RE: Bureaucracy

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

Time is fleeting, so let's go greet the fleet.

Charles Brown writes:>Why aren't professors bureaucrats too ?  What defines
a  bureaucrat for you ?<

Like any real-world phenomenon, academia doesn't fit any academic conceptual
box exactly. The professoriat has its bureaucratic (top-down hierarchical)
aspects, especially with the move toward making universities more like
corporations, but in many places academia has a large components of the
feudal guild left over from the past. The full prof. is like a guild master
(with the Dean being the head-master), while associates are like
journeypeople and assistants a bit like apprentices. (Part-timers and other
non-tenure-track folk are on the outside of this hierarchy.) This guild
system is a strange combination of worker-controlled production -- so the
Yeshiva decision wasn't that far off when the U.S. Supes decided that
professors are part of management at private colleges -- and corporate-style
bureaucracy. The difference from the latter is that professors have pretty
good hopes of rising to the top once they get tenure. In any case, tenure --
which goes along with being part of the guild management structure -- gives
much more job security than almost anyone else has. (The corporatization of
the universities means that tenure is threatened.)

I wrote:>> The elections in the old USSR were a sham, while the members of
the CP didn't have real democratic control over the leaders  over the Party
Line.<<

CB:> For the whole history ? That's probably an overstatement. Khruschev was
from the oppositional group, Then Brevhnev (sp)  was in opposition to
Khruschev.<

But K's victory over Malenkov _et al_ (and Breshnev's later victory) wasn't
decided democratically, but as a matter of bureaucratic in-fighting. (As
I've noted, I reject the monolithic conception of bureaucracy in which all
decisions are made at the top and then implemented. Competition within the
bureaucracy is crucial.)

CB: >Anyway, the ruling stratum, as you put it, was the ruling statum.
Calling it "bureaucratic" adds nothing to what is being said.  It was no
more a ruling stratum than in the U.S., and terming it "bureaucratic" is
just part of the general anti-Soviet, anti-communist propaganda of the
bourgeoisie that attempts to portray the SU and Communist Parties as less
democratic than the U.S. and its parties and institutions. That history is
why it is important for you to mention the U.S. when you mention the SU,
especially given that you are in the U.S. where the anti-Soviet or
anti-socialist discussion and consciousness is nowhere near matched by the
anti-US discussion or consciousness. <

Well, the ruling stratum of the USSR wasn't democratic, feudal,
slave-driving, or capitalist. How else does one describe a small elite that
monopolizes political power -- often with force -- and then dictates to both
the political system and the economic system about what should be done? (All
societies after "primitive communism" have hierarchies and not all of them
are "bureaucratic," so merely calling it hierarchical won't do. Should we
call the old USSR "despotic" instead?)

Just because something is "propaganda" doesn't mean it's not true. The most
successful propaganda over the long haul has a basis in truth ("Big
Lie"-type propaganda tends to work only in the short run or when the
population's access to independent information is severely limited). Thus, a
lot -- perhaps even almost all -- of Soviet propaganda about the US was
true. (For example, the existence of open unemployment -- and the evils of
that system -- in the "West" was emphasized in Soviet messages to their
workers; it was true, while it told the workers "it could be worse," so
you'd better start working harder. The old Soviet system didn't create much
motivation to work.)

The US propaganda about (for example) the limits on free speech in the old
USSR were also true. (Obviously, the problem with such true propaganda is
what was left out.) So instead of labeling something as part of "propaganda"
in order to dismiss it, its factual or logical content has to be addressed
directly.

> Evenhandedness in this context is unequal treatment.<

why? both superpowers involved oppression of the powerless; both invaded
countries that they dominated when the dominated countries revolted. Why
should either be let off the hook? It's oppression that we should oppose,
not simply one or two kinds of oppression. What's the point of siding with
one kind of oppression against another? Why choose typhoid over dysentery -
or vice-versa? Let's oppose all disease.

CB:>What do you mean by "bureaucratic" then ?  What makes a  hierarchy
bureaucratic or not bureaucratic ? In what sense was the feudal hierarchy
not bureaucratic ?<

there's a very large sociological literature on the meaning of
"bureaucracy." One of the differences that has spawned this dialogue is that
you start with the popular conceptions of bureaucracy and I am starting with
knowledge that "bureaucracy" has had a distinct meaning in social science
for generations.

COMPTON'S 1999 encyclopedia on CD-ROM has a description that's in between
the popular and academic visions. I'd accept most of its description:
>Bureaucracy has two shades of meaning. It may mean the governance of a
company or institution by a specific set of officials, such as management.
Or it may mean the governance of a whole nation by means of agencies,
bureaus, commissions, and departments. In this sense, bureaucracy would
denote all of the agencies and departments contained within the executive
branch of a national government.

>All forms of government establish bureaucracies to administer the
government and deal with the public welfare. There are agencies that collect
taxes, provide for defense, give police protection, administer welfare and
social security programs, operate school systems, and manage public
transportation.

>Private institutions also need bureaucracies. [This gets rid of the initial
equation of government with bureaucracy, which was silly anyway. --JD]
Church bodies, corporations, banks, hospitals, and charitable foundations
all must have some form of management that consists of paid directors and
other hired personnel.

>A bureaucracy is characterized by a highly developed division of labor, an
authority structure, the assignment of certain tasks to specific
individuals, and regulations established for the operation of the
organization. A member of the bureaucracy, called a bureaucrat, is recruited
for a job on the basis of qualifications, such as education or experience,
that demonstrate an ability to perform specialized tasks. Usually the wages
paid to a bureaucrat depend on the person's status or grade within the
organization, rather than on performance or productivity.<

NB: this is all very different from a feudal hierarchy, in which rank is
inherited from one's parents, etc. This is crucial to the distinction
between non-bureaucratic and bureaucratic hierarchies.

>The virtue of a bureaucracy lies in doing efficiently the job for which it
was intended. To do their jobs well, agencies need trained, professional
workers who are dedicated to public service.

>There are two major faults that may occur in any bureaucracy. [This
paragraph really undermines the assertion above that bureaucracy is
efficient.] First, an agency may forget that its purpose is to serve the
public. It may become overly aggressive in its actions and policies and may
seek to expand its size, jurisdiction, and power at the expense of the
public and of other agencies. Second, an agency may become so bogged down in
routine and procedures that it forgets its function and its assignments. It
may seek to avoid responsibility and to shift work onto some other agency.
It may also become afraid of innovation and challenge and seek only to
perpetuate its own existence.

>To guard against bureaucratic excesses and failures, modern
states--especially the democracies--have made the agencies of government
accountable to elected officials. Bureaucracies are also subject to the law
and a process known as judicial review by which courts or tribunals may pass
judgment on an agency's decisions (see Administrative Law).

>Bureaucracies have played a significant role in the history of
civilizations by providing a kind of continuity in society. Kings, emperors,
presidents, and dictators die or are removed from office, but bureaucracies
are more durable and continue the process of administering a government.

>Bureaucracies had their origin in the households of kings in the ancient
societies of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, India, and China. Kings needed
officials to collect taxes, to manage agriculture, to govern outlying
provinces, and to lead armies. The most elaborate bureaucracy developed in
China. Called the civil service, it was established in the 3rd century BC
and was expanded greatly over the next several centuries. There were schools
for civil servants and systems of examination for entrance and promotion.
During the Sung Dynasty, from 960 to 1279, schools were established
throughout the country to educate talented but poor individuals. At the
insistence of the emperor, the bureaucracy managed nearly every aspect of
Chinese public life. Because the bureaucracy sought to follow and preserve
ancient traditions, there was little room for innovation or invention in
China by the time the Middle Ages were ending in Europe.

>Bureaucracies in the Western world remained largely under the control of
kings until the modern period. European rulers generally tried to reserve
positions in the civil service for members of the nobility, but the training
and expertise required often meant accepting commoners into positions of
power. The French Revolution, which ended in 1799, greatly influenced the
democratization of the nation's civil service. Entrance examinations and
formal qualifications for office became the means of selection. Since 1855
the members of Great Britain's civil service have been chosen on the basis
of competitive examinations.

>In the United States, for most of the 19th century, the agencies of
government were filled by the patronage, or spoils, system. This meant that
positions were filled by the friends of elected officials. To end this
situation, Congress passed the Civil Service Act in 1883. Most of the states
and larger cities have adopted civil service systems....<

I wrote:>>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:>But there wasn't exploitation.<

I examined the normative or ethical meaning of "exploitation" awhile back
(including various Marxian visions) and discovered that as far as I'm
concerned, the best definition "exploitation" would be taxation without
representation. (For example, capitalist extraction of surplus-value is like
taxation -- in that it's based on state use of force, coercion by the
reserve army of labor, and the threats by managers -- and it's clearly not
organized in a democratic-representative way.) By this criterion, I'd say
the USSR's system involved a lot of exploitation, i.e., the extraction of
surplus-labor in order to serve the needs of the CP's state dictatorship.
(NB: this doesn't mean that they did a very good job at exploitation;
capitalism, on the other hand, is renowned for the efficiency of its
exploitation.)

I wrote:> ... 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.<

CB:> The point you are ignoring is that "bureaucracy" has a specific history
in bourgeois and US propaganda as an  anti-socialist, anti-Soviet buzz
word,as if socialist , non-private enterprise institutions and societies
have a  tendency to be less efficient due to "big bureaucracies",  etc.  So,
to only mention the SU without mentioning the US in this context is to feed
into this old anti-socialist, anti-Soviet propaganda.  To ignore this well
known stereo-type  is to "support" the US or capitalist "bureaucracies" by
default. You have an affirmative obligation to distinguish  from the
stereotype. The stereotype is that the SU and  socialism and government was
are bureaucratic and the US.and  capitalism and corporations are not. So, if
you only mention  the SU as bureaucratic, you feed the stereotype.<

But the fact was that the SU _was_ bureaucratic (following the COMPTON'S
description above, even though they didn't mention it). Within the context
of my (too) many contributions to pen-l, it should be clear to all who want
to know that I oppose capitalism.

If I were criticizing the management of the Oakland Raiders, would I have to
put it into context by telling everyone that I also criticize the other NFL
teams (except the Packers)?

I think the fact is that you, Charles, don't want anyone to criticize the
USSR, even though it's dead and gone. Anything that even vaguely criticizes
the USSR and USSR-type modes of production -- like the use of the word
"bureaucracy" -- is verboten.

>>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.<<

CB:> Rarely or never did criticisms of US corporate and capitalist
"bureaucracy" come up in such comparisons. "Bureaucracy" is a buzz word for
"socialist" "communist" or "government" , and not for "corporate" or
"capitalist". <

I was _very_ explicit that "bureaucracies" also are crucial to corporations
(as was COMPTON'S, surprisingly). That's why some people think of the old
USSR as being like "one big corporation" (so-called state capitalism). (I
disagree with them, BTW.)

I agree that "bureaucracy" should not be used as a buzz-word for "socialist"
"communist" or "government" - that's why I've been very clear in my usage,
using the term in another way.

BTW, "market" is often used as a buzz-word for "the New York Stock
Exchange." Does this mean we should drop the word "market"?

I told >> 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:> Sounds like a joke made up by an anti-Soviet. When I was in Moscow
there were plenty of trains in the subway. The only thing you might add to
make it fit here is some claim that the trains were absent due to the
"bureaucracy" of the Communist Party.<

Some anti-Soviet jokes are very good (unlike the one I quoted). You should
look at THE BIG RED JOKE BOOK (published in the 1970s by Pluto Press, I
think). It has lots of funny jokes about bureaucrats (both capitalist and
Soviet) by rank-and-file workers.

_Of course_ there were trains in the Moscow Metro. But almost all jokes are
based on partial untruths. The point of the joke was that when their system
was criticized by people from the West, Soviet apologists often would be
extremely defensive (as you seemed to be), rushing to point to (often-real)
flaws in the US system. A more serious response would be to say "I'm
organizing workers and other oppressed groups to get rid of these
incompetents and crooks who run our society" or "we're working to make the
system more democratically accountable" or even "out administrative
apparatus is inefficient and is need of reform."

> The closer analogy would be if the American asked if the  train was
delayed because it was a socialist system, and the Soviet replied, no, when
I was in New York, I had to wait for a train , and that was in a capitalist
system.<

Analyzing any joke too much kills it. Perhaps that specific joke deserves
killing, but how about the one that says "capitalism is the exploitation of
man by man; socialism is the reverse"?

> The point is "bureaucracy" has a history of ONLY  being a reference to one
emperor's no clothes, not both.  ( Not to mention you are from the country
of the emperor who you didn't mention )<

That's a very partial reading of the history of the usage of the word
"bureaucracy." Look again at the COMPTON'S description. It doesn't just
mention the bad side of bureaucracy, while the USSR is ignored.

this is my last pen-l message of the day.

JD