RE: Bureaucracy

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

keeping this short, since time is short.

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

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.<

Actually, "bureaucracy" is a PRO-socialist concept -- or rather it can be.
Being opposed to the rule by unelected officials is directly addressing the
valid concern of workers and other oppressed groups that replacing the "old
bosses" will simply lead to the establishment of "new bosses." (cf. the rock
song by the "Who.") The left should also be opposed to "big government" (as
we see it in the real world), but attach new meaning and emphasis to this
opposition: we want the government to be under the people's thumb, not
vice-versa.

I'm all in favor of the welfare state under capitalism or USSR-type modes of
production, but we have to be very aware that the way this welfare state is
and was organized involves _paternalism_  and _top down decision-making_
without democratic accountability.

I wrote:>> 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.<

That's why I added it. I think it's important for people to know that
corporations are run like miniature GOSPLANs (planning bureaucracies), with
the corporate Party Line being handed down by the CEO and Board of Directors
to the middle managers to the rank and file, in class bureaucratic style.

I wrote:>>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. <

the Stalin-era bureaucratic "revolution from above" was clearly quite
different from the relatively stable bureaucratic rule in the era after
Stalin. The DMV experience is closer to the latter, with lower-level
bureaucrats having little pieces of power, able to block many initiatives
from above.

The Stalin-era revolution from above also involved power at the lowest
level, though it was different. It's not as if Stalin was able to tell the
lowest-level Party officials what to do at each step. I think that a lot of
the worst excesses of the agricultural purge -- the "elimination of the
kulaks as a class" -- involved petty officials striving to prove their
loyalty to the state, in hopes of surviving and rising to the top, by being
more "revolutionary" (i.e., zealous) in abusing the kulaks and ordinary
peasants. (Of course, this was not simply a function of bureaucracy. The
problem was that the CPSU didn't have a political base amongst the
peasantry. The experience was quite different than, say, Mao's rural
efforts.)

>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.<

sounds nice. How does it work in practice? (BTW, I use Charlie Andrew's
schema as a good first description of how socialism should be organized.)

I wrote:>> 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:>  How does "holding the state together" give control to the government ?
<

if the state use of force and similar governmental functions aren't
controlled using some kind of social organization, the government can't
dictate policy to anyone.

>Why will it fall apart if the government doesn't hold it together ?<

any bureaucratic hierarchy has all sorts of internal conflicts. It required
constant efforts by the top managers to keep this conflict in line, to avoid
the problem of the bureaucracy being swamped by internecine conflicts or
bogging down into red-tape stasis (the bureaucratic equivalent of "heat
death" in physics).

> What's the difference between the "government" and the "bureaucracy" ?<

the gov't is the decision-making body (in the US, it's the top of the
executive branch, the houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court). The
bureaucracy is the organization that the government (or its parts) use to
implement decisions.

>Why doesn't the "bureaucracy"  keep control of the state itself, rather
than give control of it to the "government" ?<

the US has a constitution, the implementation of which reflects the balance
of class forces and the like in civil society (i.e., society outside the
state). The state and the government do have a certain amount of "relative
autonomy," though, which means that for quite some time, they can act
independently of civil society. This leads to conflict between them and
civil society, with power of the capitalists usually prevailing.

JD