On bureaucracy

[miychi <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bureaucracy
by Devine, James
04 April 2002 17:22 UTC

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).


^^^^^^^^^^

CB: What is "Marxology"  ?  How does that even come up here ?


^^^^^^^^


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.


^^^^^^^^^

CB: I  still don't see any good usage or rigorous usage of "bureaucracy" in
what you have said.  "Hierarchy" or "elite" is better for all the purposes
mentioned.  And "bureaucracy" has anti-socialist connotations historically
,for example, in the Reaganite anti- Big Guvment demogogy.


^^^^^^^


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: This continues the anti-socialist, pro-corporate/private sector
connotation PRECISELY !  The dictionary does NOT include corporate
hierarchies and elites. You had to add that. The common meaning of the word
has the politically anti-socialist, pro-private business connotation , just
as I said. Nobody who reads the dictionary definition will know of your
addendum.


^^^^^^^^



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.


^^^^^^^^^^^

CB: Is this the type of problem you are referring to when referring to the
Stalinist or Egyptian "bureaucracy" ? No.

 If that was all that happened in Stalinism, some time delays at the DMV and
the like, you wouldn't have much to complain about it.    Upon instituting
your "power from below" system, initially there will be plenty of such
instances of "formerly-petty" clerks exercising a bit of power. That will be
a sign that your bottom up system is in place. Of course , the job of clerk
will be a rotating one. Everybody gets a chance to do some civic duty in the
small administrative tasks that will be necessary.


^^^^^^^^^



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.)


^^^^^^^^^^

CB: :>)  Run that by me one more time.

 How does "holding the state together" give control to the government ? Why
will it fall apart if the government doesn't hold it together ?
What's the difference between the "government" and the "bureaucracy" ? Why
doesn't the "bureaucracy"  keep control of the state itself, rather than
give control of it to the "government" ?

^^^^^^^^^

On arguing "bureaucracy", imortant question is what is the aim of
"bureaucracy" system
Weber did not refer to aim of bureaucracy,rather simply analized inner
sturucture of bureaucracy system. In capitalist working place workers are
organized to  hierarchical order in order to produce more surplus value. But
in capitalist society, although public sector workers do not produce surplus
value,public sevicer are organized hierarchical.
It is because in order to effectively administer, Civil Service controller
must organize worker  hierarchical as same as military. Difference between
private sector and public sector is difference of aims. private sector seek
profit, public sector seek effective service,
So, in private sector capital(Sahchen=thing,i.e. commodity, money and
capital) rule worker, on the contrary in public sector,legal person(in legal
term)rule worker.
In Ex-USSR, firms are state-ownerd or collective-ownerd. But in realty party
techonocrat rule firms. In other words, party techonocrat wrere transformed
into privilege classs and exploit workers "politically" not "economically".
characteristic character of capitalist exploitation is that capital exploit
workers "econnomically" not "poliically". In the contrary in Ex-USSR
character of expoitation was "political" not "economical". In this sense,
Ex-USSR expoitation may resemble feudal system. In feudal system lords, in
other words, legal person exploit farmers, and Sachen(comodity, money,and
capital) did not rule people.

MIYACHI TATSUO
Pstchiatric Department
Komaki municipal hosipital
1-20,Johbushi komaki city
Aichi Pef.
JAPAN