For what it's worth, I agree with Jurriaan on all of the below (unless I've missed something).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 2:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24719] Bureacracy: Forwarded from Jurriaan > > > Hi Michael, > > I notice with interest some discussion about bureaucracy on > PEN-L. As > someone who has worked as tutor, education officer, research > officer and > archivist/documentalist for various public service institutions, > I have > often had occasion to think about this topic. From personal > experience, > I've concluded that the study of "bureaucracy" is crucial for > socialists > and Marxists. There are at least two good reasons for that: > > Firstly, one of the chief targets of neoliberal ideology today is > precisely > "bureaucracy", the claim being that public services based on a > redistribution of income by the state are inefficient and > necessarily > degenerate bureaucratically, hence should be replaced by > market-mechanisms > as much as possible. The bureaucratic characteristics of > corporations in > the private sector are conveniently ignored,as is the despotism > of the > market, which drives those lacking disposable income straight > back into the > arms of various state bureaucracies who cannot cope with them > adequately. > The concept of "economic efficiency" used by neo-liberals is of > course > largely ridiculous - it is "efficiency" from the standpoint of > the few as > against the misery of the many. > > The second reason is that, insofar as socialists want to regulate > markets > (a la Diane Elson or Alec Nove) or do away with them altogether > (a la > Mandel), they have to invent some other allocative devices > instituted by > law (a legal framework) and operated through democratic political > processes > (workers councils, parliaments, consumer associations, planning > institutes, > the Internet or whatever). In other words, specific socialist > institutions > are necessary which consciously seek to match the supply of > society's > resources with social needs. Now unless one is totally naive, it > is obvious > that as soon as some institutions are in put in charge of > allocating > resources and judging what the social needs for particular > resources are, > there is at least the possibility that they may abuse their > position in a > bureaucratic sense, asserting their sectional interest against > the interest > of society as a whole. This applies to socialism just as much as > to > capitalism. Hence the need for a profound Marxist analysis. > > There does actually exist a small amount of Western Marxist > literature on > bureaucracy, as somebody already mentioned, including: > - Hal Draper's study of Marx in Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, > Vol. 1 > - Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, and other writings > - Christian Rakovsky, The Professional Dangers of Power > - Isaac Deutscher, The roots of bureaucracy > - Ernest Mandel, Power and Money: A Marxist analysis of > bureaucracy (and > other writings). > - Catherine Samary, Plan, Market & Democracy > - Agnes Heller, Dictatorship over Needs > > This type of literature by no means constitutes an exhaustive > analysis of > bureaucracy, but it is a useful starting point. Its weakness is > that it > provides very few guidelines and principles on how to prevent > bureaucratic > evils, beyond a few rules modelled on what Marx already said in > his > writings on the Paris Commune. That is, it often lacks positive > theories of > socialist organisation and management. Odes to "democratic > participation" > are well and good, but how to create durable democratic > institutions and > methods of information management which reduce, rather than > increase, > bureaucracy is another matter. > > Al Szymanski made an interesting point once (I think in his book > Is the Red > Flag Flying ?). He said that if you compared the proportion of > bureaucratic > functionaries relative to the population in the USSR and the USA, > you would > actually find that there were proportionally more "bureaucrats" > in the USA > than the USSR. I don't know if this is true, not having the > necessary > statistical information to hand, but I think it's plausible. > > The Marxist critique of Weber is not that his descriptive > typology of > bureaucratic forms is in itself wrong or inaccurate. It is rather > that > Weber lacks a political and class analysis of bureaucracy and > fails to > explain satisfactorily where bureaucracy comes from, its origins. > He > regards it more or less as an inevitable product of the growing > "complexity" of society (i.e. ultimately as an inevitable product > of the > division of labour and specialisation). > > That is basically why bureaucracy is the "iron cage of the > future" > according to Weber (leaving aside the inherent tendency of > bureaucracy, if > unchecked, to expand its field of operation). But this is > essentially a > technocratic interpretation of bureaucracy, which abstracts from > power > politics, class conflict and historical variations or change. The > division > of labour in any society is itself never simply a question of > "technical" > or "economic" necessity, but very much an outcome of all sorts of > power > struggles and socio-political conflicts. This conclusion, already > reached > by Marx in "Capital", is the real point of departure for a > socialist > analysis of bureaucracy. > > Regards > > Jurriaan > > > > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
