Bureaucracy

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Bureaucracy
by Devine, James
04 April 2002 04:31 UTC  < < <
Thread Index
> > >

CB:>Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? ... <

The issue is not whether it's a "Marxist" concept in the sense of whether
Marx talked about it as much as whether it fits with Marx's materialist
conception of history.

^^^^^^^^^

CB: Why do you interpret my usage "Marxist concept" as meaning something other than as part of a materialist conception of history ?  What else would a "Marxist concept" be except materialist , in the Marxist sense ?

^^^^^^^



 But see, for example, Hal Draper's book KARL MARX'S
THEORY OF REVOLUTION (several volumes, Monthly Review Press), especially
volume I. Marx talked a lot about bureaucracy. For example, in CAPITAL, he
talks about how bureaucrats (hired managers) were doing more and more of the
work that capitalists took credit for doing. BTW, Marx was quite familiar
with a quasi-Weberian view of the state bureaucracy, that of Hegel.


^^^^^^^^

CB: That is not the way "bureaucracy" is tossed around today - to point out how capitalists are getting out of doing work.   "Bureaucracy" is used as an anti-socialist, pro-private enterprise buzz word.

^^^^^^^



Weber & Marx have different theories of bureaucracy. Weber was
pro-bureaucracy, seeing hierarchies of this sort as an efficient and
"rational" way of attaining goals. (My late friend Al Szymanski (sp.?) once
embraced this view, arguing for his version of "Leninism" by saying that a
top-down (bureaucratic) organization was the most efficient way to organize
a revolution. If corporations use hierarchy, why can't we?)


^^^^^^^^^

CB: Why not call it a hierarchy ?  What is the specific significance of it being in an office or related to "bureaus".  Top-down or hierarchy is what is meant, not office work.

^^^^^^^



Draper quotes Marx again and again as being anti-bureaucracy (and in favor
of democracy, as with the Paris Commune) or at least as having a more
realistic vision of bureaucracy than Weber.

>...When a "giant bureaucracy" is mentioned, I get this picture of an
enormous collection of people sitting at desks in office buildings.
HOWEVER, it is not this bureau-proletariat of secretaries, clerks,
mailboys, receptionists, beancounters, etc. that is the "cratic", the
power in either Russia or the New Deal, or any government. This mass of
deskclerks is not the cause of "redtape" or anti-democratic rule from
above, as if they took a vote among the vast bureaucracy to exercise its
power on major questions before whatever institution with whatever
bureaucracy. "Bureaucracy" is a very misleading concept that is rife in
liberal political analysis.<

The thing about bureaucracy is that the power of any individual rises as you
go up the hierarchy (though that power is hardly absolute, since people down
below can often block the effectiveness of the organization --that's one of
the things that "red tape" is about). The difference between the top
bureaucrats and the petty bureaucrats is a little like the difference
between the grand and petty bourgeoisie. (Unlike Weber, I see a bureaucracy
as involving a lot of competition.)

^^^^^^^

CB: Even dividing into a couple of tiers, the number of people with power is a very small % of the total bureauworkers. Most of the giant bureau"cracy" , in the sense that it is a large number of people, are not grand or petty bureaucrats , in the sense of having power. Most tasks are ministerial, i.e. without discretion

^^^^^^^^



Usually these days, however, the bureaucracy is only a means to an end: the
corporate owners use it to try to attain maximum profits by organizing
production, marketing, etc. The state bureaucracy is similarly a tool of the
state elite, which under capitalism by and large serves the preservation of
the system.

Getting beyond capitalism, there are lots of cases where the bureaucracy
could be seen as a ruling class of some sort. The Pharoah couldn't rule
ancient Egypt without relying on the bureaucracy, so the latter got a lot of
the power.

^^^^^^^

CB: What does "bureaucracy" add that is not already in "state apparatus" or hierarchy ?  Did the Egyptian power hierarchy sit at bureaus or desks ?

^^^^^^^^



 In pre-modern China, the bureaucracy was clearly a powerful and
self-perpetuating stratum, bringing in only those who could pass the
calligraphy test (and the like) to run the show. In pre-revolutionary (and
in many ways, pre-capitalist) Russia, the upper bureaucrats had noble titles
and quite a bit of power, often combining "feudal" power with a piece of
state power.

Under the Soviet system, the ruling stratum was bureaucratic:

^^^^^^^^





 CB:What does "bureau" add that is not in "centralized" ? It was democratic centralism, with a central committee. Hierarchical.

^^^^^





 the leadership
of the Communist Party ruled their party in a top-down way, while that Party
held a monopoly of political power. (State force was mobilized to suppress
or buy off any opposition.) That is, the Party "owned" the state, which in
turn officially owned the means of production and controlled the economy (to
the extent that the planning process worked), i.e., they had more control
than anyone else did over the process of the production and utilization of
surplus-labor and the accumulation of fixed means of production.

^^^^^^^^^


CB: Didn't you overlook the USA ? It has one of the most top down hierarchies in history doesn't it ? Biggest in the world today.  Funny how you don't mention the US., Britain and the capitalist "bureaucracies" . In your conception, don't you consider the U.S. , with its Enrons, Wall Street, WallMarts, GM , etc. , to be a highly bureaucratic system, the most bureaucratic in the world today and for the last century ? Corporate structure is highly bureaucratic and hierarchical, very anti-democratic. And corporations are at the top of another giant "bureaucracy" that includes the capitalist state apparatus, as we discussed recently. Seems to me the USA has the worst bureaucracy ever, no ?

>Perhaps the kernel of truth in this demogogy is the hierarchy in
"bureaucracy" . In other words, the bosses of the bureausitters, the
"cracy' of the bureaucsitters not the bureausitters en masse.  It's the
SMALLNESS of the bureacracy at the top that is the problem. We want a
big bureaucracy, in the sense of masses people having the power and
control over society and their lives.<

Yes, it's the top-down nature of the rule -- hierarchy as opposed to
democracy -- that's the problem. If bureaucracy were to be held
democratically responsible at each level and stage, the bureaucracy can be
more an means to an end, one determined democratically. Thus the problem
with bureaucracy is ultimately that of forcing it to be subordinate to
democracy.

^^^^^^^

CB: Depends on how you use "bureaucracy" . The real power is a very small percentage of the mass of office workers who make up the bulk of what is called "bureaucracy". Focussing on large number of the mass of officeworkers diverts from the real powers that be, whose salient characteristic is not that they are  sit at bureaus or desks, but that they own and control the basic property of society, and rule society. They are a ruling class not so much a bureaucracy.