The Birth of the Managerial Age: A War of Ideologies That Never Ended

World War II was not merely a conflict over land and resources; it was a struggle between three distinct visions of leadership, each seeking to impose its ideology on the world. Fascism, liberal democracy, and communism were not just governing structures but worldviews that promised different futures for humanity. As the war raged across continents, these competing systems clashed, each leader believing their vision of governance was the only path forward. In the end, while some ideologies were shattered by defeat, others adapted, survived, and shaped the modern world in unexpected ways.

James Burnham, a political theorist and former Trotskyist who later turned toward conservative thought, provides a useful lens through which to examine this conflict. His work, particularly The Managerial Revolution, argued that the world was moving away from classical capitalism and democracy toward a new form of rule by managerial elites. Burnham contended that in the emerging global order, control over resources, technology, and administrative structures would become the true source of power, rather than traditional political ideologies alone. His analysis allows us to see World War II not simply as a battle between three distinct governing philosophies, but as a competition over who would control the emerging managerial structures of the modern world.

The fascist powers—Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan—believed in centralized, authoritarian control. Their leaders promised strength, national unity, and the renewal of past glories. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and the militarist faction in Japan sought to create self-sufficient empires, rejecting both democracy and communism as weak and inefficient. They portrayed their rule as necessary to restore their nations to greatness. Fascism thrived on the idea that a strong leader, free from the inefficiencies of democratic debate, could act decisively for the good of the state. In Germany, Hitler’s vision was rooted in racial hierarchy, where the so-called Aryan race would dominate the world. He saw democracy as a failed experiment, a system that had brought economic ruin and international humiliation after World War I. By eliminating political opposition, controlling the media, and using propaganda to rally the population, the Nazi regime mobilized an entire nation into a war machine that sought to reshape the world in its image.

Mussolini’s Italy, while less ideologically rigid than Nazi Germany, followed a similar path. Fascism in Italy promised order, discipline, and expansion. The dream of a new Roman Empire drove Mussolini’s ambitions, and he justified his dictatorship as a means of achieving national greatness. Unlike Hitler, who was obsessed with racial purity, Mussolini’s fascism was more focused on the absolute authority of the state. However, both regimes relied on violence, censorship, and the suppression of dissent to maintain power.

Japan’s leadership, though not explicitly fascist in ideology, operated on similar authoritarian principles. The military government, with Emperor Hirohito as its figurehead, sought to expand its empire across Asia. Japan’s leadership justified its conquests as a fight against Western imperialism, positioning itself as the liberator of Asian nations. However, in practice, Japan’s rule was brutal and exploitative. Its belief in hierarchy and national superiority fueled its military aggression, leading to atrocities across China, Korea, and Southeast Asia. The leadership in Japan, much like in Germany and Italy, rejected democratic institutions, believing that strength and unity under a single authority were the only means of survival and expansion.

Opposing this vision of authoritarian rule were the liberal democracies, led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and, for much of the war, France. These nations saw their leadership as fundamentally different from the fascist regimes, emphasizing individual freedoms, elected governance, and the rule of law. While imperfect in their own democratic practices—Britain and France still ruled vast colonial empires, and the United States had deep racial inequalities—these nations framed their war effort as a fight for freedom against tyranny.

The democratic leadership believed in the principle that governments should be accountable to their people. In contrast to Hitler and Mussolini, leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill governed through public support, elections, and constitutional processes. Even in times of war, when emergency powers were invoked, the democratic nations maintained the belief that their leaders served at the will of the people. Roosevelt’s America, despite its internal struggles, championed the idea that economic and political freedoms were interconnected. The war was not just about defeating an enemy but about ensuring that democracy could survive in the face of totalitarian expansion.

Churchill, leading Britain through its darkest hour, was driven by the belief that democracy, despite its inefficiencies, was the only system that allowed for human dignity and progress. His leadership style was starkly different from Hitler’s. Where Hitler demanded obedience, Churchill inspired through rhetoric and appeal to shared values. He did not rule through fear but through persuasion, rallying the British people to endure the hardships of war with the promise that their sacrifice would ensure the survival of their freedoms.

Yet the democracies were not without contradictions. The British and French empires, while positioning themselves as defenders of freedom, continued to deny self-determination to their colonies. Roosevelt, though advancing democratic ideals, oversaw the internment of Japanese Americans, highlighting the racial prejudices that still existed within democratic societies. The ideals of democracy, while noble, were not universally applied, and the war forced these nations to confront their own hypocrisies.

The third vision of leadership in the war was that of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Communism, as an ideology, promised an entirely different path from both fascism and democracy. Stalin’s leadership was characterized by absolute state control, where the Communist Party dictated every aspect of life. The Soviet Union rejected the class divisions of capitalism and sought to create a system where the state managed all economic and social structures in the name of the working class. However, in practice, Stalin’s rule was deeply authoritarian, with purges, forced labor camps, and widespread political repression.

Stalin saw both fascism and Western democracy as threats to the Soviet vision. While the Soviet Union fought alongside the Allies, its reasons for doing so were not rooted in a defense of democracy but in a struggle for survival and future dominance. Stalin’s leadership was pragmatic; he signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939 to buy time for the Soviet Union to build its military strength. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Stalin aligned with the Allies out of necessity, not ideological alignment.

From Burnham’s perspective, the post-war world would not see the triumph of classical democracy, but rather a new form of managerial rule. The Soviet Union represented one possible manifestation of this, with its bureaucratic control over industry, military, and society. Meanwhile, in the United States and Britain, the increasing role of corporate and governmental managers over economic and military policy suggested a shift toward managerial governance rather than purely democratic decision-making. The war was not just about ideology but about who would control the new systems of technological and administrative power that would define the modern world.

World War II was not just a war of weapons but a war of ideas. Each form of leadership sought not only to win the conflict but to shape the world according to its vision. The battle over ideas did not end with World War II; it simply entered a new phase, one that would define the second half of the twentieth century and beyond. Through Burnham’s lens, the war was not a simple clash between democracy and dictatorship, but a transition toward a new form of global power—one in which managerial elites, rather than elected representatives or charismatic leaders, would shape the destiny of nations.