Bureaucracy

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

the following has been finished & corrected.

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

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 instead 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 in favor of democracy,
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. ... <<

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, as do political parties and lots of other organizations.


I don't get the connection between "bureaucracy" and desks except in terms
of etymology, since not all people who work at desks are bureaucrats. I work
at a desk, but I'm not a bureaucrat. Instead, I'm something worse, a tenured
professor. (Similarly, we also shouldn't take the historical link between
"salary" and "salt" too seriously. We should take it with a grain of ...)

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.

JD:>>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, giving the government control over the state, putting
administrative decisions into effect, and enforcing existing rules and laws.
(Of course, there are non-state governments, such as Afghanistan currently,
where everthing is in flux.)

JD:>>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.<

Applied to the CPUSA, the phrase "democratic centralist" involves an abuse
of the word "democratic." The elections in the old USSR were a sham, while
the members of the CP didn't have real democratic control over the leaders
or over the Party Line.

If you want to use the word "hierarchical" instead of "bureaucratic," that's
fine. But I'm going to continue my usage. There are hierarchies that aren't
bureaucratic, by the way: the feudal hiearchy is one clear example.

JD:>>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 ?<

I don't get this. I didn't overlook the USA. How could I? Just because I
criticized the USSR (or rather implied criticism, since the top-down rule
could have been justified in some way) doesn't mean that I support the USA.
Similarly, just because I criticized the USA doesn't mean that I supported
the USSR (back when it existed). It's fallacious to assume that there's no
third alternative.

The above reminds me of the old (and admittedly tired) joke about the Soviet
showing the Amurrican the Moscow subway. The latter says "yes, this is
beautiful -- but where are the trains?" and the Soviet responds by saying
"what about the lynchings in the South?" I don't see why one can't say "the
emperor had no clothes" about both super-powers. The old USSR was a class
system, as is the USA.

CB:>>>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.<<<

JD:>>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.<

It's right that focusing on office-workers is a mistake, since the nature of
the bureaucracy and its power depends on the class nature of the society.
That's why I talked about different kinds of bureaucratic rule above. In
terms of what I want, if there is to be bureaucratic rule, the bureaucracy
has to be controlled democratically.

this is my last message of the day. Bureaucratic tasks are calling.
JD