Re: [Marxism] How to Bash Bureaucracy

2015-05-30 Thread Shalva Eliava via Marxism
  POSTING RULES  NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly  permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

 The Right, at least, has a critique of bureaucracy, Graeber writes. It’s 
 not a very good one. But at least it exists. The Left has none.

Really? What about Clawson?

http://monthlyreview.org/books/pb5431/

 29 мая 2015 г., в 10:36, Louis Proyect via Marxism 
 marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu написал(а):
 
   POSTING RULES  NOTES  
 #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
 #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly  permanently archived.
 #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
 *
 
 The Chronicle Review
 May 26, 2015
 How to Bash Bureaucracy
 By Evan Kindley
 
 Nowadays, nobody talks much about bureaucracy, writes David Graeber at the 
 outset of his new book, The Utopia of Rules. In the first half of the 20th 
 century, he reminds us, the word was on everyone’s lips. In the wake of the 
 pioneering work of Max Weber, who defined bureaucracy as the consummate form 
 of modern social organization, interest in the phenomenon spiked among 
 sociologists like C. Wright Mills, journalists like William H. Whyte, and 
 novelists like Joseph Heller. Nor has this tradition died out completely: In 
 the last few years, we’ve had books from Ben Kafka on the history of 
 paperwork, Nikil Saval on the office, and David Foster Wallace’s unfinished 
 IRS novel, The Pale King.
 
 Still, Graeber argues that there have been fundamental changes in the way we 
 talk — or don’t talk — about bureaucracy since the 1960s, when radical social 
 movements encouraged rebellions against the bureaucratic mind-set. For the 
 past 40 years or so it has been mainly the libertarian and neoliberal right 
 that have talked about bureaucracy, often as a synonym for big government.
 
 The right-wing critique of bureaucracy, grounded in the thinking of 
 neoliberal economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, was based on 
 a sharp distinction between state administration, held to be slow-moving, 
 sclerotic, and potentially tyrannical, and free-market capitalism, viewed as 
 dynamic, efficient, and fundamentally fair.
 
 In practice, Graeber maintains, this distinction doesn’t really hold up; 
 indeed, as he argued in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House, 2011), 
 markets as we know them today are largely the creation of the state, and 
 bureaucracy has been driven by the needs of business just as much as those of 
 government. Nevertheless, right-wing populists soon realized that, whatever 
 the realities, making a target of bureaucrats was almost always effective, 
 Graeber writes.
 
 At the same time, the anti-authoritarian-­left critique of bureaucracy began 
 to wither away as leftists devoted themselves instead to justifying and 
 reinforcing the institutions of the welfare state. The Right, at least, has 
 a critique of bureaucracy, Graeber writes. It’s not a very good one. But at 
 least it exists. The Left has none.
 
 The Utopia of Rules is Graeber’s attempt to revive a left critique of 
 bureaucracy in our time — an attempt that he, as an anthropologist, 
 anarchist, and politically engaged public intellectual, is uniquely placed to 
 make. Graeber first came to broad public attention with Debt and his 
 simultaneous involvement with Occupy Wall Street.
 
 The Utopia of Rules is a modest volume only in comparison to Debt and its 
 follow-up, The Democracy Project (which sought to find the roots of Occupy in 
 the American Revolution). It is less a treatise than a collection of essays, 
 one that finds room for excursus on topics as diverse as ATM machines, 
 structuralist theory (by means of which he demonstrates that vampires are the 
 opposite of werewolves, and Sherlock Holmes is the opposite of James Bond), 
 the glories of the German post office, and the finer points of Malagasy 
 grammar. By the time you’ve arrived at the book’s appendix — a meditation on 
 Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises entitled Batman and the Problem of 
 Constituent Power — you might begin to wonder whether The Utopia of Rules is 
 really a book about bureaucracy at all.
 
 A better unifying term might have been imagination. For Graeber, 
 bureaucracy essentially means any hierarchical institution governed by 
 fixed rules and regulations. Such arrangements, while useful in certain 
 contexts, are fundamentally hostile to the human values of improvisation, 
 flexibility, and creativity.
 
 The contrast between bureaucracy and imagination is especially stark, Graeber 
 holds, in the case of the modern university. A timid, bureaucratic spirit 
 has come to suffuse every aspect 

[Marxism] How to Bash Bureaucracy

2015-05-29 Thread Louis Proyect via Marxism

  POSTING RULES  NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly  permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The Chronicle Review
May 26, 2015
How to Bash Bureaucracy
By Evan Kindley

Nowadays, nobody talks much about bureaucracy, writes David Graeber at 
the outset of his new book, The Utopia of Rules. In the first half of 
the 20th century, he reminds us, the word was on everyone’s lips. In the 
wake of the pioneering work of Max Weber, who defined bureaucracy as the 
consummate form of modern social organization, interest in the 
phenomenon spiked among sociologists like C. Wright Mills, journalists 
like William H. Whyte, and novelists like Joseph Heller. Nor has this 
tradition died out completely: In the last few years, we’ve had books 
from Ben Kafka on the history of paperwork, Nikil Saval on the office, 
and David Foster Wallace’s unfinished IRS novel, The Pale King.


Still, Graeber argues that there have been fundamental changes in the 
way we talk — or don’t talk — about bureaucracy since the 1960s, when 
radical social movements encouraged rebellions against the bureaucratic 
mind-set. For the past 40 years or so it has been mainly the 
libertarian and neoliberal right that have talked about bureaucracy, 
often as a synonym for big government.


The right-wing critique of bureaucracy, grounded in the thinking of 
neoliberal economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, was 
based on a sharp distinction between state administration, held to be 
slow-moving, sclerotic, and potentially tyrannical, and free-market 
capitalism, viewed as dynamic, efficient, and fundamentally fair.


In practice, Graeber maintains, this distinction doesn’t really hold up; 
indeed, as he argued in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House, 
2011), markets as we know them today are largely the creation of the 
state, and bureaucracy has been driven by the needs of business just as 
much as those of government. Nevertheless, right-wing populists soon 
realized that, whatever the realities, making a target of bureaucrats 
was almost always effective, Graeber writes.


At the same time, the anti-authoritarian-­left critique of bureaucracy 
began to wither away as leftists devoted themselves instead to 
justifying and reinforcing the institutions of the welfare state. The 
Right, at least, has a critique of bureaucracy, Graeber writes. It’s 
not a very good one. But at least it exists. The Left has none.


The Utopia of Rules is Graeber’s attempt to revive a left critique of 
bureaucracy in our time — an attempt that he, as an anthropologist, 
anarchist, and politically engaged public intellectual, is uniquely 
placed to make. Graeber first came to broad public attention with Debt 
and his simultaneous involvement with Occupy Wall Street.


The Utopia of Rules is a modest volume only in comparison to Debt and 
its follow-up, The Democracy Project (which sought to find the roots of 
Occupy in the American Revolution). It is less a treatise than a 
collection of essays, one that finds room for excursus on topics as 
diverse as ATM machines, structuralist theory (by means of which he 
demonstrates that vampires are the opposite of werewolves, and Sherlock 
Holmes is the opposite of James Bond), the glories of the German post 
office, and the finer points of Malagasy grammar. By the time you’ve 
arrived at the book’s appendix — a meditation on Christopher Nolan’s The 
Dark Knight Rises entitled Batman and the Problem of Constituent Power 
— you might begin to wonder whether The Utopia of Rules is really a book 
about bureaucracy at all.


A better unifying term might have been imagination. For Graeber, 
bureaucracy essentially means any hierarchical institution governed by 
fixed rules and regulations. Such arrangements, while useful in certain 
contexts, are fundamentally hostile to the human values of 
improvisation, flexibility, and creativity.


The contrast between bureaucracy and imagination is especially stark, 
Graeber holds, in the case of the modern university. A timid, 
bureaucratic spirit has come to suffuse every aspect of intellectual 
life, he maintains, and he is particularly dismayed at the amount of 
time and energy that present-day academics, who should be inventing 
flying cars and constructing ambitious new social theories, are expected 
to put into administrative matters like evaluations and grant proposals. 
There was a time when academia was society’s refuge for the eccentric, 
brilliant, and impractical, he writes. No longer. It is now the domain 
of professional self-marketers. As for the eccentric, brilliant, and 
impractical: It would seem society now has no place for them at all.


Imagination, for Graeber, doesn’t just mean creative productivity or 
technical innovation; it