caste" taxonomy. The one that is being popularized by the neo-reactionaries starting with Moldbug.
Not going into too much detail (and one does need to go into detail in order to really understand what they are talking about; please let me know if you are familiar with neo-reactionary thought) the society can be roughly divided into warriors, priests, merchants, laborers, career criminals, and untouchables (that last "caste" corresponds to Marxist lumpenproletariat.) Those castes are divided into sub-castes that are different in important respects (e.g. a general, a sergeant, and a policeman are all warriors; a Google principal engineer getting $1M a year and a janitor getting $15 an hour are both laborers, etc.)
Every stable society has warriors and priests on top as the governing and "surplus" elites. [According to this approach, by the way, Marx was wrong - the bourgeoisie merchants per se were never in charge, it was either the priests (e.g. the Dutch) or the warriors (e.g. Prussians) ruling on their behalf.] Priests are absolutely necessary to create and support the myths and the morals for the society to cohere and cooperate. Warriors (aka "stationary bandits") are necessary to protect the society from the "roving bandits" - see Mancur Olson.
Under this taxonomy the West is currently ruled by Priests (Harvard-types, lawyers of a certain kind, journalists, technocratic bureaucrats, etc.) - what you after Burnham call "the managerial class".
It may seem that the difference in approaches is just semantic, but let me argue that it goes deeper than that. According to Burnham's approach the managerial class is a relatively recent phenomenon, which makes it harder to make proper analogies and learn from history. According to the caste approach the managerial class is a modern manifestation of the priestly caste, something that existed for the whole of recorded history and can be analyzed and predicted based on that history.
Another important difference is that according to Marx class determines the class consciousness and interests. Thus a capitalist is a capitalist is a capitalist no matter whether he is Russian or American, in power or in the opposition, etc. Ditto a member of the managerial class.
According to the caste approach a Catholic prelate and a Harvard Progressive are both priests, but they espouse very different myths and morals, which lead to very different societies. Analogously, in- and out-of-power elites might be all members of the managerial class, but as priests they are very different, and their rule might lead to very different outcomes.
[In this comment I will be using various labels such as "Trotskyist", "Marxist", "Liberal", "reactionary", etc. Unless explicitly stated otherwise I use them for their denotation, not moral connotation]
Burnham started out as a Trotskyist. Although he later converted out of it and became one of the leading anti-Liberal intellectuals, it seems to me that the analytical tools he learnt as young stayed with him. And that's why he uses the term "class" when describing the elites that emerged around the turn of the last century. Where the "managerial class" extends the Marxist class taxonomy.
I like better a different approach, though. That which for lack of a better word can be described as the "caste" taxonomy. The one that is being popularized by the neo-reactionaries starting with Moldbug.
Not going into too much detail (and one does need to go into detail in order to really understand what they are talking about; please let me know if you are familiar with neo-reactionary thought) the society can be roughly divided into warriors, priests, merchants, laborers, career criminals, and untouchables (that last "caste" corresponds to Marxist lumpenproletariat.) Those castes are divided into sub-castes that are different in important respects (e.g. a general, a sergeant, and a policeman are all warriors; a Google principal engineer getting $1M a year and a janitor getting $15 an hour are both laborers, etc.)
Every stable society has warriors and priests on top as the governing and "surplus" elites. [According to this approach, by the way, Marx was wrong - the bourgeoisie merchants per se were never in charge, it was either the priests (e.g. the Dutch) or the warriors (e.g. Prussians) ruling on their behalf.] Priests are absolutely necessary to create and support the myths and the morals for the society to cohere and cooperate. Warriors (aka "stationary bandits") are necessary to protect the society from the "roving bandits" - see Mancur Olson.
Under this taxonomy the West is currently ruled by Priests (Harvard-types, lawyers of a certain kind, journalists, technocratic bureaucrats, etc.) - what you after Burnham call "the managerial class".
It may seem that the difference in approaches is just semantic, but let me argue that it goes deeper than that. According to Burnham's approach the managerial class is a relatively recent phenomenon, which makes it harder to make proper analogies and learn from history. According to the caste approach the managerial class is a modern manifestation of the priestly caste, something that existed for the whole of recorded history and can be analyzed and predicted based on that history.
Another important difference is that according to Marx class determines the class consciousness and interests. Thus a capitalist is a capitalist is a capitalist no matter whether he is Russian or American, in power or in the opposition, etc. Ditto a member of the managerial class.
According to the caste approach a Catholic prelate and a Harvard Progressive are both priests, but they espouse very different myths and morals, which lead to very different societies. Analogously, in- and out-of-power elites might be all members of the managerial class, but as priests they are very different, and their rule might lead to very different outcomes.