Although the initial assumption is no--because by its very nature, a properly insulated bureaucracy should be able to withstand political assaults on its integrity and attempts to capture its lever-wielding echelons--there have been moments when state bureaucracies "went away".
In 1960s Cuba, the shift to state socialism suddenly multiplied and imbued greater power in public administrators. This led them to begin to function politically like a stratified economic class--acting not as impartial bureaucrats, but in ways that protected their own interests. So no sooner had the bourgeoisie been done away with, but a bureaucratic class formed asserting its special rights.
This bureaucratic class quickly became a political target for politicians operating on behalf of the working class. Castro and Che et al sent bureaucrats into rural areas to cut sugar cane--thereby leveling again the social landscape. This was possible because the bureaucracy was not invulnerably isolated by a notion of legalistic authority; ultimately it answered to Castro's charismatic authority.
Another example of a decimated bureaucracy is found in Venezuela circa 2000. But this time the destroyers of the bureaucracy were the bureaucrats themselves.
In the later half of the 20th century, civil servants were gradually installed in the state bureaucracy due to (and reinforcing of) allegiance to either Acción Democrática or COPEI, the two main political parties in Venezuela's 4th Republic "partidocracia" (limited competition--like in the US).
Once Chavez won power and began to roll out socialist reforms that threatened the higher class position with whcih the bureaucrats identified, they began to opt out of working for the state. This was a political statement--akin to "exit" among Hirschman's three options when facing an uncomfortable situation.
Once Chavez filled the empty bureaucracy with inexperienced loyalists, it took time for efficient administration of the socialistic agenda to come online. There was a lagged learning curve that gave detractors ample opportunity to claim an inefficient squandering of oil wealth.
Now that the bureaucracy is filled with functioning loyalists, we see a similar situation as occurred in Cuba: the formation of a bureaucratic class. In fact, as it becomes a class of its own, the quality of its members' loyalty to the participatory goals of the Bolivarian revolution gets called into question.
It is figured that the Chavez-backed referendum last year failed because of abstention from millions of official party members. These so-called chavistas may have frowned upon the decentralizing measures included in the referendum that would have curtailed the centralized power they held as "state administrators". Now we see warnings that Venezuelan bureaucrats limit their decadence.
The similarities between 1966 Cuba and 2008 Venezuela are striking.
2 comments:
The bureaucracy CANNOT be a class because it does not own the means of
production, nor does it own the position that the members of the bureaucracy
can have within the state apparatus. This is an issue that has been
thoroughly debated in the Marxist literature. Moreover, the bureaucrats
cannot act in concert for the simple reason that different sectors have to
obtain access to the state budget. Thus, the issue is settled in political
terms rather than in economic ones. It is a zero-sum-game, the more budget
you get, the less I have.
There is a large literature on the subject, since about 1914. Among authors
in the left who have written on the subject: Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trostky,
Tony Cliff, Isaac Deustcher, Iring Fetscher, the magazine Critique
(Scotland); the Frankfurt School also got involved with this. The magazine
New Politics (NYC) used to criticize the USSR from a neo-Trostkyist
framework that had a lot in common with Social Democrats on the subject of
bureaucracy. The most thorough examination of this topic comes from Marxists
who identified with Trotsky. Granted, the anarchist movement - by ideology
and framework - had been critical and opposed ALL bureaucracies. The French
anarchists have developed the more sophisticated views on the subject
(Claude Leffort). Samuel Farber, born in Cuba, who teaches Sociology in NYC,
is a Trostkyist who claims that Cuba is run by a state bureaucracy. Of
course, European literature ended up reacting against revolutionary Marxism
by writing numerous works on "the iron law of oligarchy" (Robert Michels).
Max Weber, of course, also wrote on bureaucracy aware of the debate on the
topic going on within Marxism. Spencer also used the argument of
bureaucratization to oppose socialism.
It should be noted that the Cuban revolution - particularly Che, addressed
the political and organizational steps that should be taken. The way it is
supposed to work is:
a) the administration/bureaucracy administers but does NOT decide on overall
strategies, the PCC does.
b) the PCC leads but does not administer
c) the bureaucracy has to follow written rules. The rules are adopted by the
legislature and from there to the Ministries.
d) the labor unions serve as a counter balance to the administration of work
centers
e) mass organizations can exist within the work place, independent of the
PCC, the administration and the labor unions
f) administrators and bureaucrats should be rotated within the enterprise
and among enterprises as well as territorially.
The thinking, in other words, was to set up crisscrossing interests that
could balance one another. This is a phenomenon that very few people have
really studied when looking at Cuba, with the exception of Marta Harnecker.
The "dissidents" as a rule take the road of criticizing the state
bureaucrats from the standpoint of political liberalism. In other words, no
need for bureaucrats to make decisions on their own afterall the invisible
hand will take care of things. It should be noted that in the US literature
on corporations, since 1932 (Adolf Berle's work then) showed that the owners
of the means of production [i.e. capitalists] did not have as much power as
those who administered but did not own the means of production. Moreover the
labor unions were not used by the capitalists to help control the
administrators. Capitalist enterprise decided to pay the administrators huge
amounts if the owners had huge benefits/profits. Thus, capitalist owners
separated ownership from entrepreneurial control.
Schooled, mister!
Post a Comment