Bureaucracy

[SEKT]

Marxist theory is based on the notion that there are only two major classes : Workers and Capitalists (owners of the means of production). What I have seen (and here in Mexico) is that know there is a third major class the bureaucracy. We have the concept that a class is defined principally for its position in the production mode. I argue that bureaucracy is not either capitalist because of the lack of property on the means of production nor workers because they don't work directly in the production, they are in charge of the administration of production even though they are not owners of it.
What I would like to ask you is how the theory has to deal with this class that had helped capitalism to survive?

[apathy maybe]

The bureaucracy wouldn't have a job in a communist system (lots of jobs would disappear, including financial . This doesn't mean that they are for or against "revolution" however.

A longer answer will possibly follow later.

[spice756]

The bureaucracy is not the working class or the capitalists.They are just government officials or administrative people.

I don't know why people hate them.Unless they are corrupted in the way they run things.

[Hyacinth]

Marx never used the term "class" in an overly technical sense, and throughout his writings you will sometimes find him talking only of the working class vs. the capitalist class; at other times of the propertied classes vs. the propertyless classes, and still at other times he made further distinctions within these larger classes by talking of the peasantry, petty-bourgeois, landed aristocracy, and, in The Eighteenth of Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, of the state bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, while they are indeed subservient to the bourgeois, inasmuch as the state under capitalism is the executive committee acting on behalf of the whole bourgeois, do have an interest in maintaining the current state, and even extending the state's power over *both* the bourgeois and the proletariat (this was the scenareo that Marx described as having happened in France under Louis Bonaparte). Given that that the social status of the bureaucracy depends on the current state they might prove to be aversed to overthrowing it, and as such prove reactionary. But I'm not sure this analysis applies to *all* bureaucrats; most civil servants, as they have come to be called, don't really exercise much influence and power, and are in effect workers like any other. The higher up bureaucrats, on the other hand, are more likely to prove reactionary inasmuch as a revolution implies an end to their privliaged social status.

The above analysis did assume that the bureaucracy can act of its own volution, rather than merely being subserviant to the capitalists; while it is certainly possible for the bucreaucracy to at times assert itself against the capitalists, insofar as the bureaucracy remain servants of the bourgeois, and act on their behalf, they are reactionary.

[BobKKKindle$]

The size of the bureaucracy has grown since the emergence of capitalism in the 19th century primarily due to the increasing importance of the state apparatus in supporting the reproduction of capitalism. When capitalism first emerged from the feudal mode of production the role of the state was generally limited to protecting private property and upholding the rule of law, but in the modern epoch the state is now a major producer of services, mainly in the form of social goods such as the provision of health care and education which ensure that the working class is able to function as a source of labor power and is not driven towards revolution due to the overwhelming poverty which would exist in the absence of these services. The state also supports monopoly capital through military action overseas to ensure that the interests of major firms are not threatened by progressive reforms designed to improve the conditions of people suffering under imperialism, as occurred in the case of Iran under the presidency of Mossadeq in 1953, where the nationalization of Iran's oil reserves resulted in armed intervention conducted by the CIA and other secret organizations representing the interests of the major imperialist powers, and the subsequent restoration of the Shah. The contemporary role of the state further extends to "bailing-out" firms which are experiencing major financial problems and facing the threat of bankruptcy (as shown by the recent examples of Freedy Mac and Fannie Mae in the United States) as allowing these firms to close would have serious repercussions for the rest of the economy and lead to the closure of many other firms which are dependent on these banks for their own survival.


Changes in the form and extent of state intervention are related to the issue of the bureaucracy, because as the state expands, there is a greater need for competent individuals who have specialized knowledge (“fachwissen” to use the terminology of Max Weber) and are able to ensure that the different departments and divisions which comprise the state are able to operate smoothly together and efficiently implement the policies of the government.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, Marxism argues that there are only two major classes, but not that there are only two classes. A great part of humanity falls into the somewhat catch-all category of the petty-bourgeois, which classically means small property owners, but which is used interchangeably today by many people with lumpenproletariat (unemployed, criminals) and middle class professionals, and other such groups that don't fall into either category. The bureaucracy is part of the middle class, and I think Lenin argued that they can be won over to the revolution - but their position in society makes them quite indifferent to the problems of the workers at most times.

[Tower of Bebel]

Bureaucracy must be destroyed. One of the lessons from the Paris Commune.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, but not physically. The bureaucrats themselves might be won over to the revolution. I agree that one of the most important aspects of a workers' state is mechanisms that prevent the growth of a bureaucracy.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Bureaucrashit will always be a counterrvolutionary. enough to said!

[reddevil]

in general, i'm against the bureaucracy from a trotskyist perspective. however, it really depends on who the bureaucrats are. when they are given power, it is often abused and used for their own greed fuelled aims like in the ussr and its satellites, the congo, angola, north korea, ethiopia and the prc. however, when one looks at venezuela or cuba, one can see that there are bureaucrats who are genuinely comitted to the welfare of their people. i don't approve of their methods but would not stand in outright opposition to them as long as they were running the country well.

[Yehuda Stern]

when one looks at venezuela or cuba, one can see that there are bureaucrats who are genuinely comitted to the welfare of their people.

Well, I for one can't see it. Care to enlighten me?

[SEKT]

in general, i'm against the bureaucracy from a trotskyist perspective. however, it really depends on who the bureaucrats are. when they are given power, it is often abused and used for their own greed fuelled aims like in the ussr and its satellites, the congo, angola, north korea, ethiopia and the prc. however, when one looks at venezuela or cuba, one can see that there are bureaucrats who are genuinely comitted to the welfare of their people. i don't approve of their methods but would not stand in outright opposition to them as long as they were running the country well.
I would like to argue against this conception the following:
Even though burocrats are part of the society (in this case Venezuela an Cuba as you point out) their interest, their social being is completely opposite to the working class, why? Because for a burocrat and quoting Marx:
The World is nothing but an object of administration.

Burocrats always see people as objects (reification in Marxist terms), they are only part of the calculus, so they are missing that a person is not only a number. When a human is reduced to thing even though you are trying to "help" it will turn in to the opposite because you are trying to administrate them instead of letting them to choose by themselves.

[JazzRemington]

Bureaucracies are inherently counter-revolutionary. A worker's revolution requires initiative and not wanting to put up with waiting for something to be handed down to them, whereas a bureaucracy demands obedience to procedure and waiting for things to happen.