James Burnham - Revision history

Melissa Jones: typo

2012-04-05T09:16:38Z

typo

Tom Griffin: /* Under the Lasch & grist for the Mills */

2012-04-05T01:20:58Z

Under the Lasch & grist for the Mills

David at 10:28, 25 April 2011

2011-04-25T10:28:27Z

David at 10:28, 25 April 2011

2011-04-25T10:28:04Z

David: /* Crozier & Burnham’s residue */

2011-04-25T10:20:08Z

Crozier & Burnham’s residue

David: /* Books and articles */

2011-04-25T10:02:43Z

Books and articles

David: /* Books and articles */

2011-04-25T09:59:53Z

Books and articles

David: /* The National Review */

2011-04-25T09:58:03Z

The National Review

David: /* Books */

2011-04-25T09:52:56Z

Books

David: /* Publications */

2011-04-25T09:49:16Z

Publications

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 Muravchik goes on to note that:
-:Burnham and Meyer opposed the Supreme Court's 1954 decision against school segregation, opposed President Eisenhower's enforcement of integration in Little Rock in 1957, and then opposed the marches, freedom rides, and civil-rights legislation of the 1960's, including the Voting Rights Act. […] Burnham lamented that the high valence of the civilrights issue had rendered impossible "scientific and empirical investigation that might prove objectively, once and for all, whether and in what sense Negroes [were] inferior" — research whose likely purpose, considering the times, would have been to justify discrimination.<ref name=Muravchik/>
+:Burnham and Meyer opposed the Supreme Court's 1954 decision against school segregation, opposed President Eisenhower's enforcement of integration in Little Rock in 1957, and then opposed the marches, freedom rides, and civil-rights legislation of the 1960's, including the Voting Rights Act. […] Burnham lamented that the high valence of the civil rights issue had rendered impossible "scientific and empirical investigation that might prove objectively, once and for all, whether and in what sense Negroes [were] inferior" — research whose likely purpose, considering the times, would have been to justify discrimination.<ref name=Muravchik/>
 This also notes that Burnham called himself an "anti-anti-McCarthyite," and that Burnham said [[George F. Kennan]], the author of the cold-war doctrine of containment, lacked a sufficient "hatred for Communism."<ref name=Muravchik/>

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 Pareto’s general analysis of society contains distinctions he makes between “logical” and “non-logical” conduct which relates to his concepts of ‘residues and derivations,’ with ‘Residue’ meaning classes of stable, common elements in social actions, permanent human impulses, instincts, or sentiments. Pareto, according to Burnham, is not concerned with the question of where residues come from as with the fact that social actions may be analyzed in terms of them, whatever their origin. The derivations, according to this formulation of Pareto (and the question arises to what extent Burnham’s formulation has become the accepted formulation) are the verbal “explanations, dogmas, doctrines and theories with which man clothes the non-logical bones of the residues.”<ref>Paul Mattick (1943) [http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1943/machiavellians.htm James Burnham’s “The Modern Machiavellians”], New Essays, Vol. VI no. 4.</ref>
-== Under the Lasch & grist for the Mills==
+==Managerialism==
 Christopher Lasch's (1969)''The Cultural Cold War: A Short History of the Congress for Cultural Freedom'', argued that the former Communists who gathered at the first meeting of the [[Congress for Cultural Freedom]] (CCF) expressed themselves in "formulations that were themselves derived from the cruder sort of Marxist cant."  Of Burnham specifically, Lasch adds that ''The Managerial Revolution'' "passed for Marxism in left-wing circles of the thirties."  Not all reactions to it were so trusting however.  Richard Gillam's (1981) ''White Collar from start to Finish: C. Wright Mills in Transition'', argues that Burnham's "mordant vision" of an emerging "managerial" society exerted a decisive if negative influence upon C. Wright Mills:
-:In his best-selling tract of 1941, ''The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World'', ex-Trotskyist Burnham had proposed that a new kind of society-one beyond the ken of older social theory — was irresistably emerging within the world's superstates. Control of this future social order would rest in neither a ruling nor a working class but in a functionally indispensable elite  of managers. This was of course only the most recent version of an argument previously advanced by Thorstein Veblen, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, Max  Shachtman, and others before them. But ''The Managerial Revolution'' appeared at a crucial historical moment and had great influence as a frightful forecast of things to come. Burnham gave theoretical expression to the deepest apprehensions of the age; his vision fascinated even as it repelled. For it must be stressed that, despite his emphasis upon knowledgeable elites, he actually advanced a radically deterministic theory of power and intellect as deriving from a system both preordained and permanent. Burnham's managers were not the masters but the servants of a massive social mechanism that could not be changed in any basic way. This anti-intellectual variant of new middle class analysis thus negated the old liberal-marxist hope that the human lot could be rationally improved. History was to end not only in a social condition of permanent inequality between elites and masses but with people little more than mindless objects — cogs in a machine. For Mills as for many others this was less a theory than a nightmare, and it excited furious resistance.
+:In his best-selling tract of 1941, ''The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World'', ex-Trotskyist Burnham had proposed that a new kind of society-one beyond the ken of older social theory — was irresistably emerging within the world's superstates. Control of this future social order would rest in neither a ruling nor a working class but in a functionally indispensable elite  of managers. This was of course only the most recent version of an argument previously advanced by [[Thorstein Veblen]], [[Adolf Berle]] and [[Gardiner Means]], [[Max Shachtman]], and others before them. But ''The Managerial Revolution'' appeared at a crucial historical moment and had great influence as a frightful forecast of things to come. Burnham gave theoretical expression to the deepest apprehensions of the age; his vision fascinated even as it repelled. For it must be stressed that, despite his emphasis upon knowledgeable elites, he actually advanced a radically deterministic theory of power and intellect as deriving from a system both preordained and permanent. Burnham's managers were not the masters but the servants of a massive social mechanism that could not be changed in any basic way. This anti-intellectual variant of new middle class analysis thus negated the old liberal-marxist hope that the human lot could be rationally improved. History was to end not only in a social condition of permanent inequality between elites and masses but with people little more than mindless objects — cogs in a machine. For Mills as for many others this was less a theory than a nightmare, and it excited furious resistance.
 Gillam also argues that the  young Mills almost certainly conceived ''White Collar'' in direct response and opposition — as an "answer" — to the Burnham thesis. he also states that Mills' first published reference but one to "white collar groups" appears in the collaborative attack upon ''The Managerial Revolution'' he and Gerth had mounted in a 1942 review-essay, "A Marx For the Managers." Gillam adds that Mills often dated the inception of ''White Collar'' almost precisely from the moment of this essay and states that he believes this points to the anti-Burnham impulse — "the resistance to deterministic gloom" — as fundamental to his work and that Mills also identifies managerialism as "an analysis that had to be disproved".

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt"><p style="text-align: center;">The Machiavellians are the only ones who have told us the full truth about power . . . the primary object, in practice of all rulers is to serve their own interest, to maintain their own power and privilege . . . No theory, no promises, no morality, no amount of good will, no religion will restrain power. Neither priests nor soldiers, neither labor leader nor businessmen, neither bureaucrats nor feudal lords will differ from each other in the basic use which they will seek to make of power… Only power restrains power. . . . When all opposition is destroyed, there is no longer any limit to what power may do. A despotism, any kind of despotism, can be benevolent only by accident.
 James Burnham (1943)''The Machievellians, Defenders of Freedom''<ref>James Burnham (1943)''The Machievellians, Defenders of Freedom.''</ref>
 </p></blockquote>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-:::The Machiavellians are the only ones who have told us the full truth about power . . . the primary object, in practice of all rulers is to serve their own interest, to maintain their own power and privilege . . . No theory, no promises, no morality, no amount of good will, no religion will restrain power. Neither priests nor soldiers, neither labor leader nor businessmen, neither bureaucrats nor feudal lords will differ from each other in the basic use which they will seek to make of power… Only power restrains power. . . . When all opposition is destroyed, there is no longer any limit to what power may do. A despotism, any kind of despotism, can be benevolent only by accident.
+<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt"><p style="text-align: center;">The Machiavellians are the only ones who have told us the full truth about power . . . the primary object, in practice of all rulers is to serve their own interest, to maintain their own power and privilege . . . No theory, no promises, no morality, no amount of good will, no religion will restrain power. Neither priests nor soldiers, neither labor leader nor businessmen, neither bureaucrats nor feudal lords will differ from each other in the basic use which they will seek to make of power… Only power restrains power. . . . When all opposition is destroyed, there is no longer any limit to what power may do. A despotism, any kind of despotism, can be benevolent only by accident.
-::::James Burnham (1943)''The Machievellians, Defenders of Freedom''<ref>James Burnham (1943)''The Machievellians, Defenders of Freedom.''</ref>
+James Burnham (1943)''The Machievellians, Defenders of Freedom''<ref>James Burnham (1943)''The Machievellians, Defenders of Freedom.''</ref>
 [[James Burnham]] (1905-1987<ref name=NYTobit>Mark A. Uhlig, JAMES BURNHAM IS DEAD AT 82; FOUNDER OF NATIONAL REVIEW, New York Times, 30 July 1987.</ref>)  has been described as "the first neoconservative,"<ref>The reference is stated as a quote from Richard Brookhiser: see ISI Books page for: James Kelly, ''[http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=cd7f041d-91ba-4f9f-b522-febec33e528a James Burnham and the Struggle for the World] Intercollegiate Studies Institute website.</ref> Giles Scott-Smith in a review of Daniel Kelly’s (2002) ''James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life'', <ref>[http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10507 Giles Scott-Smith review of Daniel Kelly’s (2002) James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life.]  </ref> describes Burnham as “one of the most intriguing conservative intellectuals of the Cold War period”.

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
-According to Joseph D’Agostino Brian Crozier “is yet another ex-leftist who has dedicated his life to fighting communism [...] and met devout Communists who had a profound influence on him”.<ref>Joseph D’Agostino (1999) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199911/ai_n8865092 Conservative spotlight: Brian Crozier], Human Events,  Nov 26.</ref> In an interview Crozier stated “Before World War II, I had a left-wing phase, unfortunately [...] So did Bob Conquest [...] But I never joined any Communist Party.” What dissuaded him is said to be James Burnham’s (1943) The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom, and ironically Crozier succeeded Burnham in writing the National Review column, ‘The Protracted Conflict’ (originally called “The Third World War”) in 1978 (Crozier would write the column for the next 18 years). D’Agostino writes:
+According to Joseph D’Agostino Brian Crozier “is yet another ex-leftist who has dedicated his life to fighting communism [...] and met devout Communists who had a profound influence on him”.<ref>Joseph D’Agostino (1999) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199911/ai_n8865092 Conservative spotlight: Brian Crozier], Human Events,  Nov 26.</ref> In an interview Crozier stated “Before World War II, I had a left-wing phase, unfortunately [...] So did [[Robert Conquest|Bob Conquest]] [...] But I never joined any Communist Party.” What dissuaded him is said to be [[James Burnham]]’s (1943) ''The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom'', and ironically Crozier succeeded Burnham in writing the National Review column, ‘The Protracted Conflict’ (originally called “The Third World War”) in 1978 (Crozier would write the column for the next 18 years). D’Agostino writes:
 :Crozier ascribes an enormous amount of the credit for the fall of the Soviet empire to Ronald Reagan. “One of the turning points was the invasion of Grenada. It was the first strategic and tactical retreat of the Soviet Union,” Crozier said. “The effect of it was very startling.” He told a surprising story about British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. “I had an appointment with Margaret on the day of the invasion,” he recalled. “She was furious with Ronald Reagan...  ‘He didn’t even have the decency to ring me and tell me what he was doing.”’<ref>Joseph D’Agostino (1999) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199911/ai_n8865092 Conservative spotlight: Brian Crozier], Human Events,  Nov 26.</ref>
@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 :It was in this book that Burnham made his famous distinction between real and formal meaning [...] Thus, Crozier goes on, “it is the job of the political commentator or analysts to discern the real behind the formal meaning . . . the truth behind the rhetoric, the facts behind the myth, the intentions behind the promises.” In Burnham’s view, Machiavelli and his modern successors, such as Michels and Pareto, were “defenders of freedom,” because, as Crozier summarized, “it is only when the people are told the truth that their interests are safeguarded.” It was not for his cynical advice to his Prince “but for his scientific observation of political realities” that Burnham praised Machiavelli and the tradition he had originated.<ref>David Rees (1985) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v37/ai_4074629 Student of subversion],''National Review'', Dec 31.</ref>
-This argues that Crozier borrowed Burnham’s method of analysis and contention in the introduction to (1947) ''The Struggle for the World'',<ref>James Burnham (1947)[http://www.questia.com/read/1009507?title=The%20Struggle%20for%20the%20World The Struggle for the World], The John Day Company, Inc., this states:
+Rees argues that Crozier borrowed Burnham’s method of analysis and contention in the introduction to (1947) ''The Struggle for the World'',<ref>James Burnham (1947)[http://www.questia.com/read/1009507?title=The%20Struggle%20for%20the%20World The Struggle for the World], The John Day Company, Inc., this states:
 :THE THIRD WORLD WAR began in April, 1944. The details of an incident that then took place have not been disclosed. The incident itself, even less dramatic than the dropping of a small bomb on a Manchurian bridge, was hardly noticed behind the smoke of clashing armies and the rubble of cities falling.
@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :Admiral A. T. Mahan, the famous analyst of sea power, to Henry and Brooks Adams, and to [[Walter Lippmann]] (in his younger years). It was Lippmann, for example, who pointed out during the First World War that President Wilson’s stated motives for entering the war, however idealistic, were in fact inseparable from the strategic necessity of preserving the “Atlantic system” linking American and British interests.<ref>David Rees (1985) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v37/ai_4074629 Student of subversion],''National Review'', Dec 31.</ref>
-British counterparts, are given as “Milner or a Cromer [...] Sir Charles Dilke, J. A. Froude, and Sir J. R. Seeley” in terms of their work’s relation to the British Empire: with Dilke, for instance, arguing that “British rule in India rested not on force but on self-confidence.” Crozier’s (1970) ''Since Stalin'', is presented as his “most able synthesis, accurate in diagnosis and prophetic in analysis:”
+British counterparts, are given as “Milner or a Cromer [...] Sir [[Charles Dilke]], [[J. A. Froude]], and Sir [[J. R. Seeley]]” in terms of their work’s relation to the British Empire: with Dilke, for instance, arguing that “British rule in India rested not on force but on self-confidence.” Crozier’s (1970) ''Since Stalin'', is presented as his “most able synthesis, accurate in diagnosis and prophetic in analysis:”
 :It is an examination of the power realities inherent in Soviet strategy at the end of the 1960s. Brushing aside the fashionable view that the cold war was over, Crozier looked at the new reality of Soviet global power. By the end of the decade, the USSR, having achieved nuclear parity with the United States, was ready to take advantage of Chancellor Willy Brandt’s readiness to improve relations with Moscow, and of France’s withdrawal from the integrated military machinery of NATO (though not from the treaty). Flexing its newly developed naval power, the USSR was already preparing to fill the impending American power vacuum in Southeast Asia. In the Western Hemisphere, the Soviets were bringing Fidel Castro more fully under their control in the interests of a more effective strategy in Latin America. The Soviet Union was thus now in a position to challenge the West in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.<ref>David Rees (1985) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v37/ai_4074629 Student of subversion],''National Review'', Dec 31.</ref>
@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 Pareto’s general analysis of society contains distinctions he makes between “logical” and “non-logical” conduct which relates to his concepts of ‘residues and derivations,’ with ‘Residue’ meaning classes of stable, common elements in social actions, permanent human impulses, instincts, or sentiments. Pareto, according to Burnham, is not concerned with the question of where residues come from as with the fact that social actions may be analyzed in terms of them, whatever their origin. The derivations, according to this formulation of Pareto (and the question arises to what extent Burnham’s formulation has become the accepted formulation) are the verbal “explanations, dogmas, doctrines and theories with which man clothes the non-logical bones of the residues.”<ref>Paul Mattick (1943) [http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1943/machiavellians.htm James Burnham’s “The Modern Machiavellians”], New Essays, Vol. VI no. 4.</ref>
 == Under the Lasch & grist for the Mills==

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 *James Gilbert (1972) [http://www.questia.com/read/7723854?title=Designing%20the%20Industrial%20State%3a%20The%20Intellectual%20Pursuit%20of%20Collectivism%20in%20America%2c%201880-1940%20(Chap.%2010%20%22James%20Burnham%3a%20Collectivism%20Triumphant%22) Designing the Industrial State: The Intellectual Pursuit of Collectivism in America, 1880-1940] (see Chap. 10 "James Burnham: Collectivism Triumphant").
-* Daniel Kelly (2002) ''James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life'',
+* Daniel Kelly (2002) ''James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: A Life'', ISI Books, 2002 ISBN-10: 1882926765 ISBN-13: 978-1882926763
 *Alan M. Wald (1987) [http://www.questia.com/read/60364155?title=The%20New%20York%20Intellectuals%3a%20The%20Rise%20and%20Decline%20of%20the%20Anti-Stalinist%20Left%20from%20the%201930s%20to%20the%201980s%20(%22James%20Burnham%3a%20From%20Neo-%20%0d%0athomism%20to%20Trotskyism%22%20begins%20on%20p.%20175) The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left from the 1930s to the 1980s] ("James Burnham: From Neo- thomism to Trotskyism" begins on p. 175).

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 :The CIA mounted most of these activities in the perspective of "the non- Communist Left." […] The CIA estimated the NCL as a reliably anti-Communist force [but] this political estimate is mistaken. The NCL is not reliable. Under the pressure of critical events the NCL loosened. A large portion — in this country as in others — swung toward an anti-American position, and nearly all the NCL softened its attitude toward Communism and the Communist nations. Thus the organizational collapse is derivative from the political error. The political error is the doctrine that the global struggle against Communism must be based on the NCL — a doctrine fastened on the CIA by Allen Dulles. Cuba, the Dominican Republic and above all Vietnam have put the NCL doctrine and practice to a decisive test. A large part of the organizations and individuals nurtured by the CIA under the NCL prescription end up undermining the nation's security.<ref>Frances Saunders (1999) ''Who Paid The Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War'', (p.401).</ref>
-Roger Kimball writing in the ''New Criterion'' notes that the publication of Burnham's ''The Struggle for the World'' happened to coincide with President Truman's speech announcing what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine. This coincidence gained the work much publicity — much of it negative. It also aroused the interest of the newly formed CIA. Burnham, recommended by George F. Kennan was invited to head the Political and Psychological Warfare division of the [[Office of Policy Coordination]] which was itself a semi-autonomous covert branch of the CIA. According to Kimball Burnham took a leave from NYU — to do "research" the university explained — and moved to Washington.
+[[Roger Kimball]] writing in the ''New Criterion'' notes that the publication of Burnham's ''The Struggle for the World'' happened to coincide with President Truman's speech announcing what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine. This coincidence gained the work much publicity — much of it negative. It also aroused the interest of the newly formed CIA. Burnham, recommended by George F. Kennan was invited to head the Political and Psychological Warfare division of the [[Office of Policy Coordination]] which was itself a semi-autonomous covert branch of the CIA. According to Kimball Burnham took a leave from NYU — to do "research" the university explained — and moved to Washington.
-Kimball, also responding to Kelly's biography, argues that Burnham's greatest contribution while working for the CIA was to help found the Congress for Cultural Freedom:
+Kimball, also responding to Kelly's biography, argues that Burnham's greatest contribution while working for the CIA was to help found the [[Congress for Cultural Freedom]]:
-:The liberal element of the Congress cannot be overemphasized: this was an effort to win over the liberal intelligentsia — forgive the pleonasm — to the cause of anti-Communism. Accordingly, in 1950 at the Congress's inaugural conference in Berlin, patrons and speakers included Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, Benedetto Croce, Karl Jaspers, Jacques Maritain, Herbert Read, A. J. Ayer, Ignazio Silone, Sidney Hook, and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Burnham was one of the few hard-liners. In his talk, Burnham tackled head on "neutralism — what we have come to call "moral equivalence"- the "denunciation on equal terms of American and Soviet barbarism".  Burnham admitted the demotic nature of American pop culture. But tawdriness was better than tyranny: Coca-Cola might be bad, he said, but "not quite in the same league with [the Soviet labor camp] Kolyma."<ref>Roger Kimball (2002) [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+power+of+James+Burnham-a091467188 The power of James Burnham], New Criterion, September 1.</ref>
+:The liberal element of the Congress cannot be overemphasized: this was an effort to win over the liberal intelligentsia — forgive the pleonasm — to the cause of anti-Communism. Accordingly, in 1950 at the Congress's inaugural conference in Berlin, patrons and speakers included [[Bertrand Russell]], [[John Dewey]], [[Benedetto Croce]], [[Karl Jaspers]], [[Jacques Maritain]], [[Herbert Read]], [[A. J. Ayer]], [[Ignazio Silone]], [[Sidney Hook]], and [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] Burnham was one of the few hard-liners. In his talk, Burnham tackled head on "neutralism — what we have come to call "moral equivalence"- the "denunciation on equal terms of American and Soviet barbarism".  Burnham admitted the demotic nature of American pop culture. But tawdriness was better than tyranny: Coca-Cola might be bad, he said, but "not quite in the same league with [the Soviet labor camp] Kolyma."<ref>Roger Kimball (2002) [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+power+of+James+Burnham-a091467188 The power of James Burnham], New Criterion, September 1.</ref>
 For Kimball, Burnham's tenure with the CIA came to an end over the issue of "McCarthyism," and Burnham's ambivalence represented an understanding that anti-McCarthyism was often "a screen and cover for the Communists and ... a major diversion of anti-Communist efforts."<ref>Roger Kimball (2002) [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+power+of+James+Burnham-a091467188 The power of James Burnham], New Criterion, September 1.</ref> Reflecting on the phenomenon after McCarthy's death, Kimball states that Burnham noted that:
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 :McCarthy became the symbol through which the basic strata of citizens expressed their conviction ... that Communism and Communists cannot be part of our national community, that they are beyond the boundaries: that, in short, the line must be drawn somewhere. This was really at issue in the whole McCarthy business, not how many card-carrying members were in the State Department ... The issue was philosophical, metaphysical: what kind of community are we? And the Liberals, including the anti-Communist Liberals, were correct in labeling McCarthy the Enemy, and in destroying him. From the Liberal standpoint — secularist, egalitarian, relativist — the line is not drawn. Relativism must be Absolute.<ref>Roger Kimball (2002) [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+power+of+James+Burnham-a091467188 The power of James Burnham], ''New Criterion'', September 1.</ref>
-For some writers, when the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) disappeared, "the core group later came to be known as the neoconservatives,"<ref>Center for Libertarian Studies (1997) [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3700.htm Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?]</ref> and there certainly are continuities between members of the CCF (and the UK's Information Research Department) and those who gathered round the ''National Review'', The [[Philadelphia Society]] and the network represented by the [[Institute of European Defence and Strategic Studies]] and other organisations funded by or influenced by the [[Heritage Foundation]].  The founding circle of ''National Review'' was composed largely of former agents or men otherwise associated with the CIA, including Buckley, Yale Professor Wilmoore Kendall, and Burnham. [[William Casey]], rooted in OSS activities and later to be named director of the CIA, drew up the legal documents for the Review, Buckley also served under E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame.
+For some writers, when the [[Congress for Cultural Freedom]] (CCF) disappeared, "the core group later came to be known as the neoconservatives,"<ref>Center for Libertarian Studies (1997) [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3700.htm Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?]</ref> and there certainly are continuities between members of the CCF (and the UK's [[Information Research Department]]) and those who gathered round the ''[[National Review]]'', The [[Philadelphia Society]] and the network represented by the [[Institute of European Defence and Strategic Studies]] and other organisations funded by or influenced by the [[Heritage Foundation]].  The founding circle of ''National Review'' was composed largely of former agents or men otherwise associated with the CIA, including Buckley, Yale Professor [[Wilmoore Kendall]], and Burnham. [[William Casey]], rooted in OSS activities and later to be named director of the CIA, drew up the legal documents for the Review, Buckley also served under [[E. Howard Hunt]] of Watergate fame.
 ===Final Years===

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 *NameBase [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Burnham,+James Burnham James]
-===Books===
+===Books and articles===
-Books about Burnham include:
+Books and articles about Burnham include:
 *James Gilbert (1972) [http://www.questia.com/read/7723854?title=Designing%20the%20Industrial%20State%3a%20The%20Intellectual%20Pursuit%20of%20Collectivism%20in%20America%2c%201880-1940%20(Chap.%2010%20%22James%20Burnham%3a%20Collectivism%20Triumphant%22) Designing the Industrial State: The Intellectual Pursuit of Collectivism in America, 1880-1940] (see Chap. 10 "James Burnham: Collectivism Triumphant").

@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 *The Struggle for the World, (1947).
 *The Coming Defeat of Communism, (1949).
-*The web of subversion; underground networks in the U. S. Government, (1954).
+* [[James Burnham]] ''[http://www.scribd.com/doc/50111778/The-Web-of-Subversion The Web of Subversion: Underground networks in the US government]'', John Day Company, 1954.
 *[http://www.questia.com/read/4429883?title=Congress%20and%20the%20American%20Tradition Congress and the American Tradition], (1959) H. Regnery Co.
 *Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning & Destiny of Liberalism, (1964)