RE: Re: Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
From the Trotsky archive at MIA. >...n the chapter "Down With Substitutionism" in Party II of the book, Trotsky writes >in what could be a description of Stalinism : In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organisation substituting& itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee. M.P. Leon Trotsky Our Political Tasks First published: 1904 as Nashi Politicheskiya Zadachi Translated by: New Park Publications Transcribed by: Andy Lehrer in 1999 for the Trotsky Internet Archive On-Line Edition's Forward by the Transcriber Preface Part I: Introduction: The criteria of Party development and the methods of evaluating it. Part II: Tactical Tasks The content of our activity in the proletariat. Part III: Organisational Questions. Part IV: Jacobinism And Social Democracy On-Line Edition's Forward by the Transcriber Our Political Tasks is Trotskys response to the 1903 split in Russian Social Democracy and a spirited reply to Lenins What Is To Be Done? and One Step Forwards, Two Steps back. A passionate, insightful attack on Lenins theory of party organisation and an outline of Trotskys own views on party structure, this controversial work was later disowned by Trotsky after he joined the Bolsheviks. Though it is far from Trotskys best work on a literary level (the young Trotsky tends to be repetitive, excessively sarcastic, overly verbose and generally in need of a good editor), the work is, nevertheless, a remarkable insight into the young Trotskys thinking and a vibrant expression of his commitment to revolution. It is, at times, hauntingly prophetic in its predictions of where the Leninist conception of democratic centralism may lead. For example, in the chapter "Down With Substitutionism" in Party II of the book, Trotsky writes in what could be a description of Stalinism : In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organisation substituting& itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee It is very difficult to find an edition of this work in any language, as the books line on the party is not consistent with that of most Trotskyist organisations. Our Political Tasks fell into obscurity after the 1917 Revolution only to be used and misrepresented by Trotskys enemies during the leadership struggle, which followed Lenins death. The book (and, implicitly, the Marxist tradition of spirited debate and critical thought) was used to attack Trotsky for being insufficiently Leninist and to smear him with the accusation of Menshivism, (for an especially viscous example see Stalins1927 speech "The Trotskyist Opposition Then and Now"). In fact, Our Political Tasks outlines a political position which, while critical of Lenins, is also clearly revolutionary and distinct from what would become Menshevism. This version is based on the English language translation published by New Park Publications in the early 1970s. Spelling and typographical errors have been corrected (and hopefully not replaced with new spelling and typographical errors) and several of the translations more egregious grammatical errors have also been corrected. For another criticism of Lenins position on party organisation from a left wing perspective, see Rosa Luxemburgs "Organisational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy" later republished as Leninism or Marxism? For Lenins views, see What Is To Be Done? and One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. For Trotskys later views on the 1903 split see chapter 12, "The Party Congress and the Split" in My Life. >--- Original Message --- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 4/17/02 7:08:03 AM > > > >> BTW, in practice, most "democratic centralist" organizations end up >> not >> being democratic. >> The rank and file end up being manipulated by the central >> committee or its leader, i.e., end up being passive followers rather >> than >> active, democratic, participants. >> >> >> >> CB: Most ? Do you have stats on this ?This is a standard >> anti-democratic centralist claim and opinion. > >Standard because historically substantiated, Charles. > >Democratic centralism leads to bureaucratic centralism and, ultimately, >an apparat not unlike a ruling class, whose being (and material >interests) is unlike that of its 'constituency' and whose consciousness >comes to reflect this. It's a process of substitutionism. First, the >party stands for the class on the grounds that those not yet in the >party (the vast majority of the class) could not yet be expected to know >its own interests (just what you'd expect a middle class intellectual >minority to think
Re: Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
> BTW, in practice, most "democratic centralist" organizations end up > not > being democratic. > The rank and file end up being manipulated by the central > committee or its leader, i.e., end up being passive followers rather > than > active, democratic, participants. > > > > CB: Most ? Do you have stats on this ?This is a standard > anti-democratic centralist claim and opinion. Standard because historically substantiated, Charles. Democratic centralism leads to bureaucratic centralism and, ultimately, an apparat not unlike a ruling class, whose being (and material interests) is unlike that of its 'constituency' and whose consciousness comes to reflect this. It's a process of substitutionism. First, the party stands for the class on the grounds that those not yet in the party (the vast majority of the class) could not yet be expected to know its own interests (just what you'd expect a middle class intellectual minority to think, I suppose). Then, to disagree with the party (or, rather, what current power relations within the formal party determine) is to be a counter-revolutionary, an enemy of your class. So you're removed. Top-down nonsense like this ain't Marxian revolution at all - not in the medium term anyway. Read Marx on The Paris Commune, mate; it's all about ever revocable delegates from, for, of and by the people. Theory ain't nothin' without social practice (praxis), so the revolutionary engine is the people, not a bunch of abstractly-theorising elitists selflessly throwing pearls before swine. There's much spilled blood in the very guts of the notion, I reckon. Cheers, Rob.
RE: Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
In leftist theory, "democratic centralism" refers to the organization of the revolutionary political party. The theory says that when a party's membership decides on a policy (a line, a program) it is binding on members of that party, including its leadership. Though they may disagree with it at party forums, they should not do so openly, when non-party people are around. Though there are likely organizations in Venezuela that are organized in a "democratic centralist" way, the mass demonstrations in favor of Chavez don't fit that description unless they are simply as part of a party. It looks to me instead that there's a lot of "spontaneity" going on. That is, people were demonstrating in favor of Chavez because they liked him, not because they belonged to a party-type organization. The Bolivarist organization did not simply orchestrate the anti-coup movements. (Of course, if my facts are wrong, I'd like to be told.) BTW, in practice, most "democratic centralist" organizations end up not being democratic. The rank and file end up being manipulated by the central committee or its leader, i.e., end up being passive followers rather than active, democratic, participants. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24943] Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert) ... > G'day Charles, > > > Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in > > Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and > their elected > > representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! > > Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're > watching different Venezuelas. Or both. > > ^ > > CB: I'm talking about V.I. Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks > and the Russian Revolution in 1917, and his theory of > democratic centralism, which is very well demonstrated by the > overwhelming majority of the masses of people in Venezuela > since 1998 and their authentic representatives in the Party > led by President Chavez. What are you talking about ? > > ^^^ > > > > So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. > > > > Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... > > ^^^ > > CB: The evidence for my argument is all over the world news > for the last few days, and specifics of the argument should > occur to you without my spelling out for you , but here it > is. The middle class mass that demonstrated and gave a > pretext for the coup by the Venezuelan oligarchy, represented > a minority of the whole population, and thus democracy in > this situation was represented by Chavez and his > organizations. The masses in the streets backed up their > center. About as vivid an example of democratic centralism as > there ever was. > > Of course, the masses have to have a republican structure , > i.e. it is not direct democracy, in their struggle with the > bourgeoisie. They have to have leaders because the struggle > with the bourgeois requires strategy and tactics, in analogy > to a military conflict. The class struggle has aspects that > are like war ( Should be obvious from the whole history of > the 20th Century). It is democracy with a socalled center: > democratic centralism. This term was originated by Lenin, > and Venezuela's governing Party is good example of its > practice since 1998. >
Re: Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
> G'day Charles, > Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in > Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected > representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're watching different Venezuelas. Or both. > So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. > Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... Cheers, Rob.
RE: Bureaucracy
This will be my last message in this thread. It doesn't seem to be making any progress. Charles B. writes:> Yes, Marshall Sahlins wrote that the politics of the university is feudal or something like that. You sketch out more of the details, although, I think you might want to get the lords and serfs in there too.< The relationship between lords and serfs involves the direct application of force by the former against the latter to extort surplus-labor. That doesn't fit with academia well at all. (We do rely on the reserve army of academic labor, so that there is coercion of the common capitalist sort.) CB:>So, professors are a combination of residually feudal and somewhat corporate, but no doubt also government, bureaucrats. >I don't think the use of " bureaucrat" works even here. It is a reification, a kind of intellectual filler term.< I agree and in fact this was my point: I don't think it's accurate to call the academic hierarchy "bureaucratic." (However, the administrators -- who _are_ bureaucrats -- and the corporate types are pushing to make the system more bureacractic.) CB writes:>What characterizes the university situation , like the corporate and government situation is that a small percentage of total personnel of the "bureaucracy" are powerful: the President, the Deans and the Department heads, and the tenured profs. The rest of the "bureaucracy" , non-tenured profs, secretaries, teaching fellows, graduate students, students, do not have equal power, except in smaller issues.< I think that formulation focuses too much on degrees of power and thus misses the qualitative dimension. CB:>The point is that "bureaucracy" includes in the same group people who should be analyzed as in different sections. It's like calling everybody at a corporation "the company" and not distinguishing between bosses and workers.< I don't understand your point, since I don't think it's accurate to call academic "bureaucratic." In fact, that was my point: it's not bureaucratic (though it does have tendencies in that direction). I wrote:>>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. << CB:>I don't agree that you have established that there is such a thing as "bureaucracies" that have an inherent characteristic of "infighting". It is not a real phenonmenon. < I never said that bureaucracy had "infighting" as an _inherent_ characteristic of bureaucracy. (It might be an inherent characteristic of all social organization, for all I know, but it's clearly not a defining characteristic of bureaucracy.) Rather, I see bureaucracy as a real-world phenomenon. Following Weber, it's a way that an elite can control the operations of an organization. But unlike Weber, there are centrifugal forces within bureaucracies, as individuals fight to defend their little "empires" and form coalitions, both horizontally and vertically. A real-world bureaucracy has both tendencies toward "getting the job done" (as my late father, a bureaucrat, used to say) and toward in-fighting, "politics," red tape, expansionism, etc. The real world bureaucracy represents the results of these conflicting forces. If you think that that bureaucratic in-fighting isn't a real phenomenon, you haven't had much contact with bureaucracies or haven't studied them. CB:> What do you mean by decided democratically ? Direct vote of the whole population ?< The idea of having contested elections seems a necessary -- though not sufficient -- condition for having democracy. The elections in the old USSR were not contested and thus not democratic. The CPSU had a political monopoly. I had written:>>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:>But isn't competition inherent in democracy in which there is more than one candidate in a vote ? Isn't competition inherent to a voting system ? So, "competition" is inherent in democracy, no ? Why is competition a sign of lack of democracy to you ? It should be a sign that there is democracy. You should be saying that lack of competition in the "bureaucracy" would be a sing of lack of democracy. Please give me an example of where you think there is democracy but no competition. < There are several kinds of competition. Democratic competition is different from bureaucratic competition which is different from capitalist competition which is different from competition among petty producers which is different from feudal competition ... (There are no democracies without competition; it's just a different kind than in other social organizations.) Democratic competition is the kind we want, not those other sorts. I wrote that:>the ruling stratum of the USSR wasn't democratic, feudal, slave-driving, or capitalist. How else does one describe a small elite that monopolizes politic
Re: Bureaucracy; CPUSA; CPSU
Charles, I asked Michael P. to drop this thread, and he has. Thanks. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bureaucracy (cont.)
Charles B. writes: > CB: Did you hear the one about long lines at Lenin's tomb > when the SU was breaking up ? People wanted to see Lenin > turning over in his grave. there are lots of good jokes about Lenin. A lot of leftists in the old USSR used Lenin and his tradition against the establishment. > By the way, if there is some implication that I can't laugh > at the Soviet Union or its weaknesses, that's another > anti-Soviet stereotype or anti-Communist. Somehow > "non-dogmatic" leftists _think_ they have a better sense of > humor than "dogmatic" leftists. NOT ! No, it just seemed to me that you were being defensive at one point. I criticized the USSR and you gave us a list of all sorts of problems that the US had (and I was familiar with). > CB: I got what the point of the joke was. But it assumes that > somehow this type of response - talking about a problem in > the US system in non-response to a problem in the Soviet > system - was some widespread thing that occurred on the part > of defenders of the Soviet system, ( and of course that it > was not typical of defenders of the US system !) But you > haven't presented any evidence that this occurred often or > more in relations to defenders of the Soviet system. So , it > assumes something it hasn't demonstrated, and in the process > perpetuates another anti-Soviet stereotype - that defenders > of the Soviet system avoided giving answers and therefore > DIDN'T HAVE GOOD ANSWERS TO SUCH QUESTIONS AS THE ONE POSED > IN THE JOKE. NOT ! No, I was simply responding to your list of all sorts of real-world problems with the US and capitalism, which seemed unresponsive. Both of the two super-powers had their problems. Since they represent different modes of production, their problems were different. But they share the problem of involving a class-type dictatorship of a small minority over the vast majority. > CB: There first dictionary defintion you gave, which did not > mention private corporate bureaucracy ( you had to add it) is > an accurate representation of the conventional usage of > "bureaucracy". Even the COMPTON passage is much heavier on > the government than the private socalled bureaucracy. It only > mentions the inclusion of private corps once, and then goes > on to only discuss goverments as examples. The point of the COMPTON'S quote was to distinguish between bureaucracy and hierarchy in general. It did that well. What all this says to me is that (1) we have to oppose bureaucracy unless it is a tool of democracy; and (2) oppose the common view that bureaucracy is only associated with government, whether it's capitalist or USSR-type government. The identification of government with bureaucracy seems to reflect the liberal world view, in which all centralization is bad, confusing centralization with top-down rule, implicitly assuming that a centralized organization such as the government cannot be subordinated to the democratic will. JD
Re: Bureaucracy
I'm not sure that we have much to gain by rehashing the old debates about Stalinist bureaucracy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Bureaucracy
Michael Pugliese cites Ronald Radosh: > >http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/leftism/two_evils.htm >They speculate that, by having the French Communists >appear to be the authors of the condemnation of Browder, the >Soviets may have "hoped to avoid alerting American leaders prematurely >to the anticipated change in Soviet policy." They write that >this new proof of the Duclos letter's Soviet origins does indeed >"lend additional weight to the view that it constituted the first >salvo in Stalin's confrontation with the West." Stalin's confrontation with the West? This is unreconstructed cold war nonsense from the turncoat Radosh. This dreadful review also includes the following observation: "The Communists, who were an appendage of the Soviet Unions, were indeed a threat to American national interests. Those secret Communists who held high positions in the United States government, as well as key spots in the upper echelons of the Roosevelt administration could be expected to use their positions to further serve the interests of Moscow." In fact, even by Klehr's own account, the New Dealers and the Communists AGREED COMPLETELY about what constituted the "American national interest", namely the election of Democrats to municipal, state and federal office. They had the same relation to the Democrats that DSA'ers have today, in fact. In chapter six of Klehr's "Secret World of American Communism", you can read an NKVD document that comments on the cozy relationship established between Earl Browder and Franklin Roosevelt. FDR has congratulated Browder and the CP for conducting its political line skillfully and helping US military efforts. Roosevelt is "particularly pleased" with the battle of New Jersey Communists against a left-wing Labor Party formation there. He was happy that the CPUSA had been able to unite various factions of the Democratic Party against the left-wing electoral opposition and render it ineffectual. The crazed anticommunist Radosh interprets CP presence in the New Deal as boring away from within. In reality, these were not termites but steel rods holding up the whole rotten liberal edifice. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Bureaucracy
http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/leftism/two_evils.htm >.,..The Soviet tie, according to Schrecker, along with the outrageous orders that the Party issued to its cadres, did not interfere with its ability to play a progressive role in American society and culture. The small but cunning word "seems" turns up frequently in Schrecker's account. She uses it to imply a distinction between appearance and reality, so that she can claim that in reality the Communists were not serving the needs of the Kremlin first and foremost. When it comes to specifics, however, the ludicrous nature of her argument becomes plain. Consider her discussion of the Duclos letter--a missive to the American Communist Party published in the French Communist Party's theoretical journal in April 1945, under the French Communist leader Jacques Duclos's name. In that letter, Duclos condemned Earl Browder; the leader of the American Communist Party since the 1930s, for "revisionism," for abandoning the class struggle, and for preaching a doctrine of peaceful coexistence between the United States and the Soviet Union at a time when imperialist war was looming on the horizon. Browder was quickly removed from his post. The broad Communist Political Association that he had created, as a social-democratic alternative to traditional Communist parties, was dissolved, and the official Communist Party was reconstituted. The Party leaders quickly condemned their recent hero in the harshest of terms. Browder himself was to argue that the Duclos letter was the first public declaration by Moscow of the coming Cold War. Schrecker writes that "the so-called Duclos letter...--a supposedly Moscow- inspired criticism of the American party that the French Communist Jacques Duclos published in his party's theoretical journal in April 194--prompted the CP's leaders to change their line and drop Earl Browder. The speed of the about-face ... seemed to demonstrate Moscow's control." There's that word again: "seemed." Schrecker- goes on to note that the FBI and witnesses before the House Un-American Activities Committee regularly referred to this document, as if this is all you need to know. Her intention, clearly, is to denigrate the notion of Soviet control. Unfortunately for Schrecker, Klehr and Haynes found conclusive evidence in the Party archives in Moscow that, as long suspected, the Duclos letter was conceived and written in Moscow. It was given to Duclos by the Comintern, most likely by Georgi Dimitrov, the Bulgarian head of the Comintern in the 1930s and 1940s who was tried (and acquitted) for the Reichstag fire in 1933, or by Andrei Zhdanov, Stalin's right-hand man; and he was ordered to publish it. Klehr and Haynes present the documents that prove, as they write, "that the article was not only written but published in Moscow in Russian; it was then translated into French and given to Duclos for attribution." The significance of the letter, as Klehr and Haynes explain, was that "the party reversed its strategy from cooperation with established liberal and labor leaders to a policy of opposition to anyol1e who did no support American accommodation of Stalin's postwar goals." They speculate that, by having the French Communists appear to be the authors of the condemnation of Browder, the Soviets may have "hoped to avoid alerting American leaders prematurely to the anticipated change in Soviet policy." They write that this new proof of the Duclos letter's Soviet origins does indeed "lend additional weight to the view that it constituted the first salvo in Stalin's confrontation with the West."
RE: re: Bureaucracy
Again Charles, read some sources like, The Communist Movement, " 2 volumes, translated in the late 70's by Monthly Review Press, author is Spanish Communist Fernando Claudin and/or, "Stalin and the European Communists, " by Italian Communist historian, Paulo Spriono, published by Verso Books in the mid-90's. It has a chapter on one of your canonical works, "The Short Course, " of the CPSU, which as Eric Hobsbawm remarks was manditory reading for Communist cadre. Michael Pugliese < < < Date Index > > > RE: RE: Bureaucracy by michael pugliese 05 April 2002 01:04 UTC < < < Thread Index > > > Earl Browder, was ejected from the CPUSA after the publication in a French Communist journal of the, "Duclos Letter, " which accused Browder after the Teheran conference of '44 of being a liquidationist lackey of US imperialism. See the biographies/studies of Browder by James Ryan and Maurice Isserman. The latter has blurbs from Victor Navasky, hardly a Cold war Liberal, so I'd assume, it doesn't carry the virus of anti-Sovietism. Michael Pugliese P.S. George Charney's, Dorothy Healey's, Al Richmond's and Junius Scale's autobiographies as well as '56 reformist John Gate'es memoir are valuable in placing Browderism in the CPUSA in context.--- Original Message --- >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 4/4/02 3:39:30 PM > >I wrote: >>> Applied to the CPUSA, the phrase "democratic centralist" involves an >abuse of the word "democratic."<< cb: >Are you saying that the majority's votes were ignored in some election >of Gus Hall ? Earl Browder ? John Reed ? Henry Winston ? Sam Webb ? on a >provision of the Constitution ? > >> Give me specific examples of where the vote of the majority was not >followed in the CPUSA ? Actually, that was a typo. I meant to write the "CPSU" -- specifically referring to the period of the 1920s and after, since I have limited knowledge of the inner workings of the CPUSA. (That it was a typo makes sense in the context of the larger message: it was followed by the sentence "The elections in the old USSR were a sham, while the members of the CP didn't have real democratic control over the leaders or over the Party Line.") But wasn't Earl Browder -- a long-term leader who was quite popular with the CPUSA's rank and file members -- kicked out of the leadership of the CPUSA for disagreeing with the Party Line handed down by Moscow? gotta go... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > < < < Date Index > > > Progressive Economists Network List Archives at CSF Subscribe to Progressive Economists Network < < < Thread Index > > > >--- Original Message --- >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 4/8/02 8:45:17 AM > >If I reply to one message per day in this thread (as I'm constrained to do), >it will continue until 2010. I haven't even read Miychi's missives yet... JD > >I wrote:>>But wasn't Earl Browder -- a long-term leader who was quite >popular with the CPUSA's rank and file members -- kicked out of the >leadership of the CPUSA for disagreeing with the Party Line handed down by >Moscow? << charles brown writes:>On Browder, I was going to use him as an example of >the ability to remove the very top leader in the CPUSA . He was General >Secretary. < in most historical interpretations, the top leader of the cpusa wasn't the real top leader, since the cpusa was subordinate to the comintern or cominform... (note: i do not believe that the cpusa was simply a "puppet" of the ussr. it had to also keep its own rank and file happy and so reflected their wishes to some extent. when they didn't as with the hitler/stalin pact or the "secret speech" of 1956, they lost members in droves. though the organization involved bureaucracy, it was not purely so, because of the role of the member's "exit" option, and to a lesser extent their votes and statements of opinion.) cb:>There was a letter from a French, not Moscow, Communist , named DeClou >(sp.) criticizing Browder's proposal that the CP become an educational >organization rather than a political party. In general, that was termed >liquidationism, liquidating the party... Most interpret that letter as a statement of the opinion of the leadership of the COMINTERN/FORM. That opinion had a very strong impact, indicating the power of that international, Moscow-centered, organization. JD >
re: Bureaucracy
If I reply to one message per day in this thread (as I'm constrained to do), it will continue until 2010. I haven't even read Miychi's missives yet... JD I wrote:>>But wasn't Earl Browder -- a long-term leader who was quite popular with the CPUSA's rank and file members -- kicked out of the leadership of the CPUSA for disagreeing with the Party Line handed down by Moscow? << Charles Brown writes:>On Browder, I was going to use him as an example of the ability to remove the very top leader in the CPUSA . He was General Secretary. < In most historical interpretations, the top leader of the CPUSA wasn't the real top leader, since the CPUSA was subordinate to the COMINTERN or COMINFORM... (Note: I do not believe that the CPUSA was simply a "puppet" of the USSR. It had to also keep its own rank and file happy and so reflected their wishes to some extent. When they didn't as with the Hitler/Stalin pact or the "secret speech" of 1956, they lost members in droves. Though the organization involved bureaucracy, it was not purely so, because of the role of the member's "exit" option, and to a lesser extent their votes and statements of opinion.) CB:>There was a letter from a French, not Moscow, Communist , named DeClou (sp.) criticizing Browder's proposal that the CP become an educational organization rather than a political party. In general, that was termed liquidationism, liquidating the party...< Most interpret that letter as a statement of the opinion of the leadership of the COMINTERN/FORM. That opinion had a very strong impact, indicating the power of that international, Moscow-centered, organization. JD
Re: RE: Bureaucracy
Jim D. did a good job of describing academia as a medieval guild organization. On the other hand, when it comes to the grant acquiring side of the university, it becomes untra rational -- perhaps even moreso than the other forms of bureaucracy. In short, you have two different mind-sets, although one is quickly gobbling up the other. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bureaucracy
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 "bu
Re: RE: Bureaucracy
- 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 bott
RE: Bureaucracy
keeping this short, since time is short. 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 control
RE: RE: Bureaucracy
Earl Browder, was ejected from the CPUSA after the publication in a French Communist journal of the, "Duclos Letter, " which accused Browder after the Teheran conference of '44 of being a liquidationist lackey of US imperialism. See the biographies/studies of Browder by James Ryan and Maurice Isserman. The latter has blurbs from Victor Navasky, hardly a Cold war Liberal, so I'd assume, it doesn't carry the virus of anti-Sovietism. Michael Pugliese P.S. George Charney's, Dorothy Healey's, Al Richmond's and Junius Scale's autobiographies as well as '56 reformist John Gate'es memoir are valuable in placing Browderism in the CPUSA in context.--- Original Message --- >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 4/4/02 3:39:30 PM > >I wrote: >>> Applied to the CPUSA, the phrase "democratic centralist" involves an >abuse of the word "democratic."<< cb: >Are you saying that the majority's votes were ignored in some election >of Gus Hall ? Earl Browder ? John Reed ? Henry Winston ? Sam Webb ? on a >provision of the Constitution ? > >> Give me specific examples of where the vote of the majority was not >followed in the CPUSA ? Actually, that was a typo. I meant to write the "CPSU" -- specifically referring to the period of the 1920s and after, since I have limited knowledge of the inner workings of the CPUSA. (That it was a typo makes sense in the context of the larger message: it was followed by the sentence "The elections in the old USSR were a sham, while the members of the CP didn't have real democratic control over the leaders or over the Party Line.") But wasn't Earl Browder -- a long-term leader who was quite popular with the CPUSA's rank and file members -- kicked out of the leadership of the CPUSA for disagreeing with the Party Line handed down by Moscow? gotta go... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine >
RE: Bureaucracy
I wrote: >> Applied to the CPUSA, the phrase "democratic centralist" involves an abuse of the word "democratic."<< CB: >Are you saying that the majority's votes were ignored in some election of Gus Hall ? Earl Browder ? John Reed ? Henry Winston ? Sam Webb ? on a provision of the Constitution ? > Give me specific examples of where the vote of the majority was not followed in the CPUSA ? < Actually, that was a typo. I meant to write the "CPSU" -- specifically referring to the period of the 1920s and after, since I have limited knowledge of the inner workings of the CPUSA. (That it was a typo makes sense in the context of the larger message: it was followed by the sentence "The elections in the old USSR were a sham, while the members of the CP didn't have real democratic control over the leaders or over the Party Line.") But wasn't Earl Browder -- a long-term leader who was quite popular with the CPUSA's rank and file members -- kicked out of the leadership of the CPUSA for disagreeing with the Party Line handed down by Moscow? gotta go... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Bureaucracy
oops. I didn't mean to send this one. Ignore it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:14 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [PEN-L:24657] RE: Bureaucracy > > > 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). > > 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. > > 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:>>>...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 bu
RE: Bureaucracy
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). 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. 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:>>>...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. 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 wher
RE: RE: RE: Bureaucracy
Michael Pugliese writes:>Whoa there Jim, you're sounding like Max Shactman in, "The Bureaucratic Revolution, " published 1962, the yr. after the Bay of Pigs invasion 'ol Max S. supported because trade unionists were part of the invasion force. ...< no, I consider Schachtman's work to be worthless (though interesting from an historical perspective). He never applied his anti-bureaucratic ideas to the AFL-CIO (which his followers ended up working for, actually for the foreign-policy right wing of that organization) or to political parties (and his followers set up a "Leninist" style party -- which eventually turned into the "Social Democrats, USA" -- to push his pro-US Cold War laborism) or to capitalist corporations. Max S. got swept away in the U.S. anti-communism of the 1940s and 1950s and converted the idea of opposing both super-powers (both capitalism and bureaucracy) into siding with capitalism and its bureaucracies (including the CIA, it seems). This "turn" paid off, in the sense that his followers had the ear of George Meany or his minions. They may have pushed U.S. foreign policy to the right. I prefer Hal Draper's work, though he had some obvious limitations (as do many of his followers). These include any serious consideration of the "third world" viewpoint, dependency theory, etc. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: michael pugliese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24644] RE: RE: Bureaucracy > > > > Jim>...Under the Soviet system, the ruling stratum was bureaucratic: > 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... > >Whoa there Jim, you're sounding like Max Shactman in, "The > Bureaucratic Revolution, " published 1962, the yr. after the > Bay of Pigs invasion 'ol Max S. supported because trade unionists > were part of the invasion force. > These Revisionist Tendencies Of Yours Must Be Held In Check Or > Is That Cheka? > Comrade Karl Kautsky aka Pugliese > > The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin > ... If we apply to Kautsky and Lenin the opposite treatment to > that which they subjected > Marx to, if we link their ideas to the class struggle instead > of ... > http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/barrotk.htm > > >--- Original Message --- > >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED] '" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 4/3/02 8:23:04 PM > > > > >CB:>Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? > ... < > > 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. 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. > > weber & marx have different theories of bureaucracy. weber was > pro-bureaucracy, 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?) > > draper quotes marx again and again as being anti-bureaucracy > (and in favor > of democracy, as with the paris commune) or at least as having > a more > realistic vision of bureaucracy than weber. > > >...When a "giant bureaucracy" is mentioned, I get this picture > of an > >enormous collec
RE: RE: RE: Bureaucracy
Vikash writes:>Weber was not "pro-bureaucracy" as Jim states. This is a poor > reading of Weber. After all, Weber is the man who cites Goethe at the > end of the Iron Cage passage in Protestant Ethic to the effect, > "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity > imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before > achieved." Was Weber impressed by bureaucratic and hierocratic forms > of social organization? Yes. Was Weber "pro-bureaucracy"? Hardly - > he was horrified by all forms of social (and economic) organization > that were dehumanizing.< you are accurate. I was writing in short-hand. However, would you agree that Weber saw bureaucracy as inevitable (along the later-developed "iron law of oligarchy")? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Vikash Yadav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24642] RE: RE: Bureaucracy > > > 1. Why is Weber constantly contrasted to Marx? The whole discussion > of bureaucracy in Weber is an extension of Marx to the degree that the > evolution of bureaucracy reflects a gradual transfer of the "means of > administration" from the individual to the state. Much of Weber's > writing should be seen as a response and an extension of the > reductionist aspects of Marx. > > 2. Weber was not "pro-bureaucracy" as Jim states. This is a poor > reading of Weber. After all, Weber is the man who cites Goethe at the > end of the Iron Cage passage in Protestant Ethic to the effect, > "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity > imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before > achieved." Was Weber impressed by bureaucratic and hierocratic forms > of social organization? Yes. Was Weber "pro-bureaucracy"? Hardly - > he was horrified by all forms of social (and economic) organization > that were dehumanizing. > > Vikash Yadav >
Re: RE: Bureaucracy
"Devine, James" wrote: > > CB:>Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? ... < > > The Pharoah couldn't rule > ancient Egypt without relying on the bureaucracy, so the latter got a lot of > the power. Historical footnote. Probably in Egypt the bureaucracy (priestcraft) _was_ the power. It's been years (decades) since I read Leslie White (and I'm not sure now if I've got his first name correct -- he was a Univ. of Michigan anthropologist), but I believe he argued that Akhnaton's (sp?) attempt to impose a monotheistic religion on Egypt represented an attempt to throw off the power of the priesthood and make the Pharaoh the ruler rather than the servant. He died young (or was murdered by the priests) and the bureaucracy reasserted its power. No one should depend on this post as a source of solid information. It's too dim in my memory. Carrol
RE: RE: Bureaucracy
Jim>...Under the Soviet system, the ruling stratum was bureaucratic: 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... Whoa there Jim, you're sounding like Max Shactman in, "The Bureaucratic Revolution, " published 1962, the yr. after the Bay of Pigs invasion 'ol Max S. supported because trade unionists were part of the invasion force. These Revisionist Tendencies Of Yours Must Be Held In Check Or Is That Cheka? Comrade Karl Kautsky aka Pugliese The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin ... If we apply to Kautsky and Lenin the opposite treatment to that which they subjected Marx to, if we link their ideas to the class struggle instead of ... http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/barrotk.htm >--- Original Message --- >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED] '" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 4/3/02 8:23:04 PM > >CB:>Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? ... < 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. 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. weber & marx have different theories of bureaucracy. weber was pro-bureaucracy, 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?) draper quotes marx again and again as being anti-bureaucracy (and in favor of democracy, as with the paris commune) or at least as having a more realistic vision of bureaucracy than weber. >...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.< 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.) 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. in pre-modern china, the bureaucracy was clearly a powerful and self-perpetuating stratum, bringing in only those who could pass the calligraphy test (and the like) to run the show. in pre-revolutionary (and in many ways, pre-capitalist) russia, the upper bureaucrats had noble titles and quite a bit of power, often combining "feudal" power with a piece of state power. under the soviet system, the ruling stratum was bureaucratic: 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 o
RE: Bureaucracy...and Al Szymanski
Jim>...(my late friend al szymanski (sp.?) Nope, you got it right. He was one of the editors of the journal, The Insurgent Sociologist now called Critical Sociology. Another friend, wrote the below. (After another google hit...) Michael Pugliese, the creepy one;-) logical errors of leninist fundamentalism ... in this day and age*!" As did Ted Goertzel, who on Tue, 14 Dec ... Leninist doctrines of the late great Al Szymanski or our own Comrade Berch Berberoglu ... http://www.stile.lut.ac.uk/~gyedb/STILE/Email0002101/m15.html Albert Szymanski: A Personal and Political Memoir by Ted Goertzel Versions of this essay appeared as "Albert Szymanski: A Personal and Political Memoir," Critical Sociology, 15: 139-144 (Fall, 1988) and in my 1992 book Turncoats and True Believers. The 1969 meetings of the American Sociological Association were held in the sterile towers of the San Francisco Hilton. The meetings were particularly incongruous at the climax of the social upheavals of the sixties. While blacks rioted in the streets and students bombed draft boards, the sociologists hid in their dummy variables and multiple dimensions, speculating about the functions of conflict and the need for values to maintain the social equilibrium. Colorless men in business suits read bland papers full of theoretical frippery and statistical fastidiousness. Al Szymanski was an oasis of genuineness in this desert of scholasticism. He dressed casually in faded jeans and a work shirt, with a disheveled mop of dishwater blond hair topping his large round head. He was only a few months older than me, having been born in 1941. At 6'2" and 190 pounds he was the largest of a small group of radicals who stood quietly in the back of a meeting room holding up a sign saying "bull shit" whenever the speaker made a particularly galling remark. The shy grin on his cherubic face revealed his embarrassment with this tactic, which he had agreed to as an experiment in ethnomethodology. Al quickly recruited me into the sociology radical caucus, which gave me a support group of other young professors to replace the political groups I had belonged to as a student. We were committed to direct action and had little patience with the stuffy professionalism of academic sociology. We had missed the deadline to place a resolution condemning American involvement in Vietnam on the agenda for the business meeting. Courtesy resolutions, on occasions such as the death of a colleague, could be introduced at any time, however. Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese leader, had died during the meetings. We felt that he was our colleague and sought to extend the courtesy to him. When our parliamentary maneuver failed we simply marched to the front of the room and held our ceremony anyway. The officials wisely retreated to resume their deliberations in another room, allowing our action to fizzle out gracefully. Al was the son of a Polish-American Rhode Island lobster fisherman who loved to work with his hands and never really understood his son's intellectual and political inclinations. It was his strong- minded, deeply religious, Italian-American mother who nurtured his precociousness, taking him to get his first library card as soon as he became eligible on his sixth birthday. When he first entered school, she told him that "other children could be cruel to another child who was different because of color or how he dressed and if he saw anyone alone or rejected to become a friend to them." Al read Freud and Marx at the University of Rhode Island and tried to shock his mother first with the revelation that he had loved her unconsciously as a child, then with his discovery of Marxism. She professed to be flattered by the first revelation, and did her best to understand the second. She believed he was true to the fundamental values she had taught him, and defended his right to political views she did not share. Al became involved in a group called Students for Democratic Affairs in 1963, writing a letter to the Providence Journal advocating that students be allowed to visit Cuba. He argued that students might return finding that Castro was not as bad as they had been told, or they might return as staunch anti-communists. In any event, they would be better off with first hand knowledge instead of repeating sterile clichés composed by people who had never left the state of Rhode Island. On April 14, 1963 he organized an appearance by Hyman Lumer of the Communist Party on the Rhode Island campus. He thought that the communist system was a "tremendously important ideology in the world today." The Worker quoted him as stating that "if, after eighteen years of being schooled in the American way, two hours of listening to Dr. Lumer could change a student's political views, something would indeed be wrong with our system." Al abandoned physics for sociology as an undergraduate major, and went on to do a doctorate at Columbia University, where
RE: RE: Bureaucracy
1. Why is Weber constantly contrasted to Marx? The whole discussion of bureaucracy in Weber is an extension of Marx to the degree that the evolution of bureaucracy reflects a gradual transfer of the "means of administration" from the individual to the state. Much of Weber's writing should be seen as a response and an extension of the reductionist aspects of Marx. 2. Weber was not "pro-bureaucracy" as Jim states. This is a poor reading of Weber. After all, Weber is the man who cites Goethe at the end of the Iron Cage passage in Protestant Ethic to the effect, "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved." Was Weber impressed by bureaucratic and hierocratic forms of social organization? Yes. Was Weber "pro-bureaucracy"? Hardly - he was horrified by all forms of social (and economic) organization that were dehumanizing. Vikash Yadav
RE: Bureaucracy
CB:>Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? ... < 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. 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. Weber & Marx have different theories of bureaucracy. Weber was pro-bureaucracy, 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?) Draper quotes Marx again and again as being anti-bureaucracy (and in favor of democracy, as with the Paris Commune) or at least as having a more realistic vision of bureaucracy than Weber. >...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.< 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.) 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. In pre-modern China, the bureaucracy was clearly a powerful and self-perpetuating stratum, bringing in only those who could pass the calligraphy test (and the like) to run the show. In pre-revolutionary (and in many ways, pre-capitalist) Russia, the upper bureaucrats had noble titles and quite a bit of power, often combining "feudal" power with a piece of state power. Under the Soviet system, the ruling stratum was bureaucratic: 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. >Perhaps the kernel of truth in this demogogy is the hierarchy in "bureaucracy" . In other words, the bosses of the bureausitters, the "cracy' of the bureaucsitters not the bureausitters en masse. It's the SMALLNESS of the bureacracy at the top that is the problem. We want a big bureaucracy, in the sense of masses people having the power and control over society and their lives.< Yes, it's the top-down nature of the rule -- hierarchy as opposed to democracy -- that's the problem. If bureaucracy were to be held democratically responsible at each level and stage, the bureaucracy can be more an means to an end, one determined democratically. Thus the problem with bureaucracy is ultimately that of forcing it to be subordinate to democracy. Jim Devine
Re: RE: Re: Bureaucracy
- Original Message - From: "michael pugliese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:44 AM Subject: [PEN-L:24624] RE: Re: Bureaucracy > > "To Control or to Smash Bureaucracy: Weber and Lenin on Politics, > " by Erik Olin Wright, Berkeley Journal of Sociology circa '75 > or so. Reprinted (I think ) as a chapter of his, "Class, Cris > and the State, " Verso Books. > Michael Pugliese, g*d knows why I bother posting these cites > here. No one ever goes to the library to read 'em! ;-) == Not true. Ian
RE: Re: Bureaucracy
"To Control or to Smash Bureaucracy: Weber and Lenin on Politics, " by Erik Olin Wright, Berkeley Journal of Sociology circa '75 or so. Reprinted (I think ) as a chapter of his, "Class, Cris and the State, " Verso Books. Michael Pugliese, g*d knows why I bother posting these cites here. No one ever goes to the library to read 'em! ;-) >--- Original Message --- >From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 4/3/02 9:26:49 AM > > > >Charles Brown wrote: >> >> Open Bureaucracy vs Bureacracy behind a Screen of Participatory >> democracy. >> >> Carrol >> >> >> >> CB: Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? "Bureaucracy" is comparable to "middle class" in the damage it has done to the political consciousness of masses of workers and petit bourgeoisie, peasants. > >Mostly correct. After some fiddling I've given up arriving at a precise >formulation of the necessary qualifications. Your further remarks >distinguishing the mass of workers in a bureaucracy from the ruling >elemtn is wholly correct. I've argued with students in the past about >one aspect of this distinction: the "face" of the Administration >(bureaucracy) are the clerks and secretaries and lower-level "working >supervisors," and hence just as Russian peasants looked to the Czar to >correct the local tyranny of minor officials or gentry, so students >would look to the Deans etc. to correct the tyranny or obstructionism >which they would blame on the grossly underpaid clerks they dealt with. >Same thing happens in the resentment people will quite naturally feel >(but misdirect) when they are dealing with the desk personnel in an >Emergency Room. > >[Digression: As to the last, when I was going through that series of >destructive headaches a few years ago, I finally wrote out on a card >answers to all the questions one had to answer at the front desk. It is >really enraging to have to give your social security number or list the >drugs one is allergic to while half dead from a migraine.] > >Carrol > >
Re: Bureaucracy
Charles Brown wrote: > > Open Bureaucracy vs Bureacracy behind a Screen of Participatory > democracy. > > Carrol > > > > CB: Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? "Bureaucracy" is >comparable to "middle class" in the damage it has done to the political consciousness >of masses of workers and petit bourgeoisie, peasants. Mostly correct. After some fiddling I've given up arriving at a precise formulation of the necessary qualifications. Your further remarks distinguishing the mass of workers in a bureaucracy from the ruling elemtn is wholly correct. I've argued with students in the past about one aspect of this distinction: the "face" of the Administration (bureaucracy) are the clerks and secretaries and lower-level "working supervisors," and hence just as Russian peasants looked to the Czar to correct the local tyranny of minor officials or gentry, so students would look to the Deans etc. to correct the tyranny or obstructionism which they would blame on the grossly underpaid clerks they dealt with. Same thing happens in the resentment people will quite naturally feel (but misdirect) when they are dealing with the desk personnel in an Emergency Room. [Digression: As to the last, when I was going through that series of destructive headaches a few years ago, I finally wrote out on a card answers to all the questions one had to answer at the front desk. It is really enraging to have to give your social security number or list the drugs one is allergic to while half dead from a migraine.] Carrol
[PEN-L:28] re: bureaucracy
Bill Briggs writes: >>I believe [one of ] the law of thermodynamics applies to bureauracies: "all things tend to decay." One of the reasons why this is so is that we all crave security: for ourselves, our family; friends; etc. << I think that this is big step forward past the Max Weber vision of bureaucracy as a rational (efficient) form of human organization. (It's probably also way above Tullock. I haven't read his book on bureaucracy, but based on my reading of his previous work, I would guess that he would stress the opposite of Weber's view (stressing bureaucratic inefficiency) while focusing entirely on government bureaucracies and forgetting the similar corporate bureaucracies.) A complete theory of bureaucracy would probably see the b. as involving a constant and dynamic political conflict based on (1) the leader's efforts to make the b. fit Weber's ideal; (2) the efforts of the people at the bottom of the hierarchy to resist the goals of the leader; and (3) horizontal conflicts on each level of the b. as each individual and/or group strives to build little empires w/in the b at the expense of others (as in Bill's comment). (Whether or not this is efficient depends on one's goal.) I'll have to sit down and read my friend Neil Garsten's recent anthology of different theories of bureaucracy. >>This is why USA's divisible sovernty works so well -- the bureaurats are each level are chopped off at the head and replaced via elections. ... This is why "the free market place" is so important -- without this discipline, we would all just take the security for those we love and care for and to hell with 'running a tight ship'.<< I'm all in favor of democracy and the replacement of bureaucratic leaders, but the divisible sovereignty also seems to push the US government to promote the short-term goals of business, since the government b. lacks a lot of autonomy. A more autonomous b. can often do the job better (or at least it seems to in W. Europe). But maybe the more efficient bureaucracies in Europe resulted from the development of social-democratic parties (see below). I wouldn't emphasize the "free market" as a disciplinary device for bureaucracies. It is also a source of corruption. Markets serve those with the $$. In the end, the only valid disciplinary device for bureaucracies is popular sovereignty, democracy. >>Government agencies [such as the post office] substitute congressional oversight and citizen comploaints for the "free market place" discipline. Each citizen fells perfectly free to call whenever their mail is late, to call their congressperson, to call their senator, to call their newspaper--well, you get the idea. But this concept suggests a natural restrant to the size of gov't [or at least effective gov't]. If gov't becomes too large, then the complaint process breaks down --ineffieciences / waste occur.<< I think that the size of the government is secondary to its structure and the political environment. On the first, can't the government be decentralized? On the second, the government does a better job (in my humble opinion), even under capitalism, when there exists a mass social-democratic or labor party which constantly keeps an eye on the bureaucrats. This works best when the social-democratic party is itself subject to democratic control. >>Obviously, non-profit organizations have *no* complaint process. That is why they decay into nothingness [AFL-CIO & NAACP come to mind.]. No force on earth can reenergize those organizations.<< It should be remembered that the capitalists pushed hard to make the AFL-CIO into the kind of organization it is. They wouldn't put up with more democratic organizations (including much of the CIO). Very early, they were willing to cultivate the AFL. The mere resistance by capitalists to unionization creates an environment where "military-style" hierarchies are seen (usually by would-be bureaucrats) as needed to beat the capitalists. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:20] re: bureaucracy
Well, yes,...I *am * quite familar with the workings of bureaucracies. [smile] --both postal and union. I believe the physics rule of thermodynamics [or one of them] I view democracy as revitalizing government bureaucracy. Nat. Ass. of Letter CarriersBill Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] unionists subscribe publabor at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
