WHat is is Bureaucracy

[EvilRedGuy]

Honestly i don't know but i have heard this many times. :confused:

[Dave B]

Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Karl Marx, 1843





The bureaucracy is the imaginary state alongside the real state; it is the spiritualism of the state. As a result everything has a double meaning, one real and one bureaucratic, just as knowledge is double, one real and one bureaucratic (and the same with the will). A real thing, however, is treated according to its bureaucratic essence, according to its otherworldly, spiritual essence. The bureaucracy has the being of the state, the spiritual being of society, in its possession; it is its private property. The general spirit of the bureaucracy is the secret, the mystery, preserved inwardly by means of the hierarchy and externally as a closed corporation. To make public -the mind and the disposition of the state appears therefore to the bureaucracy as a betrayal of its mystery. Accordingly authority is the principle of its knowledge and being, and the deification of authority is its mentality. But at the very heart of the bureaucracy this spiritualism turns into a crass materialism, the materialism of passive obedience, of trust in authority, the mechanism of an ossified and formalistic behaviour, of fixed principles, conceptions, and traditions. As far as the individual bureaucrat is concerned, the end of the state becomes his private end: a pursuit of higher posts, the building of a career. In the first place, he considers real life to be purely material, for the spirit of this life has its separate existence in the bureaucracy. Thus the bureaucrat must make life as materialistic as possible. Secondly, real life is material for the bureaucrat, i.e . in so far as it becomes an object of bureaucratic action, because his spirit is prescribed for him, his end lies outside of him, his existence is the existence of the bureau. The state, then, exists only as various bureau-minds whose connection consists of subordination and dumb obedience. Real knowledge appears to be devoid of content just as real life appears to be dead, for this imaginary knowledge and life pass for what is real and essential.

Thus the bureaucrat must use the real state Jesuitically, no matter whether this Jesuitism be conscious or unconscious. But given that his antithesis is knowledge, it is inevitable that he likewise attain to self-consciousness and, at that moment, deliberate Jesuitism. While the bureaucracy is on one hand this crass materialism, it manifests its crass spiritualism in its will to do everything, i.e., in its making the will the causa prima, for it is pure active existence which receives its content from without; thus it can manifest its existence only through forming and restricting this content. The bureaucrat has the world as a mere object of his action.



there you go, as clear as mud.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch03.htm

[blackwave]

Or in simple, unbiased terms, as found in the dictionary:

1. government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials.

2. the body of officials and administrators, esp. of a government or government department.

[AK]

I use the following definition I found once:
a rigid hierarchy within an administration.

Or something along those lines.

[ckaihatsu]

there you go, as clear as mud.


Why the dismissiveness?

The analysis is saying that the institution of bureaucracy has to collectively animate its own will to existence and forward motion. Since it necessarily has to fall within the umbrella of the bourgeois state, the overarching national policy substitutes quite readily for the single-minded forward motion of a singular fictional supernatural deity -- bureaucrats within this umbrella must sacrifice individuality and free-thought for the sake of the organizational cohesion of the bureaucratic entity, even if one's own personal credo is thus replaced by careerism, materialistic acquisition, quasi-mystical reverie, or any other preoccupation that prevents distraction from the organizational unit.

In short, group-think for the sake of the state.

[¿Que?]

The sociologist Max Weber, who wrote a lot about bureaucracy believed that they were the instruments of rationalization of society. In this sense, the word rationalization is treated without value judgment, it is neither an absolutely good or bad thing, however, Weber did believe that society was progressing towards more rationalization which ultimately, he did not think was good. Rationalization is basically the process by which social relations are determined through calculation and efficiency, as opposed to by value laden judgments (emotion, religion, morality/ethics, etc). Thus, a bureaucracy is government by particular ends, and these ends are achieved more or less in a mechanistic way.

In some ways, bureaucracies are beneficial. For example, we can deduce that bureaucratic institutions will show less bias (racial, gender, orientation etc) than less bureaucratic ones, provided that part of the institution's regulations accounts for general disparities. The reasoning is that strict enforcement of anti-discrimination rules will reduce bias, and this will occur in a highly bureaucratized context more often than a less bureaucratized one.

The flip side is that emotion, ethics and things like that don't get factored in. So someone in a highly bureaucratic organization might make a passing reference to a sexist hiphop song, and find themselves fired or kicked out or whatever, on account of the strict enforcement of anti-sexism regulation.

So, a bureaucracy basically codifies and formalizes behavior for the purpose efficiency. In theory, bureaucracies are most efficient when members strictcly adhere to regulations and don't do a lot of questioning of procedures and such.

[ckaihatsu]

By the same reasoning -- "rationalization" -- an *imperialist* state can be seen to *also* be beneficial, in that it provides standard infrastructure and public services over its own, domestic, lands, and also over those lands it overtakes and incorporates into its empire.

But, of course, with both bureaucratization and imperialism, we have to ask if the people themselves, particularly the proletariat, have had any real say-so over the shaping of the world in which they have to live. A perfect technological utopia could be handed down to us from the imperial rulers but, while certainly livable, to many it would just seem like a glorified play-pen for adults.

(Also, "efficiency" begs the question of civilization -- "efficiency" towards *what*, exactly?)

[¿Que?]

By the same reasoning -- "rationalization" -- an *imperialist* state can be seen to *also* be beneficial, in that it provides standard infrastructure and public services over its own, domestic, lands, and also over those lands it overtakes and incorporates into its empire.
Is this not the case? Do we have to make all judgments absolute. I mean, even Marx admitted that capitalism was an improvement over feudalism...

But, of course, with both bureaucratization and imperialism, we have to ask if the people themselves, particularly the proletariat, have had any real say-so over the shaping of the world in which they have to live.
I agree. Although I don't know if a democratic bureaucracy is absolutely impossible. Maybe you can enlighten me.

A perfect technological utopia could be handed down to us from the imperial rulers but, while certainly livable, to many it would just seem like a glorified play-pen for adults.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Isn't the proletariat also adults? Or are you talking about environmental effects? :confused:

(Also, "efficiency" begs the question of civilization -- "efficiency" towards *what*, exactly?)
Bureaucracies always have a purpose or goal. They are thus efficient at carrying out those goals. In this sense, I am talking in terms of Weber's concept of ideal types. There can be mismanaged bureaucracies that are inefficient or whatnot, but in the abstract, a bureaucracy that is inefficient is not really behaving bureaucratically.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't know if a democratic bureaucracy is absolutely impossible. Maybe you can enlighten me.


We agree that a bureaucracy is *only* an instrument. This, then, leads to the larger question of who, or what, is *controlling* that instrument. You're asking about a 'democratic' bureaucracy, indicating that the policy, or ends, of the bureaucracy would be determined in a collective way, from the aggregated will of a population of some sort.

What remains, then, is the *material basis* of this population that is engaging in democracy of some sort. Are they propertied? Do they derive their income mostly from interest? From profits? Or perhaps from rents? How, exactly, do they raise the funding with which to support the bureaucracy that responds so unerringly to their democratic decisions?

Since this is a revolutionary leftist forum I'll remind you that the working class itself has *no need* for any kind of external agency, as from a bureaucracy. Either the workers must sell their labor at an automatic loss of its actual value, in return for wages, or else they have displaced the capitalist class and do *not* have to go through any kind of ownership counter-party in order to work and receive the means of their life and livelihood.

If the working class has displaced the capitalist class then the kind of democracy that they could use would be on the basis of their own collective labor power, directly for controlling the implements of mass production. Again, in such a case they would have no objective need for an external bureaucracy since the form of their collective control would be indistinguishable from their actual labor for production.





A perfect technological utopia could be handed down to us from the imperial rulers but, while certainly livable, to many it would just seem like a glorified play-pen for adults.





I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Isn't the proletariat also adults? Or are you talking about environmental effects? :confused:


You may want to ask a more specific question here. I'm not sure what part you're unclear on. Yes, the proletariat is, by bourgeois norms, of adult age. No, I am not talking about environmental effects.





(Also, "efficiency" begs the question of civilization -- "efficiency" towards *what*, exactly?)





Bureaucracies always have a purpose or goal. They are thus efficient at carrying out those goals. In this sense, I am talking in terms of Weber's concept of ideal types. There can be mismanaged bureaucracies that are inefficient or whatnot, but in the abstract, a bureaucracy that is inefficient is not really behaving bureaucratically.




Thus, a bureaucracy is government by particular ends, and these ends are achieved more or less in a mechanistic way.


In terms of means-and-ends the term 'goal' can be quite vague -- if it is based on a series of *abstract* sub-goals then those ends are open to interpretation which would ultimately have to be decided by the head authority -- the state.

[¿Que?]

We agree that a bureaucracy is *only* an instrument. This, then, leads to the larger question of who, or what, is *controlling* that instrument. You're asking about a 'democratic' bureaucracy, indicating that the policy, or ends, of the bureaucracy would be determined in a collective way, from the aggregated will of a population of some sort.

What remains, then, is the *material basis* of this population that is engaging in democracy of some sort. Are they propertied? Do they derive their income mostly from interest? From profits? Or perhaps from rents? How, exactly, do they raise the funding with which to support the bureaucracy that responds so unerringly to their democratic decisions?

Since this is a revolutionary leftist forum I'll remind you that the working class itself has *no need* for any kind of external agency, as from a bureaucracy. Either the workers must sell their labor at an automatic loss of its actual value, in return for wages, or else they have displaced the capitalist class and do *not* have to go through any kind of ownership counter-party in order to work and receive the means of their life and livelihood.

If the working class has displaced the capitalist class then the kind of democracy that they could use would be on the basis of their own collective labor power, directly for controlling the implements of mass production. Again, in such a case they would have no objective need for an external bureaucracy since the form of their collective control would be indistinguishable from their actual labor for production.

Yes, but this does not occur overnight. Once the state (and its bureaucracies) have been dismantled, it must be rebuilt to serve the interests of the proletariat, mostly by suppressing reactionary elements. I don't know if this new state which serves proletarian interests will be bureaucratic or not, either way, it will eventually "wither away."

A perfect technological utopia could be handed down to us from the imperial rulers but, while certainly livable, to many it would just seem like a glorified play-pen for adults.

You may want to ask a more specific question here. I'm not sure what part you're unclear on. Yes, the proletariat is, by bourgeois norms, of adult age. No, I am not talking about environmental effects.
I don't know what you're getting at with "to many it would just seem like a glorified play-pen for adults."

In terms of means-and-ends the term 'goal' can be quite vague -- if it is based on a series of *abstract* sub-goals then those ends are open to interpretation which would ultimately have to be decided by the head authority -- the state.
My quote should have read "Thus, a bureaucracy is governed by particular ends, and these ends are achieved more or less in a mechanistic way. " Sorry for the confusion, it was a typo.

We both agree that bureaucracies are instruments, and instruments have specific purposes (goals, ends). The purpose of a hammer is to drive a nail into the wood. Sure there are immediate goals, long term and short term targets, etc. The hammer will drive a nail through the wood for the purpose of attaching it to another piece of wood, which will eventually form a part of a house, which people will live in...

Since we are speaking in the abstract, then I don't believe that there's anything vague about using the word goal in the way I did. It's a goal in the abstract, it can operate at any level described above. If we speak in the concrete sense, then yes, it would be vague to talk about bureaucratic goals, since the immediate purpose it was created for may serve larger goals, for example the IRS whose immediate goal is to collect taxes, but whose broader goals would be to fund imperialism.

In fact, it would be very difficult to define what a bureaucracy is if we were to talk only in concrete terms, because there is enough variation in actual, real life bureaucracies that no generalization would apply to each and every case.

Consider that an actual state (not abstract) could define abstract goals. These however, would not be abstract in the sense that I'm using the word, but concrete goals based on abstract concepts, such as more liberty, more freedom, more equality etc. It could not define a goal in the abstract any more than it could define its goal as the concept of "goal." Ultimately, abstract concepts are social constructions determined by empirical facts but also in constant tension with them, or in other words, never quite fully representative of empirical reality in its totality.

[Aurora]

I think MIA does a good job of explaining bureaucracy it also includes Trotsky's view of the bureaucratisation of the workers state


Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is the social layer of people who administer an organisation, and by virtue of their social position have social interests distinct from that of the organisation that they administer and the people the organisation represents.

The word was first used in reference to the British colonial adminstration in Ireland, but the concept of bureaucracy is particularly important in the context of workers’ organisations. Being a leader or organiser, an elected or professional official in a workers’ organisation, be that a trade union or state apparatus, brings a person into frequent contact with the class enemy under quite different conditions from those they represent, and their living conditions are also quite different. Their role in the labour process is very different from the worker. These conditions engender in the bureaucrat a powerful tendency towards class compromise as well as a theoretical rather than practical attitude to the world.

Marx first tackled the issue of bureaucracy in his criticism of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:

“In actuality, the bureaucracy as civil society of the state is opposed to the state of civil society, the Corporations [i.e. unions and professional and regulatory associations].” [Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]

This idea of the independent social interests of the capitalist state bureaucracy and the managers in large capitalist organisations have been the subject of countless theories. Recognition of the fact that the capitalist bureaucracy has its own interests apart from those of capital, is an important tactical consideration, but can never be a strategic consideration, because in the end, the more fundamental relations of bourgeois society will always prevail over sectional interests. Nevertheless, the union negotiator or guerilla commander would be ill-advised to ignore the opening provided by the particular interests of the capitalist bureaucracy.

Even before the repeal of the Combination Acts in England in 1824, trade unionists had to contend with union officials running off with the funds. By the time trade unions had become powerful national organisations in the late nineteenth century bureaucratism had become a significant problem. As the social-democratic parties began to be able to elect members of parliament and even make governments (the first being in the colonial government of Queensland), the bureaucracy had developed into a distinctly “respectable” layer of citizenry, often drawn from the skilled trades, aspiring to acceptance in “society”.

The principle characteristics of bureaucracy in the union movement is the denial of workers’ democracy, the development of a hierarchical division of labour and professionalisation, the subordination of union struggle to the needs of the parliamentary wing, the substitution of a ‘service model’ of unionism in place of workers self-organisation and the transformation of unions into capitalist enterprises selling services to clients.

On the basis of this bureaucracy in the trade union movement and the socialist political parties which rest on it, there developed the political current of reformism, advocating class compromise and the improvement of the working class by means of gradual reforms legislated through parliament.

A critical point in the build-up of bureaucracy in the Second International came with the First World War. The failure of the parties of the International to take a consistently proletarian class position against the war (“revolutionary defeatism”), buckling into patriotic war-fever, caused Lenin to break from the International and call for Russian workers to make revolution not war. This break led to the Russian Revolution, the establishment of the Soviet Union, Russia’s withdrawal from the War, and subsequently the establishment of the Third International.

In the course of the Wars of Intervention, the Bolshevik leaders of the revolution found themselves transformed from leaders of the working class into functionaries and administrators. A new type of workers’ bureaucracy came into existence – the bureaucracy of the workers’ state. The politics of this type of bureaucracy is called Stalinism.

The characteristics of bureaucracy in the workers’ state are suppression of proletarian democracy, the formation of a permanent class of officials with privileges far above those of the working class masses, the substitution of Government for leadership, the encouragement of conformism, passivity and spying in place of openness, activism and tolerance, the development of patriotism and nationalism in place of internationalism and solidarity.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, but this does not occur overnight. Once the state (and its bureaucracies) have been dismantled, it must be rebuilt to serve the interests of the proletariat, mostly by suppressing reactionary elements. I don't know if this new state which serves proletarian interests will be bureaucratic or not, either way, it will eventually "wither away."


There's no need for the "withering away" to occur *slowly*, either -- as you note, the point is to suppress reactionary elements and then get on with collectivized production. "Rebuilding" the state is contradictory to letting it "wither away".





I don't know what you're getting at with "to many it would just seem like a glorified play-pen for adults."


I mean that stewardship occurs for adults as well as children. For children it's understandable, to a certain age, but as adults none of us are any more biologically or cognitively privileged than any other.





In fact, it would be very difficult to define what a bureaucracy is if we were to talk only in concrete terms


No, not at all -- others who have posted to this thread have given proper formal definitions.





Ultimately, abstract concepts are social constructions determined by empirical facts but also in constant tension with them, or in other words, never quite fully representative of empirical reality in its totality.




Consider that an actual state (not abstract) could define abstract goals. These however, would not be abstract in the sense that I'm using the word, but concrete goals based on abstract concepts, such as more liberty, more freedom, more equality etc. It could not define a goal in the abstract any more than it could define its goal as the concept of "goal."


(I reordered these halves of your last paragraph -- I think it makes more sense this way.)

[¿Que?]

There's no need for the "withering away" to occur *slowly*, either -- as you note, the point is to suppress reactionary elements and then get on with collectivized production. "Rebuilding" the state is contradictory to letting it "wither away".
Well, it really depends on who you ask. Marx and Engels basically argued the point in The Civil War in France and again the preface to the 1872 edition of the Communist Manifesto. Later, Lenin elaborated on this concept in State and Revolution.

But I think the argument is simple, really, and it stems from a fundamentally materialist perspective. The State, in essence, political institutions, correspond to the superstructure of society. Changing the form of the State, or even getting rid of it completely, does nothing to change the fundamental nature of social relations. For this to occur, it is necessary to change the base of society, or in other words the economic system. The State is necessary insofar as it is used to this end, however, the texts mentioned make clear that in its current form, that is as a capitalist state not a workers state, this cannot be achieved.

But then again, one cannot create a workers state, willy nilly, in any context and expect communism to develop. This also stems from a materialist perspective. Historical conditions must exist which lend themselves to worker control. For example, there must exist a certain degree of social organization of the means of production.

I mean that stewardship occurs for adults as well as children. For children it's understandable, to a certain age, but as adults none of us are any more biologically or cognitively privileged than any other.
This type of anti-authoritarian argument belies the fact that some mechanisms of social control are reproduced from the bottom up. Racism is one example, although probably not the best, since there is such a thing as institutional racism. Yet at the same time, a lot of racism occurs within the working class itself. In the US, there have been historical moments when the white working class has allied itself with the bourgeoisie to secure better working conditions, and to marginalize immigrant labor. The bourgeoisie benefits from this arrangement, as the white "labor aristocracy" is less prone to strike or agitate against it in order to maintain its privileged position within the working class.

No, not at all -- others who have posted to this thread have given proper formal definitions.
I think you misunderstood the argument. If we were speaking only in concrete terms, that is, if we were referring only to actual, real life bureaucracies, then at best, we could only describe them, not define them. In fact, I don't see how a formal definition is possible without some level of abstraction.

(I reordered these halves of your last paragraph -- I think it makes more sense this way.)
And your reason for doing this was? Whether the analysis goes from concrete to abstract, or conversely abstract to concrete, it really makes no difference to me, or rather, it depends on the context.

[RED DAVE]

A few points, hopefully useful:

(1) The reply by MIA, above, posted by Anarion, is a good statement of the trade union bureaucracy.

(2) We are not dealing with bureaucracy as a transhistorical phenomenon. We are dealing with the state bureaucracies of capitalism in the 21st Century.

(3) This bureaucracy is an instrument of repression of the working class both with regard to content and form.

(4) The content of bureaucracy is the repressive and exploitative relations under capitalism. Under no circumstances will the rules of a bureacracy contravene the "rules" of capitalism and undermine bourgeois class power.

(5) The form of bureaucracy is a repressive apparatus that enforces the "rules" of capitalism, by force if necessary.

(6) While reformist victories can be won under capitalism, none of these victories undermine capitalism as a system. Therefore, any amelioration of bureacracy is a reform victory at best.

(7) The working class must, after the seizure of power, dismantle the state bureacracy as soon as possible. There it is imperative that, during the course of revolution, the workers must construct institutions of power that will take the place of the state and its bureaucracy.

(8) Under no circumstances can the working class depend on the bureaucracy of the capitalist state as an instrument of its own class rule.

(9) The presence of an overwhelming, ongoing and self-pertetuating bureaucracy in the USSR and China was a sure sign that these were not workers states.

(10) As far as we know, the root form of workers governments will be the workers council or soviet.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

---








How the nation's foreclosure system became reliant on the tedious work of a few corporate bureaucrats is still a matter that mortgage lenders are trying to answer.




Spokesmen for Fannie and Freddie confirmed Tuesday after inquiries from The Washington Post that they use Ally, formerly called GMAC, to oversee some mortgages.


Ally Financial legal issue with foreclosures may affect other mortgage companies

By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 22, 2010; 5:37 AM


Some of the nation's largest mortgage companies used a single document processor who said he signed off on foreclosures without having read the paperwork - an admission that may open the door for homeowners across the country to challenge foreclosure proceedings.

The legal predicament compelled Ally Financial, the nation's fourth-largest home lender, to halt evictions of homeowners in 23 states this week. Now it appears hundreds of other companies, including mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, may also be affected because they use Ally to service their loans.

As head of Ally's foreclosure document processing team, 41-year-old Jeffrey Stephan was required to review cases to make sure the proceedings were legally justified and the information was accurate. He was also required to sign the documents in the presence of a notary.

In a sworn deposition, he testified that he did neither.

The reason may be the sheer volume of the documents he had to hand-sign: 10,000 a month. Stephan had been at that job for five years.

How the nation's foreclosure system became reliant on the tedious work of a few corporate bureaucrats is still a matter that mortgage lenders are trying to answer. While the lenders may have had legitimate cause to foreclose, the mishandling of the paperwork has given homeowners ammunition in their fight against foreclosure and has drawn the attention of state law enforcement officials.

Ally spokesman James Olecki called the problem with the documents "an important but technical defect." He said the papers were "factually accurate" but conceded that "corrective action" may have to be taken in some cases and that others may "require court intervention."

Olecki said the company services loans "from hundreds of different lenders," but he declined to provide names.

Spokesmen for Fannie and Freddie confirmed Tuesday after inquiries from The Washington Post that they use Ally, formerly called GMAC, to oversee some mortgages. The companies have launched internal reviews to assess the scope of any potential issues.


[...]


Christopher Immel, an attorney in Florida who deposed Stephan for a case in Palm Beach County, said he thinks Stephan was not a rogue employee but one that was performing his job responsibilities as the company told him to do.

"GMAC has a business model to do this, and Stephan was just one small part of it," Immel said. "He was under the impression it was okay to do this."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092105872.html

[etjusticepourtous]

The sociologist Max Weber, who wrote a lot about bureaucracy believed that they were the instruments of rationalization of society. In this sense, the word rationalization is treated without value judgment, it is neither an absolutely good or bad thing, however, Weber did believe that society was progressing towards more rationalization which ultimately, he did not think was good. Rationalization is basically the process by which social relations are determined through calculation and efficiency, as opposed to by value laden judgments (emotion, religion, morality/ethics, etc). Thus, a bureaucracy is government by particular ends, and these ends are achieved more or less in a mechanistic way.

In some ways, bureaucracies are beneficial. For example, we can deduce that bureaucratic institutions will show less bias (racial, gender, orientation etc) than less bureaucratic ones, provided that part of the institution's regulations accounts for general disparities. The reasoning is that strict enforcement of anti-discrimination rules will reduce bias, and this will occur in a highly bureaucratized context more often than a less bureaucratized one.

The flip side is that emotion, ethics and things like that don't get factored in. So someone in a highly bureaucratic organization might make a passing reference to a sexist hiphop song, and find themselves fired or kicked out or whatever, on account of the strict enforcement of anti-sexism regulation.

So, a bureaucracy basically codifies and formalizes behavior for the purpose efficiency. In theory, bureaucracies are most efficient when members strictcly adhere to regulations and don't do a lot of questioning of procedures and such.

Totally agree, there is no way to control it if it gets out of hand.

[Apoi_Viitor]

More importantly though, "how do we fight it?"

Building on El Vagoneta's post, I think it's quite obvious that we should take heed of Max Weber's definition of Bureaucracy, which can be summed as follows: "In the great majority of cases [the bureaucrat] is only a small cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism which prescribes to him an essentially fixed route of march. The official is entrusted w. specialized tasks, and normally the mechanism cannot be put into motion or arrested by him, but only from the very top. The individual bureaucrat is, above all, forge to the common interest of all the functionaries in the perpetuation of the apparatus and the persistence of its rationally organized domination" (p.231)

I believe the last sentence proves very problematic to the Marxist notion of the state "withering away".

[ckaihatsu]

The individual bureaucrat is, above all, forge to the common interest of all the functionaries in the perpetuation of the apparatus and the persistence of its rationally organized domination" (p.231)




I believe the last sentence proves very problematic to the Marxist notion of the state "withering away".




More importantly though, "how do we fight it?"


Under normal conditions we know that capitalism is a many-headed hydra -- lopping off one or more of its heads is fruitless because the dynamic of profit-getting will only spur countless others to take its place.

But when capitalism falls into an inevitable crisis -- as is the case currently -- we may see conditions in which the "head" has nowhere *to go*. Consider *any* civilization on its downslope -- an individual who might normally stay with a civil service position (or the like), despite just being an anonymous follower, will finally see that there's nothing more to be gained in such a position. The utility of being in a bureaucracy when an overall raison d'être is lacking means that the cult membership alone won't be worth it anymore.

This dynamic can be illustrated with a more dramatic example -- a military detachment that is too overextended and separated from its main grouping. It may not even be outnumbered, but it *will* be unable to re-connect with its larger mission, or outfit -- any actions it takes on its own will not have any meaning when it is unable to identify itself any longer as part of a greater whole.

I'll state that, at this point in time, the U.S. empire has far outlived its *political* rationale, which had peaked immediately after WWII. And now the past decade has shown us a thorough lack of *economic* rationale since the U.S.'s role as leading financial index -- through its national debt -- has been careening from speculative bubble to speculative bubble, with hardly any firm economic ground (growth) to serve as landings or points of departure.

And all of *this* segues nicely into the latest news of the disintegration of the world's finance-based political order:


http://wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/pers-o02.shtml

The rising danger of US-China trade war

2 October 2010

[...]

Samuelson should perhaps have entitled his article, “A modest proposal for world war”. The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Act led to a barrage of retaliatory trade tariffs by other countries, a catastrophic slump in world trade, which fell by 40 percent between 1929 and 1933, and the emergence of antagonistic currency blocs. The corollary of trade war was rearmament, and escalating rivalry and conflicts in Asia and Europe that culminated in the eruption of World War II in 1939.

Washington’s demands over the Chinese yuan already find their parallels in the Obama administration’s recent aggressive moves to undermine Chinese influence by consolidating US military alliances with South Korea and Japan in North East Asia, and backing South East Asian nations in their territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. As a declining economic power, American imperialism is recklessly exploiting its residual military might to counter its rivals. The US is already waging two wars—in Iraq and Afghanistan—to secure dominance in the vital resource-rich regions of Central Asia and the Middle East.

The international working class is the only social force that can prevent the plunge toward a catastrophic war. American and Chinese workers must reject the political poison of nationalism and protectionism that subordinates them to the ruling class in each country. They share a common class interest, along with workers internationally, in overturning the exploitative and oppressive profit system, and refashioning the world economy along socialist lines to meet the needs of humanity as a whole, not the profits of a wealthy few. That is the perspective fought for by the international Trotskyist movement—the International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections around the world.

Peter Symonds

[Apoi_Viitor]

I apologize, but can you re-explain your post? I'm kind of lost.


But when capitalism falls into an inevitable crisis -- as is the case currently -- we may see conditions in which the "head" has nowhere *to go*.

Well, do you reject Lenin's theory that Imperialism is the product of capitalism's inevitable crisis? Because, to me, that's how capitalism solves the problem of "having nowhere to go".

[etjusticepourtous]

I apologize, but can you re-explain your post? I'm kind of lost.



Well, do you reject Lenin's theory that Imperialism is the product of capitalism's inevitable crisis? Because, to me, that's how capitalism solves the problem of "having nowhere to go".

Hence Iraq for oil. And I don't think that post has to do anything with bureaucracy.

[ckaihatsu]

I apologize, but can you re-explain your post? I'm kind of lost.


Feel free to ask me specific questions, like you do here -- I'd be glad to clarify.





Well, do you reject Lenin's theory that Imperialism is the product of capitalism's inevitable crisis? Because, to me, that's how capitalism solves the problem of "having nowhere to go".


Yeah, of course capitalism gives rise to imperialism. But my point is, what does *imperialism* give rise to, or where does *imperialism* go when *it* reaches a crisis?

The markets of the world are only finite -- we've had the dramatic increase in the numbers of the world's proletariat in the post-Bretton Woods era, meaning that new sources of surplus value were found to exploit, thus delaying capitalism's inherent trajectory towards crisis, but the influx of surplus value only begged the question of *markets* -- who would be able to *purchase* all of the new products being pumped out by a hyper-exploited working class in China (and India, etc.) when these new workers are not paid enough to cover the profit margin on the very same products they're producing? U.S. debt has answered that question for awhile, but now we're seeing the limitations even of hegemonic debt when the imbalance finally cracks the door open for economic competition -- on the basis of an entirely new currency regime -- from the nouveau riche who's been squeezing their own labor force to produce the goods being sold.





While these conflicts are being fuelled by the immediate global economic situation, they have a deeper historical significance. They are one of the forms of the irresolvable contradiction at the very heart of the capitalist system: that between the global economy and the division of the world into rival nation-states.

Each capitalist nation has its own currency, backed by the power of the state within its own borders. But no currency is in and of itself world money. However in order for the capitalist system to function there must be an internationally-recognised means of payment.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/pers-s22.shtml


I think I already answered your question before you asked it by pointing to the looming threat of a new world war -- if international financial arrangements break down, as has been developing, then there's no more international world order anymore -- it becomes a free-for-all among leading powers, or superpowers, to carve up anew with their *military* might.