in response to my Weber missive, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: >... I think you are certainly correct, Weber's definition does identify some > important aspects of bureaucracy (although it is partly out of date now). >... It was interesting to see how Weber's > concept of bureaucracy was converted into a bureaucratic ideology!
an idealized concept of bureaucracy is a perfect candidate for being a bureaucratic ideology, just as an idealized concept of markets fits the bill as a "free market" ideology. > Point about Weber is that the precise relationship between his theory of > bureaucracy and his theory of power is unclear. In a Marxian interpretation, > the bureaucracy exists as a "specific type" of mediation of conflicts of > interest, i.e. it exists under specific conditions, with a specific purpose, > using specific means. the way I thought of the Marxist theory of bureaucracy is that bureaucracy arises due a pause in a struggle. When the rank-and-file workers are done striking against the company and are exhausted from the struggle, for example, the labor union bureaucracy arises to represent them in relationship to the company. The more the rank and file are dormant, the more the bureaucracy can prevail. (This is from Draper and Brenner.) ... the following seems to be more of a description of hierarchy than bureaucracy, which would be one species of hierarchy. I don't accept Weber's theory in general, but I think it makes sense to distinguish between "traditional" hierarchies and "rationalized" ones. The latter don't have relationships of personal fealty or nepotism as normal: they exist but are seen as pathological, going against civil service rules, etc. On "bureaucratic collectivism," there's an intermediate form between capitalism as most of us know it and BC: under "state capitalism," the state owns a lot of important resources (such as oil in Algeria) but does not control all of the economy, while under BC, the state controls -- and effectively owns -- all of the (nonhuman) means of production. > In Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engels's theory of historical materialism, the > historical origin of bureaucracy is to be found in four sources: religion, > the formation of the state, commerce, and technology. > > Thus, the earliest bureaucracies consisted of castes of religious clergy, > officials and scribes operating various rituals, and armed functionaries > specifically delegated to keep order. In the historical transition from > primitive egalitarian communities to a civil society divided into social > classes and estates, beginning from about 10,000 years ago, authority is > increasingly centralized in, and enforced by a state apparatus existing > separately from society. This state formulates, imposes and enforces laws, > and levies taxes, giving rise to an officialdom enacting these functions. > Thus, the state mediates in conflicts among the people and keeps those > conflicts within acceptable bounds; it also organizes the defense of > territory. Most importantly, the right of ordinary people to carry and use > weapons of force becomes increasingly restricted; in civil society, forcing > other people to do things becomes increasingly the legal right of the state > authorities only. > > But the growth of trade and commerce adds a new, distinctive dimension to > bureaucracy, insofar as it requires the keeping of accounts and the > processing/recording of transactions, as well as the enforcement of legal > rules governing trade. If resources are increasingly distributed by prices > in markets, this requires extensive and complex systems of record-keeping, > management and calculation, conforming to legal standards. Eventually, this > means that the total amount of work involved in commercial administration > outgrows the total amount of work involved in government administration. In > modern capitalist society, private sector bureaucracy is larger than > government bureaucracy, if measured by the number of administrative workers > in the division of labor as a whole. Some corporations nowadays have a > turnover larger than the national income of whole countries, with large > administrations supervising operations. > > A fourth source of bureaucracy Marxists have commented on inheres in the > technologies of mass production, which require many standardized routines > and procedures to be performed. Even if mechanization replaces people with > machinery, people are still necessary to design, control, supervise and > operate the machinery. The technologies chosen may not be the ones that are > best for everybody, but which create incomes for a particular class of > people or maintain their power. This type of bureaucracy is nowadays often > called a technocracy, which owes its power to control over specialized > technical knowledge or control over critical information. > > In Marx's theory, bureaucracy rarely creates new wealth by itself, but > rather controls, co-ordinates and governs the production, distribution and > consumption of wealth. The bureaucracy as a social stratum derives its > income from the appropriation of part of the social surplus product of human > labor. Wealth is appropriated by the bureaucracy by law through fees, taxes, > levies, tributes, licensing etc. > > Bureaucracy is therefore always a cost to society, but this cost may be > accepted insofar as it makes social order possible, and maintains it by > enforcing the rule of law. Nevertheless there are constant conflicts about > this cost, because it has the big effect on the distribution of incomes; all > producers will try to get the maximum return from what they produce, and > minimize administrative costs. Typically, in epochs of strong economic > growth, bureaucracies proliferate; when economic growth declines, a fight > breaks out to cut back bureaucratic costs. > > Whether or not a bureaucracy as a social stratum can become a genuine ruling > class depends greatly on the prevailing property relations and the mode of > production of wealth. In capitalist society, the state typically lacks an > independent economic base, finances many activities on credit, and is > heavily dependent on levying taxes as a source of income. Therefore, its > power is limited by the costs which private owners of the productive assets > will tolerate. If, however, the state owns the means of production itself, > defended by military power, the state bureaucracy can become much more > powerful, and act as a ruling class or power elite. Because in that case, it > directly controls the sources of new wealth, and manages or distributes the > social product. This is the subject of Marxist theories of bureaucratic > collectivism. > > Marx himself however never theorized this possibility in detail, and it has > been the subject of much controversy among Marxists. The core organizational > issue in these disputes concerns the degree to which the administrative > allocation of resources by government authorities and the market allocation > of resources can achieve the social goal of creating a more free, just and > prosperous society. Which decisions should be made by whom, at what level, > so that an optimal allocation of resources results? This is just as much a > moral-political issue as an economic issue. > > Central to the Marxian concept of socialism is the idea of workers' > self-management, which assumes the internalization of a morality and > self-discipline among people that would make bureaucratic supervision and > control redundant, together with a drastic reorganization of the division of > labor in society. Bureaucracies emerge to mediate conflicts of interest on > the basis of laws, but if those conflicts of interest disappear (because > resources are allocated directly in a fair way), bureaucracies would also be > redundant. > > Marx's critics are however skeptical of the feasibility of this kind of > socialism, given the continuing need for administration and the rule of law, > as well as the propensity of people to put their own self-interest before > the communal interest. That is, the argument is that self-interest and the > communal interest might never coincide, or, at any rate, can always diverge > significantly. > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
