Die Neue Zeit
9th March 2008, 22:47
One of the criticisms levelled at bourgeois parliamentarism is that parliaments are talking shops. That is valid, indeed.
On the other hand, since I read a lot more than just Moshe Lewin's material on the nature of the Soviet "no-Party state" (the "one-party rule" being a facade for the bureaucracy), I have to ask this: if the soviets themselves get more involved in the "affairs of state," wouldn't they become bureaucratized to a certain extent, or is that the way it's supposed to be (bureaucratize the soviets and not the party apparatus)?
In the original Soviet constitution, Article 36 stated that "The members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in the various departments (People's Commissariats) or execute special orders of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee."
Later on, the instruments of soviet power were sidelined by Stalin and his successors, replaced by the party apparatus. An example of this lies in the 23 or so Brezhnev-era departments of the CPSU Central Committee directed by the CC Secretariat:
Agricultural Machine-Building
Agriculture
Chemical Industry
Construction
Defense Industry
Heavy Industry
Light and Food Industry
Machine Building
Planning and Finance Organs (probably headed by a lesser figure than the head of Gosplan)
Trade and Domestic Services
Transport and Communications
Culture
Agitprop/Propaganda/Ideology
Science and Educational Institutions
International Information
International
Liaison with Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries
Cadres Abroad (foreign travel)
Administration of Affairs (party official residences, CC library, Publishing House)
General (secret communications and general affairs)
Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Navy (dual CC department and organization within the Ministry of Defense, but the head of this department, having to report to a CC Secretary, wasn't as powerful as someone like the Minister of Defense)
Administrative Organs (internal security, courts, etc. but the head of this department, having to report to a CC Secretary, wasn't as powerful as someone like the head of the KGB)
Organizational-Party Work
Source: The Soviet Polity in the Modern Era (http://books.google.ca/books?id=63_obglArrMC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22central+party+apparatus%22+%22planning+and+f inance%22&source=web&ots=6j2SLLeXGd&sig=GOYu6zivSP63p7V1j17HZcDoHU4&hl=en)
"While the actual operation of industries and economic enterprises falls within the jurisdiction of the ministries, the central party apparatus exercises important functions in regard to information gathering and processing, control and supervision. In addition, the central party apparatus enjoys the all-important power of appointment (nomenklatura)."
Judging by the statement above, these Central Committee departments were more powerful than even the United States House Committee on Ways and Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means) (in charge of taxation).
On the other hand, "higher bureaucracy" (in that there are political considerations compared to work in the ministries) is implicit in their functions. A lot of the criticisms levelled at the merger between the party and state apparata (the latter referring to administration, not legislation) centers around the bureaucracy question.
On the other hand, since I read a lot more than just Moshe Lewin's material on the nature of the Soviet "no-Party state" (the "one-party rule" being a facade for the bureaucracy), I have to ask this: if the soviets themselves get more involved in the "affairs of state," wouldn't they become bureaucratized to a certain extent, or is that the way it's supposed to be (bureaucratize the soviets and not the party apparatus)?
In the original Soviet constitution, Article 36 stated that "The members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in the various departments (People's Commissariats) or execute special orders of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee."
Later on, the instruments of soviet power were sidelined by Stalin and his successors, replaced by the party apparatus. An example of this lies in the 23 or so Brezhnev-era departments of the CPSU Central Committee directed by the CC Secretariat:
Agricultural Machine-Building
Agriculture
Chemical Industry
Construction
Defense Industry
Heavy Industry
Light and Food Industry
Machine Building
Planning and Finance Organs (probably headed by a lesser figure than the head of Gosplan)
Trade and Domestic Services
Transport and Communications
Culture
Agitprop/Propaganda/Ideology
Science and Educational Institutions
International Information
International
Liaison with Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries
Cadres Abroad (foreign travel)
Administration of Affairs (party official residences, CC library, Publishing House)
General (secret communications and general affairs)
Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Navy (dual CC department and organization within the Ministry of Defense, but the head of this department, having to report to a CC Secretary, wasn't as powerful as someone like the Minister of Defense)
Administrative Organs (internal security, courts, etc. but the head of this department, having to report to a CC Secretary, wasn't as powerful as someone like the head of the KGB)
Organizational-Party Work
Source: The Soviet Polity in the Modern Era (http://books.google.ca/books?id=63_obglArrMC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22central+party+apparatus%22+%22planning+and+f inance%22&source=web&ots=6j2SLLeXGd&sig=GOYu6zivSP63p7V1j17HZcDoHU4&hl=en)
"While the actual operation of industries and economic enterprises falls within the jurisdiction of the ministries, the central party apparatus exercises important functions in regard to information gathering and processing, control and supervision. In addition, the central party apparatus enjoys the all-important power of appointment (nomenklatura)."
Judging by the statement above, these Central Committee departments were more powerful than even the United States House Committee on Ways and Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means) (in charge of taxation).
On the other hand, "higher bureaucracy" (in that there are political considerations compared to work in the ministries) is implicit in their functions. A lot of the criticisms levelled at the merger between the party and state apparata (the latter referring to administration, not legislation) centers around the bureaucracy question.