Leviathan and Its Enemies

by Samuel T. Francis, Paul Edward Gottfried (Afterword), Jerry Woodruff (Introduction)

*Leviathan and Its Enemies* is Samuel T. Francis's magnum opus on political theory and the history of the modern world, which had been lost to the world after his untimely death in 2005 and is published here for the first time. This edition includes new introductory and critical essays by Jerry Woodruff, Fran Griffin, and Paul E. Gottfried. In his Introduction, Jerry Woodruff writes, "Following [James] Burnham, Sam believed a new ruling elite emerged in 20th-century. . . . the growth of giant corporations, the expansion of government power and bureaucracy, and the widespread emergence of mass organizations gave birth to a powerful class of skilled professionals to guide and manage the vast operations of the means of economic production, which, on a smaller scale, were once in the hands of private entrepreneurs and their families. As a result, the old ruling bourgeois elite, along with its political and social institutions and its view of society and politics, were replaced by a new "managerial elite," with a world outlook that set out to remake society according to its own interests, and which was hostile to any bourgeois remnants in conflict with that project."

Genres: Politics, History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Political Science, Economics

794 pages, Hardcover

First published June 23, 2016

Reviews

[C. Varn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a book someone would expect a socialist like me to like, or even be Samuel Francis is hot-button even for diehard paleo-conservatives, and this was unedited and unfinished manuscript where Francis picks up on both the work of James Burnham and Carl Schmitt. Particularly on the shift from bourgeois power to managerial dominance of bourgeois power. If this sounds a bit Marxists for a man considered to be an ultra-conservative, it is because it is. As an unedited and incomplete manuscript, it is a little rough on readability: much of it is repetitive, and some of the evidence needs to be expanded upon, which is a problem for a manuscript that is already somewhat sprawling.

Francis's theorizing of how managerialism would lead to xenophobic nationalism is sounder than many people would expect, and it's something I wish fellow socialists would really look at. What is interesting is that Francis thinks racial nationalism is more or less doomed in the United States, and this is not what one would expect from a man ostracized for what people thought were essentially racialist views.

What is amazing about this is the description of Trump supporters and a turn of anti-politics in 20015, Francis was outlining over two decades ago. Francis was onto the how managerial focus of neo-liberal period (a word he does not use to my recollection) of capitalism would undo a lot of the what he saw as bourgeois virtues and how it would use progressive inclusiveness highly cynically.

Francis also sees that the reaction that will be inchoate and often conspiratorial, filled with lumpen elements and declasse individuals hurt or displaced by managerial organizations of the economy. If Francis is a racist, and there is little reason to believe he isn't here and definitely from his actual late work, he is well-read and smart enough to deliver a theory of why it would have an appeal even if it was essentially a doomed movement .

This is a long book and not an easy read, but it does provide a framework that is somewhat mechanistic and class aware that talks about both managerial neo-liberalism and the inability of the left to really answer it. Some of the truths in here are ugly, but even people who value a pluralistic and open society need to understand some of the dynamics Francis was talking about. Before last year, it would have seen highly unlikely to be taken seriously, but hindsight does make insights of the past much more clear.

[Rudyard L. · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best political books I have ever read. Must read for everyone on the right

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most significant problems with the American Right is its general lack of a relevant and compelling analysis of modern class structure. Americans with Right-wing instincts are all too often reluctant to deeply examine structures of organized power and unable to craft a coherent narrative about class dynamics. The energies of Rightist groups in America are typically diverted into various false consciousnesses such as anti-communism, Evangelical Christianity, movement "conservatism," and pseudo-bourgeois libertarianism.

The contemporary dissident Right seems in some ways to be moving away from these false consciousnesses, although certain segments of it still tend to fall victim to them. Libertarianism, in particular, has been a continuous source of diversion. One of the many points Francis demonstrates in this book is the extent to which libertarianism, an ideological relic of the defeated bourgeoisie, is anachronistic and politically irrelevant.

Leviathan and Its Enemies is a robust analysis of the structure and dynamics of power in modernity. Francis provides a complete framework for understanding patterns in politics, economics, and culture that are easy to notice but difficult to fully articulate. What we have here is an absolute masterwork of political theory.

[B.T. Exotic · Rating 5 out of 5]

First off, i will say this book was difficult, and the writing style was dense and raw. This is to be expected when you are reading a manuscript that was never intended to be published. There are rumors of an abridged version of this work coming out in the future.

This book is basically what you would get if you took all the best and most intelligent parts of Italian Marxist theory and Italian elite theory; focusing on power structures and class dynamics, and then applied it to the last 120 years of U.S. politics and history. What makes this book even more interesting is that it is obviously written for an audience on the right. Most political writings on the right are either sensational (the deep state is attacking our democracy and we need to save it by electing Trump) or is overly intellectualized (colleges taught bad ideas, and ideas have consequences). These overly intellectualized political works are usually from the neocon side of the house and focus on the formal meanings of current events as opposed to the real meanings that lurk just beneath our formal surface.

Sam Francis attempts to get down to the structures, and class dynamics that are at work that have practically guaranteed the collapse of small government politics (he sees this small government politics as the formula that attempts to justify the rule of the bourgeois elite.) The bourgeois elite have basically been replaced by managers (mid to high level bureaucrats in the state, managers in the giant corporations, and a number of other manager types in the media and journalist domains.) The managers have shared interests and a shared formula (ideology) for rule. The managers basically want a homogenized, hedonistic, cosmopolitan population that looks to the managers to ameliorate their problems. The managers are extremely antagonistic to any power structure outside their control (churches, the family, kin, ethnicity, or codes of morality.)

In the end Sam Francis attempts to predict (with probability not certainty) how the current elite might fall. in the end he thinks the managers propensity towards acceleration, and anarcho-tyranny will leave an America with a (mainly white, although not exclusively) working and lower middle class that is nationalistic, has group solidarity, and is willing to use force to accomplish its political goals. Sam Francis leaves out any certain predictions for the future, but it is clear he thinks the current ruling class may be unable to contend with the populist uprisings that are a direct result of their failed rule.

[Nadiah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was published posthumously from a manuscript found in the author's collections. Perhaps because the author is dead, those who published it decided not to edit it or only edit it very lightly. As a consequence, it is poorly structured and very repetitive and not an enjoyable read. Nevertheless, if anyone has an interest in understanding how the recent rise of xenophobic nationalism could be theorised from a paleoconservative American perspective, then this book could be recommended.

The book presents a grand theory of the arc of American politics over the last century or two. There are a few neoreactionary websites that offer good summaries of that elsewhere; the short of it is that a positive feedback of the complexification of society has led to selection for a 'managerial' elite with a particular mindset and corresponding strengths and weaknesses. I should say too that don't know enough about political theory to know if any of his theory is any good -- that's not what I read it for -- but, by the end, I was surprised by how prescient he was. He predicted the forces behind Trumpism despite how long ago (around 1995?) the manuscript was completed. He absolutely identified the key characteristics and demographics of Trump supporters, the kinds of policies that would activate them, and predicted the threat that they pose to the system. Everything is obvious in retrospect, but would that have been obvious 20 years ago? Maybe he's on to something.

One of the difficulties with deciphering this movement is that, as the author points out himself, its power base aren't generally the types who can come up with a synthesis of where they came from and what they are about. Most of what they talk about is anecdotal personal grievances mixed with apocalyptic religious nonsense and conspiracy-theories (another tendency the author notes). For this reason alone I think that this work is useful. To put it bluntly, who better to explain how racists think than a racist himself? But one who is impressively well-read and can come up with and articulate a plausibly *mechanistic* explanation of the world as it is seen from that peculiar personality type. The fact that this work was so prescient then gave me pause: maybe, because of his racist orientation, he is able to see things that can't otherwise be seen, and the fact that he is one of the few who can communicate this into a reasonably coherent framework makes his work incredibly useful.

One thing in his theory that did stay with me was the idea that the system only persists so long as it is capable of assimilating the forces that threaten it, but the process of system solidification is also process of selection, which may just select away those capacities necessary to assimilate or annihilate external threats. There is a lot of exciting work being done right now on understanding the personality correlates and moral dimension of racism and "ingroup/outgroup" thinking that may threaten a pluralistic and peaceful society. Therefore, if the insights I gained from this book are genuinely novel and not simply a reflection of my lack of knowledge in this area, I really hope that that this book will be picked up by workers in this area.

[Joe]

Comment:

Unusual, for books emanating from the contemporary far right, to give a class based political analysis. Our author sees the 'destruction' of white America as arranged, but not always planned, by liberal elites in the universities and bureaucracies. This is obviously a very 'Populist' position.
Of course, class-based analysis was also common in the far right around the turn of the previous century. Then and there the division that was top-most in their minds was between (aristocratic and 'natural aristocracy') Elites versus 'the mob'. A hundred years ago, the intellectual far right was (usually) resolutely anti-populist. - With the notable exception of the South.
The position of our author regarding class is quite nearly unique among contemporary extreme right-wingers. I suspect this is because any analysis based on class will immediately be met with shrieks of "Cultural Marxism, cultural marxism". And, perhaps surprisingly, in this case they have a point. Our author leans heavily on the pioneering work of James Burnham, who started out as a Trotskyite. Burnhams' notion of a bureaucratic managerial elite controlling the direction of late modernity guides the analysis in this book. Of course, he also makes use of other sociologists, like Pareto.
In order to understand this book I suggest having a working knowledge of the 'elite theory' of the last century, A caveat is that the book wasn't edited particularly well. It can occasionally be repetitive, and I saw several grammatical mistakes. Our author was dead when this book was finally put together from his manuscript. I suspect he would have done a better job with the finished product. Our author put this material together a generation ago (1990s) and it remarkably predicts the appearance of a Trumpian movement. And accurately describes its contours. All in all, quite an achievement.
This is a very smart book. A pity it isn't well (or even often) read.
One should perhaps avoid wasting smart books on stupid people.

[Baldur · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to understand the world we live in today, you need to read this book.

[Matthias · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a good epistemic practice to continually find the people you disagree with the most, seek out their most persuasive cases, and read them with as much intellectual seriousness as you can muster. Francis' "Leviathan and its Enemies" earns five stars on the strength of two things: this, and that nearly every page has something interesting to say. The rest of this review will attempt to succinctly lay out (1) what he's saying and (2) where I think his analytic errors lie (or at least where he's least persuasive.) I'll largely be ignoring my political and moral disagreements with Francis, partially because I think those stem from more fundamental aesthetic/moral intuitions, partially because there's little new to say there, and partially because for most of the book, the argument is scrupulously amoral and should be judged on its own scientific merits.

Francis' methodological framework, which is drawn from a mix of Marxist class analysis and Italian elite theory, is basically materialist (with one important psychological admixture.) All societies have elites, and elites are able to function qua elites by virtue of a combination of the concrete resources they are able to muster, as well as rationalizing ideologies that mutually serve to to (1) allow them to recognize each other as a group with mutual interests, (2) elaborate programs that serve this collective interest, and (3) rationalize these programs to the greater society as in the general social interest or in the interests of more transcendent values. Further, these elites as classes tend to be dominated by what Pareto called "Class I residues" or "foxes" (loosey-goosey individualistic improvisers who favor talking over direct violence) or by "Class II residues" or "lions" (narrow-minded brutes with a love for group identity and open force.) World history can be seen as a series of civilizations formed in the image of such elites, from a "prescriptive" (aristocratic) order to a "bourgeois" (owner-operated entrepreneurial property) one to the present one, a "managerial" elite/civilization based upon mass organizations - the modern mass state, party, corporation, newsroom, university, and so on.

What distinguishes the managerial from bourgeois civilizations and elites is that the mass organization - whose economies of scale, at current population densities, crowd out anything smaller - cannot be operated by particular individuals or families, but (even if they are owned on paper by a very small number of people who know each other) must be operated by rationalized bureaucracies staffed by experts. Because this applies across basically all categories of social life (especially in what Marxists might call "the advanced capitalist countries," and especially in the big cities,) and because the specialized skills required to operate them are transferrable between them - between business, military, civil service, and media organizations - this New Class (c.f. Gouldner, Syzmanski, and Francis' most direct inspiration of Burnham) of managers and experts both comes into possession of the material social power that directs modern society as well as, increasingly, status as a class fur sich that rationalizes thses collective interests through a characteristically managerial ideology.

Francis connects basically all of the conservative complaints about the last hundred years to the collective interests, hence ideology, hence collective action of this ascendant managerial class, which he sees as developing from a subordinate counter-elite to ruling class in America from 1870-1945 and as largely stalled but stable from that period onwards. They must defeat their major potential counter-elites, the remnants of the bourgeois order of small business, though an attack on the paternalistic structure of small towns. They must homogenize mass markets and make them acceptable to their style of manipulation through inculcating hedonism. They must expand the role of mass organizations which is the basis of their rule and "mode of production." They reject the parochialism, nepotism, and ascriptive inequality of previous social orders and replace them with the standardized criteria of meritocracy. They ally with the most downtrodden elements of society and inflame their resentments against local elites in favor of a "Caesaristic" alliance with the central government. And the particular freedoms they promote are the freedoms of their class - the freedom to criticize and ridicule the local social power of prescriptive and bourgeois elites, rather than the freedom of local authorities to clamp down on behavior that erodes their values.

(If you're cheering along, going "yeah! all those things are great! at least compared to the parochial despotism he seems to be mourning!" then that was my reaction, too. But note that the analytic value is that he's able to explain these things in terms of elite social interests, rather than a more abstract appeal to a morality divorced from social circumstances. This value remains regardless of whether you endorse such changes or not, and likely predicts whether you will based on your own social position as a member of the managerial class, broadly construed, or not.)

I think that there's nonzero truth to this account. It updates my understanding of a lot of cultural phenomena, including ones he doesn't touch on directly. As noted, I gave this five stars and think you should read it. Here are a few places where I think this account may not have as much value as a standard Marxist account of who is the ruling class:

1) Francis portrays the bourgeoisie as a lost class of owner-operators who now lie dispossessed and, even when in formal possession of property, powerless before the actual power of managers; and corporate managers are politically allied with other managerial elements and not disciplined by owners (who are either too stupid to manage or else absorbed into the managerial class.) He does try to deal with the question of the direct exercise of owner power, and the degree to which financial capital does or doesn't enable this, but I think at the end he doesn't wrestle nearly enough with the idea that market discipline forces firms to prioritize profitability in a way that ultimately subordinates them to the material interests (if, to be sure, not conscious control of) owners. (Needless to say the primary owners of dispersed joint-stock companies are also widely dispersed among the upper and corporate managerial class as a whole, leading to a natural convergence of interests.)

When push comes to shove, since 1979 we've seen (under the pithy if somewhat amorphous phrase "neoliberalism") significant slashes made at both state commitments and middle management/corporate bloat in the private sector in order to restore profitability, proving the willingness of the system to sacrifice management to owners. Likewise the shift in the economy towards dividends rather than investment, the destruction of the union movement in the US, and so on.. In the early 90s, when he wrote this, some of these trends may have appeared more inchoate, so it's hard to criticize Francis for not seeing them as more long-lasting than they would turn out to be. But it's fair to criticize his theory for something that would be so contraindicated by it: the consciously pursued weakening of the managerial sections of the economy by precisely the corporate and state elites the theory should want to expand it.

2) Francis assumes that it's always in the interests of politicians and media organizations to homogenize their subject populations. But this is far from obviously the case, theoretically or empirically. Against the Marcuse-Francis-Adbusters thesis that capitalism turns everything into the same extruded cultural product, there's the Smith-Durkheim-Wallerstein tradition that the extension of the division of labor follows a logic of systematic differentiation - and the general pattern for greater differentiation in the cultural marketplace, the fissive generation of smaller and smaller subcultures.

3) Francis is mostly a consistent materialist, with this materialism providing a methodological discipline and consistency to theoretical apparatus and the kinds of explanations he offers. (In data science terms, it pays the price of a small amount of bias to achieve major reductions in variance.) For instance, he's a consistent cynic about ideologies - liberalism older or newer, communism, fascism, the divine right of kings, social democracy all are seen as equally the expression of different kinds of elite will to power, and he avoids the temptation to describe the groups he is most sympathetic to as guided by different laws. But only mostly consistent. He borrows Pareto's fox/lions distinction, acknowledges in an offhand comment that it's not on the surest of scientific footing, and then proceeds to refer to it by the most scientific-sounding of appelations "Class I vs. Class II residues," and relies on it to explain basically all types of managerial regimes. Unlike other kinds of regimes, which can have a mixed character managerial ones are either all foxes ("soft managerial regimes," equivalent to contemporary liberal democracies) or all lions ("hard managerial regimes," like Nazism or communism.) All managerial regimes are scientistic and utopian, but soft managerial regimes are cosmopolitan, hedonistic, and pyschologically incapable of the frank use of force, while hard managerial regimes are chauvinistic, ascetic, and psychologically incapable of the use of non-force solutions.

His historical account of how each was formed has plausible elements, but the parts that are plausible (about late-modernizing states fostering a more authoritarian form of modernity) overlap with many other's explanations, while the fox/lion distinction doesn't add a great deal to it, and in fact his mechanisms for why foxes would be better in earlier-developing capitalist states relies on a thesis about civil societies that has since been pretty well defeated in the literature. (See Dylan Riley's "Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe" for why fascism was actually most successful where civil society was most, not least, developed.)

This matters insofar as the horizon of contemporary possibilities is defined by this soft/hard distinction, and insofar as he sees the transition between one and another being necessarily revolutionary in character (in terms of the social revolution of one class by another if not a political revolution legally replacing the formal state.) It seems clear to me that the Soviet Union, to use his terms - and to take maybe the "purest" type of managerial regime that should conform to his criteria- transitioned from a much "harder" to a much "softer" regime over time, and employed "manipulative" elements even when it was at its "hardest." And his account also downplays the distinctions between different kinds of "hard" managerial regimes. It's kind of shocking to see a paleoconservative-leaning-into-fascist downplay the cosmopolitanism of communist ideology - but that's what he does. Perhaps less surprisingly he also downplays the degree of corruption in Nazism, and so on.

There are a few other reasons why I'm not buying this account on the whole, but 1) this review is already very long, and 2) they don't detract from the go-readed-ness of this book. Go read it! Where he's analytically wrong he's wrong in an interesting way that will give you something to think about, and where he's morally wrong he mostly keeps quiet about it.

[Derek Kreider · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I read the intro I didn’t think I’d like this, but wow, does the author fail to fall into any easily definable camp. He’s a conservative who rails against a lot of what we would consider conservatism today, but certainly not aligning with liberals.

I think the most insightful aspect of this work is the commentary on propaganda and social control. It reminds me significantly of Ellul’s work.

[Andrew L · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is perhaps one of the best analyses of the power dynamics of the 20th century. Francis explains the concept of the managerial elite, their ideology, and how they rose to hegemonic dominance in American society over the past hundred years.

Anyone who is on the political right will benefit massively from reading this book. The way Francis takes the idea of class analysis and applies it to a right wing perspective is something our side's future political leaders must incorporate. The populist anti-managerial "new right" as it is referred to, is just beginning to build political capital in the west, and for it to be successful, it must know its enemy.

Besides that, I will say that is book is quite long winded and some points are repeated. However, Francis was dead by the time this book was published so he did not have a chance to edit it. Since the ideas and concepts contained are so good, I am giving it a five star rating despite its shortcomings.

[Evans Born · Rating 5 out of 5]

I must admit I came into this book already a believer.

Of the various attempts to describe the current type of "rule" and the type of "ruling class" present, this kind of explanation are more plausible. Maybe we have a Cabal of evil people in a room somewhere making plans for humanity, maybe we don't. Maybe they believe they are doing good, and maybe they are malicious. That kind of thing is not the kind of information one can glean looking at the society itself and the kind of economics, politics and religion that comes from the particular society.

This kind of analysis has value, given various predictions have panned out, and there are things in the wider society that isn't present in other theories. The Marxists account falls short in given the "synthesis" we see are partnerships between governments and corporations; Guy Standing's thesis of a shift in the "class structures" and the death of "Marxist Economics" render that kind of view as inadequate tool for explaining society. Neither can we lean on Conspiracy theories it's the Banks, it's the Billionaires, it's the WEF, Illuminati, Jews, etc. Or Post-Modern theories of power structures and tradition etc.

In this text, even though is incomplete, or not to the standard the author would have loved to have published. Within the text we could predict the ubiquity of advertising and propaganda, and the take over of smaller corporations by larger corporations, the role and power of the deep state, the Military Industrial complex, the Education system and the labor movements. You have the Elites and the interests and tools that allow them to be as such. The technologies and the shared interests that make them operate to a common end despite not having a formal head.

I wish he called it "Hydra" rather than "Leviathan" but we are forced to admit this an excellent piece of Social Theory, and given the explanatory scope and power, and the shear breadth of social research that can fit within this framework. It gets a 5 from me.

It would be nice if someone could extend the text through research into the "Managerial Class"; but anecdotally I think he nailed it. He mapped the problem. What research would do is just do is confirm what he is pointing to. This is the kind of regime that would indeed create a "Total State", A "Therapeutic State" characterized by the "Revolt of the Elite", with a "Technological Society" saturated with "propaganda" with "Shepherds for Sale", Mega Governments, Mega Companies, Mega Churches, Mega Universities, Mega Schools, Commodified, Thin, Culture.

This analysis can help explain unrest and how "governments" dealt with them, and how "companies" deal with boycotts and bad press. In the third world the feeling of being puppets under control of the 1st world. The loss of Israel's escalation dominance in the middle East.

You can take Ellul, Wendel Berry, Leo Strauss, Stanley Hauerwas, Paul Gottfried, Mencius Moldburg etc. and fit within this account.

In a roundabout way, What I have to say is this work is a good meta-explanation for the post-World War II global order and the conflicts; and the pursuit for social change, and the social ills and unrest it all creates.

[Keir R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Be forewarned, this could have benefitted from a good editing job. Many sentences are repetitive and somewhat awkward. Needless to say it helps if you have prior knowledge on Burnham's Managerial Revolution before diving in.

Needless to say this tract still makes an important point, one that I think many of Francis' detractors on the left might find themselves in agreement with. Francis is keen on analyzing the current problem through the class angle, namely what he calls the managerial class. This book is probably not something I would have picked up in 2015 but have been reading many different tracts to get a better understanding of what is happening right now and will continue to happen.

The left consistently makes the mistake of straw manning conservativism and not taking it all that seriously. Today's left primarily attacks the donor conservativism, what some might call Neoconservatism or in Paul Gottfried's words Conservatism Inc. This branch of conservatism exists in Washington DC think tanks and is well represented by what we call establishment conservatives in the Republican party. Francis was known for his deviation from the establishment class and does not feel any need to defend or represent Conservative Inc. or the donor class representing most of the Republican party. Francis makes it clear that the shift in mass consciousness is what is driving the society away from its roots and that the politicians calling themselves conservatives are all too comfortable becoming a part of the managerial class that they ostensibly speak against.

Francis documents a class shift that took place decades ago where humankind was seen as malleable, new technologies and understanding of the world allowed for greater scale, and mass direction started to be applied across multiple different societal arrangements(mass culture, mass organization, mass movements, mass communication, mass business, etc...). This is not anything new and is also covered in some form or fashion elsewhere. Francis does provide a well thought out description of the differences between Pareto's class 1 & class 2 residues which can help the reader understand the current arrangement in an alternative viewpoint. Understanding the problem with the current elite in terms of how they are organized and reliant upon manipulation speaks to the issues we are seeing now with an underclass that sees itself left out of the conversation more and more.

This is not a knee jerk tract defending the free market or vituperating the left as a political movement. Francis is able to explain the underlying class shifts and the incentives keeping that class in power. Some of the text could be more accessible with a good understanding of the work of James Burnham, specifically the Managerial Revolution and parts of The Machiavellians, but even reading Christopher Lasch, Daniel Bell, Kevin Phillips, Paul Gottfried, and Michael Lind all help explain this class division as well.

[JayD · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Leviathan and its Enemies" is one the great classical works defining the political history of the United States during the 20th century. It dissects in great detail, and with admirable objectivity, the major change in the type of government between the Declaration of Independence, when the British aristocracy who had ruled the American colonies, were ousted in favor of a system of local politicians, owners of small business, and writers for local newspapers--basically an educated middle-class bourgeoisie--and 1995, when the book was completed. The change was, in Francis' view, driven by the immense growth in the population, and various technologies such as modern methods of communication.

[I]n the first half of the 20th century, a "new class" of managers emerged in the economy, government, and culture of the United States [which led to] a protracted political and ideological conflict with the old "bourgeois elite" that prevailed in the United States between the Civil War and the Depression.

Francis examines closely what made the new managerial elite so different from the bourgeoisie: an education in managing large organizations and a lack of personal proprietary interest in the entities they managed.

The interests of the managerial elite lie in the growth and expansion not only of the mass corporation but also of the mass state and mass society, the scope of mass organizations in general, and the subversion of bourgeois and prescriptive institutions that constrain the enlargement and functioning of mass organizations.

He then identifies the two major types of managerial elites in the world: hard authoritarians and soft manipulators. One chapter considers those occasions when "hard" managerial elites have become "soft", but doesn't, perhaps until the last chapter, consider what it would take to make a "soft" managerial elite become "hard".

[I]n the "hard" managerial regimes of the national socialist and communist systems, the instruments of force are the principal support of the elite. In the "soft" regimes of the West, however, the social force of managerial skill operates mainly through manipulation.

Looking in greatest detail at the post-war era of Kennedy and Johnson, the book examines the many times bourgeois groups have tried to unseat the managerial elite, and why they have always failed. Not to spoil the plot, but Francis never does identify a mechanism for unseating the by now firmly entrenched managerial elite.

I have heard several people say they have had difficulty in finding a copy of "Leviathan and its Enemies". I found second-hand copies on the usual online sites, and a free online copy on archive.org.

[Kerem · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just following the four years of Trump (heavily despised by the ruling elites) and in the current bizarre world we're living in with never ending extensive government oversight, this book is rather a refreshing read. Especially when one is used to expecting by default think-tank nonsense from the right wing, Francis actually provides a thorough socioeconomic and political analysis of our current times, and despite this being a nonedited book without the intention of being published.

First, this is not an easy to read book, even for those interested in the area and used to reading heavy and lengthy books like this. Partly because it's at times repetitive, partly because it's not edited, or maybe partly because Francis takes a rather unstructured writing style in general. However it's still full of gems.

The starting point is Burnham's Managerial Revolution. Although Francis agrees with the broad concept and theory of Burnham, he makes a much deeper dive into this, often diverging from Burnham's theory and predictions, and presenting his case with many detailed accounts, observations, and theories. From consolidation to acceleration periods of the managerial regime, he doesn't just theorise but rather builds up his theories. Deterioration of values and fundamental institutions such as family, scientism and the naive belief of approaching humans with pure science, the importance of mass and scale for managerialism, globalism, the transition from the classical bourgeoisie to the managerial regime and key milestones, the strengths and weaknesses of the managerial elite, and many other intriguing aspects are thoroughly elaborated on throughout the book. Francis' emphasis on post-burgeoisie as a reactionary movement against managerial elite, its ups and downs until mid 90s and what can be expected in the future provide a rather interesting angle (also considering the rise of Trump is certainly relevant in this.) It's actually a shame that the current left is rather too integrated to the so-called managerial regime and there's a lack of such an angle.

[Smergle · Rating 1 out of 5]

To preface, I must say that I did not read this whole book, merely 150 pages; however, I think that is a sufficient amount of reading to pass judgement on this book. This book is complete garbage. Nobody should ever read it. Not only is the author a white supremacist, but the book itself is also poorly argued and written. Francis rarely provides evidence for his claims. He frequently uses dense block quotes -- but this is not evidence. Francis argues through vague premises rather than evidence, and so the reader is unconvinced by any of the arguments he advances. Furthermore, Francis frequently mentions that he is building on James Burnham's theory of managerial revolution, but does not bother to at least summarize it for readers who may be unfamiliar with the theory. Thus, the resulting work is not compelling, interesting, nor coherent. Overall, avoid this book because it isn't worth reading.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Samuel T. Francis’s Leviathan and Its Enemies (2016), posthumously edited and published by Michael J. Hochberg, is an ambitious and provocative examination of political power, the managerial revolution, and the challenges to sovereignty in modern liberal democracies. Drawing on the insights of thinkers such as James Burnham and Carl Schmitt, Francis analyzes the evolution of the “Leviathan” state, which he characterizes as an expansive, bureaucratic entity detached from traditional cultural, moral, and national foundations. The book serves as both a critique of managerialism and a theoretical framework for understanding the political and cultural transformations of the late 20th century, many of which remain relevant in contemporary debates.

Francis’s primary thesis is that the rise of a managerial elite, distinct from traditional capitalist or proletarian classes, has transformed the nature of power in Western societies. This new elite, composed of bureaucrats, technocrats, and administrators, consolidates its authority through centralized state mechanisms and multinational corporations, prioritizing efficiency and control over popular sovereignty and national identity. Francis extends Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, arguing that the managerial class governs through the technocratic administration of both the economy and society, subordinating traditional values and loyalties to its cosmopolitan and materialist agenda.

A central strength of Leviathan and Its Enemies lies in its incisive critique of the ideological underpinnings of managerialism. Francis identifies the liberal commitment to universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism as both the rationale for managerial rule and a source of its contradictions. He argues that these principles erode the cultural and moral foundations necessary for social cohesion, creating an increasingly fragmented society. In this context, the Leviathan state steps in to impose order, but at the cost of alienating itself from the populace it ostensibly serves.

One of the most striking aspects of the book is Francis’s analysis of resistance to the Leviathan. He examines how movements of “middle American radicals” (MARs)—ordinary citizens alienated by the managerial elite’s cultural and economic policies—emerge as potential challengers to managerial dominance. According to Francis, these groups, grounded in traditional cultural values and national loyalties, represent a populist backlash against the cosmopolitanism and technocracy of the managerial state. However, he is skeptical of their long-term prospects, noting their lack of institutional power and ideological coherence compared to the entrenched managerial elite.

Francis’s work is notable for its prescience. Although written in the 1990s, Leviathan and Its Enemies anticipates the rise of populist movements and figures, such as Donald Trump and Brexit, that have disrupted the political landscape of the 21st century. His identification of the tensions between globalization and national identity, as well as the growing alienation of middle-class citizens, provides a valuable framework for understanding these developments.

However, the book is not without its limitations. Francis’s critique of the managerial state, while compelling, is often one-sided. He tends to romanticize traditional cultural and national institutions, downplaying their historical shortcomings or potential for exclusion and oppression. Furthermore, his emphasis on cultural homogeneity as a prerequisite for social cohesion raises questions about the inclusivity and pluralism of his vision. Critics may also find his reliance on Schmittian notions of political sovereignty and friend-enemy distinctions troubling, given their association with illiberal and authoritarian theories of governance.

Stylistically, Leviathan and Its Enemies is dense and theoretical, reflecting Francis’s deep engagement with political philosophy and sociology. While this approach lends the book intellectual rigor, it may challenge readers unfamiliar with figures like Burnham or Schmitt. Moreover, the posthumous nature of the publication results in some unevenness, as sections of the text feel less polished or fully developed compared to others.

Despite these shortcomings, Leviathan and Its Enemies is a significant contribution to political theory and contemporary intellectual history. Francis’s critique of managerialism, his analysis of populist resistance, and his exploration of the cultural and moral foundations of political order provide valuable insights for scholars of political science, sociology, and history. The book’s relevance to contemporary debates about globalization, populism, and the crisis of liberal democracy underscores its enduring importance.

In conclusion, Leviathan and Its Enemies is a provocative and intellectually challenging work that confronts some of the most pressing political and cultural issues of modernity. While its ideological perspective and dense prose may not appeal to all readers, the book offers a rich and rewarding analysis of the forces shaping contemporary political life. By grappling with the dynamics of power, sovereignty, and resistance, Francis leaves readers with a deeper understanding of the challenges and contradictions inherent in the modern Leviathan.

GPT

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read book.
Thought provoking and damning.

If you want to understand the uniparty look no further.

Other then a few small quibbles over minor details this book gives the lie to most modern politics and the loser think of conservatives.

[Annemarie V.]

Following previewing this book, I decided not to thoroughly read it now because of physically moving my residence. Perhaps at another time I'll tackle this tome.

[Arsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book.
Francis takes ideas from various authors and pieces together very convincing puzzle.
There is much in this work to "meditate" on.

[Ron Pomykala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent class analysis of the United States.

[Dan Gioia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Managerial State

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's the best book I've read regarding politics: it attempts and I believe succeeds in effectively explaining the dynamics of power, politics, elites, and the "current" (written in 1995) situation the US and wider western world finds itself within. The dominance of a ruling class over the majority is key here, sourcing from Italian Elite Theory.

He goes into vivid detail. Firstly, he outlines the structure of the "soft managerial regime" and its 3 main components (state, corporation and culture/communications). Managers, not corporate owners/"capitalists" as the dominance class, established from the massive revolution of mass and scale from the late 1800s onwards and the structural demands they were able to fill. He then goes to outline the historical developments of the regime, which deposed the old "bourgeois regime" of 19th century fame, who better resemble the Marxist archetype of power that they still hold today. The bourgeois themselves deposed the prescriptive, monarchical regimes of the past. Later he goes across the challenges of the 60's "New Left", and 70's-80's "New Right", which were both assimilated into the regime securely, this rings particularly true, neither dissident side has much of a legacy to draw upon due to these assimilations.

A key element he discusses which I think is really important is Vilfredo Pareto's "Lion and Fox" styles of elite, and how of an elite overcomposed of either style will eventually succumb to insufficiencies in their approach. He sees the current soft regime of the west (foxes), will eventually be unable to provide sufficient challenge to any lion (violent, coerceive) resistance. I feel examples of America's incursions into the Middle East, or Kier Starmer's recent shutting down of racial protests in the UK as being contradictions. Although I see the more recent developments like Starmer's as being weak and decrepit, outside of their ball park.

The "soft managerial elite" is described as a utopian and ultimately suicidal ideology, whose inevitable destruction of community-oriented structures will lead to the collapse of the regime. He believes a "post-bourgeois proletariat" (dependent on economic structure of regime, but lions and strongly opposed to the high-low dominance of the elite and minorities pushing social engineering), has the best potential for resistance in the future. I believe these points ring true, and are important for any potential dissidents, or I guess members of the elite itself, to keep in mind.

He believes the post-bourgeois may create a Hard Managerial Regime (historically the Germans or Soviets of the 20th century being examples, albeit they weren't post-bourgeois), backed by weakness of the soft regime, and a unified structure of their own, could overthrow and lead to a more sustainable managerial rule. I believe with the massive decline in birth rates, potential AI development etc., that managerial rule may not be inevitable as he believed. He repeatedly mentions that a serious economic crisis could precipitate it's collapse too, given the increasing US and other western debt levels this is probably an inevitable occurrence.

It's an incredibly thorough and sophisticated work. Constant citation of sources to make effective points. It gets a tad repetitive at times (the terms hedonistic, melioristic, ameliorative, utopian, scientistic all bunch together dozens of times throughout the book). As a manuscript it's only a tad flawed in my view, could just do with a bit of editing. But I do really enjoy his thorough, scholarly, and I believe deeply passionate writing. He doesn't seem to display a strong or obnoxious bias here, unlike the Marxist reviews I've read here claim it does. The only exception would be his contempt for the neo-conservatives, haha. It's a fantastic book, a 10/10 in my eyes.

[Elijah · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolute masterpiece. Incredibly insightful and prescient. Expert dissection on the effects of managerial capitalism on our culture. Unfortunately, it's a little repetitive--you can afford to skim through some of the sections in the middle.

[Илья Дескулин · Rating 4 out of 5]

The most accurate description of what is happening in the West today that I've read in my life.
However, the solution of Francis remains problematic. Why is the harsh managerial regime preferable to the soft one? As we have seen in the 20th century harsh regimes became soft while there was no move in another direction. Why should it happen now? Just because some people suffer? I doubt that this is sufficient for change.

[John Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this will turn out to be grand political theory, albeit in draft form. Why still believe in the liberals' story out the Social C, after a century of bureaucracy? We are not so gullible.