----- Original Message ----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:12 AM Subject: [PEN-L:24690] RE: Bureaucracy
> keeping this short, since time is short. ================= I thought time is money, now you economists are changing the rules, AGAIN! :-) Ian > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & 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 > >
