RE: Bureaucracy

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

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

I wrote:>> 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 ?<

No, I was opposing "Marxist concepts" to "whether Marx talked about it"
(i.e., Marxology), as should be clear from the context (which follows).

JD:>>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. <

People abuse all sorts of words (Stalin claimed to be a "socialist," while
Bush claims to be for "freedom."), but that doesn't mean we should
automatically avoid them. I'm trying to clarify a more rigorous concept of
"bureaucracy." Your critique of the buzz-word version of the concept helps,
but it doesn't say that we should avoid the word.

JD:>>Weber & Marx have different theories of bureaucracy. Weber was
pro-bureaucracy [shorthand alert!], 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.<

You can call it "hierarchy," but the word "bureaucracy" also has a real
meaning beyond the buzz-word. Again, I see no reason to abandon a word
simply because other people attach other meanings to it that I don't like.

BTW, the _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_'s first definition of
"bureaucracy" is a body of nonelected government officials. That's the way I
would define it, without restricting it to governments. Corporations have
bureaucracies, too.

CB:>>>...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.<<<

JD:>>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.<

This doesn't fit with my experience: waiting in line at the California DMV
(before they improved the system) or the L.A. Department of Water & Power,
it seemed to me that the folks at the counters who were supposed to help me
had some power (discretion), the power to delay and to block. Contrary to
some Weberian conceptions, the top bureaucrats didn't have complete control
over these folks at the bottom of the hierarchy.

JD:>> 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 ?<

the "state" refers to the monopolization of the use of force within the
geographical region, while the "government" refers to the top
decision-making bodies. The "bureaucracy" would refer to the controlling
organization -- including the military and police hierarchies -- that holds
the state together, givng the government control over the state. (Of course,
there are non-state governments, such as Afghanistan currently, where
everthing is in flux.)

>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>  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.
>