RE: RE: Bureaucracy

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

oops. I didn't mean to send this one. Ignore it.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Devine, James [mailto:jdevine@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:14 AM
> To: 'pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [PEN-L:24657] RE: Bureaucracy
>
>
> 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.
> >
>