It is generally accepted that bureaucracy is a universal evil that has occupied all the power bodies of any modern state with its vast backsides. And that from it all we should not expect anything good. Is this a correct judgment? Or is the bureaucracy just a kind of tool for achieving any goals by different classes of society that, if properly modified, can contribute to the realization of our interests? And maybe bureaucracy as a separate social group is not necessary to us at all and its functions can be performed by each of us alternately, and the society thereby ceases to be divided into “masters” and “executors”?
Bureaucracy as a detachment of the bourgeoisie and workers as representatives of the proletariat, alienated from the obvious performance of organizational functions, are perceived as incompatible and opposing social groups. The term “working bureaucracy” itself arose and was used as a designation of the decomposition of the proletariat’s class structure and the allocation of bourgeois elements in it.
If we look more closely at this subject, it turns out that, under its dictatorship, the bourgeoisie naturally monopolizes state structures, which include both the bureaucracy, the army, the police, the court, science, education, etc. Thus, if we are talking about the state of the proletariat, then actually its synonym will be the proletarian or labor bureaucracy, without any quotes and grins, since only the class that created its own bureaucracy can retain power.
First of all, it is necessary to define terms, since the bourgeoisie has been engaged in this so far, and it tries to avoid any external certainty in the affairs of management. So, what is bureaucracy? We can read that the bureaucracy is a type of government or a group of people who implement it. Criticizing these positions can be long and informative, but all this will be a fight with a fake target. For the bourgeoisie, the creation of false entities is the standard way of protecting their interests in the field of information and is called “freedom of opinion”. In reality, bureaucracy is, of course, not a group of people, but a kind of activity and only secondarily a permanent or temporary group of people, carrying it out. Observing what is called bureaucracy, we can conclude, that this is an activity to bring reality into line with the descriptions. It is easy to see, that this activity is quite common activity, which is carried out by all of us and does not require any permission. But, of course, this is only one side of organized interaction. The other side – reality can not always be brought in accordance with the description, it exists independently of our consciousness, even when we created it. The power of technology over us is also quite real, and that’s why catastrophes occur.
In spite of the fact, that we can read something about the technocracy as incomprehensible as about the bureaucracy, also observing this activity, we can conclude, that the technocracy is bringing the descriptions in line with reality. Whatever we do, we simultaneously carry out a change in our ideas in these opposing directions – bureaucratic and technocratic. First of all, we do this with ourselves as an object of our own labor. For a better understanding: we planned to go somewhere on the bus – it’s a bureaucratic description and action. We come to a stop, and buses do not go for technical reasons, then we find the transport, that goes to the place we need – this is a technocratic operation.
In general, there is nothing in public administration, that would not be used by every person in everyday practice. That is why incomprehensible words are predominantly used to describe the methods of governing the state by the ruling classes.
Bureaucracy is mainly connected with the management of people and for this reason it has huge reserves for idiocy in the field of instructions, since people have the opportunity to compensate this idiocy in practical terms when executing instructions. The phenomenon of the Italian strike – work strictly according to the instructions – perfectly shows that nothing can be managed in bureaucratic way. The Italian strike is the moment, when people directly collide the description with the technique, and it turns out, that the technique, according to the descriptions, can not work at all. In this way they remind the employer, that their mental work is basic and requires payment in the first place. The actual administrative functions of the proletariat will never be recognized by the bourgeoisie, moreover they will always be suppressed, which only shades its organizational superiority. Simultaneously with the bureaucratic function, workers are also performing a technocratic one, because no object or process can be exhaustively described, because both descriptions and objects exist according to completely different laws.
If we are talking about a bourgeois bureaucracy, then its activity, being arbitrarily incompetent or destructive, is reflected not on the bourgeoisie itself, but on the proletariat. Therefore, the bureaucratic-technocratic complex of organizational activities is not reflected in descriptions – in the activity itself, the level of feedback is extremely low.
As for the workers’ state, everything works in the opposite way here. People make decisions about themselves, i.e. there is no division into “superiors” and “executors”. When the administrative bureaucratic groups are separated from the proletariat, they, despite their origin, are, for objective reasons, regenerated into the bourgeoisie. The first reason: they do not carry an objective physiological responsibility and the control of the proletariat for their activities is, firstly, extremely difficult, and, secondly, realized at the subjective level, and not in the case of objective interaction with tools and objects of labor. The second reason: as organizers of the socialist economy, they inevitably enter into various production relations with the organizers of the capitalist economy, and the connection with the proletariat, due to a change in the nature of labor and social ties, is inevitably lost. As a result, the labor process objectively excludes them from the ranks of the proletariat and includes the ranks of the world bourgeoisie. In this case, within the bureaucracy, which has a working origin, there is inevitably a split. At its most distant from the proletariat part, usually this is the highest bureaucracy, it is precisely the bureaucratic treatment that are hypertrophied, while the closer to the proletariat and reality part naturally implements more technocratic treatment. The split in the bureaucracy and the internal confrontation in its midst becomes inevitable, as we are told by the chronicle of mutual political repression in the course of the development and decline of the Soviet Union.
Thus, on the theoretical question of how can be a stable dedicated bureaucracy organized? – we can give an absolutely clear answer – in no way. On the other hand, without this kind of activity, no society can not manage, and with the growth of the organization of society its significance only increases. How to be? The answer to this question was given by the classics of scientific communism: the liberation of the proletariat is the work of the hands of the proletariat itself. If the proletariat takes power into its own hands, it means that it, while retaining its production functions, begins to carry out organizational functions at the same time. Again, as was pointed out by the classics, the development of society inevitably leads to the overcoming of the division of labor. There is a universalization of social functions, based on the universality of human nature. People are not born representatives of certain classes or professional groups.
Also, following the above-mentioned classics, we can judge the direction of development of society by the development of means of production. They are on the same path of development – from cameras, arithmometers, typewriters, flashlights and a huge number of other specialized devices, we have come to universal computers. From highly specialized machines we came to CNC machining centers and 3D printers. So, if earlier the development of society proceeded along the path of specialization, as a result of which the proletariat itself and its tools emerged, now the common vector is changing to universalization.
Capitalism is trying to hold us back in the past by imposing a world of highly specialized professionals. However, he himself is the bearer of this universalization, an example of which can serve as a “revolving door” in the organization of the bourgeois elite, and, for example, personnel policy in the only actual bourgeois force structure of modern Russia – the Ministry of Emergency Situations, where employees are required to simultaneously own at least two professions. The bourgeoisie and other ruling classes very often express the tendencies in society, that they themselves can not realize.
The working bureaucracy can remain working only if bureaucratic, as well as technocratic, functions will be performed by actual and not former workers. For the proletariat, this means that on the agenda there is the next stage of the intensification of production, due to a principled shortening of the working day, the principal reduction of the working year and its division into parts, in aggregate, ensuring the universality of social functions. This is quite consistent with the recreational principle, known, among other things, in the environment. The system can be restored in the event that 1/3 of its resources are involved in the production process, 1/3 remains completely free and 1/3 is influenced by both these zones. This is how the daily schedule is set up, which does not cause uprisings: 8 hours a working day, 8 hours a dream and 8 hours time between them. One third of the year a person can / must devote some very highly qualified, for example, bureaucratic (managerial) work activity, spend one third of the year on vacation and one third of the year on labor leave, performing the most productive work activity compensatory reasons, or is most interesting or carried out in those places that he would like to visit, as well as for other personal reasons. Modern professional specialization, when one and the same organ systems are loaded year-round, while others atrophy from inaction, can cause nothing, except the intensification of occupational diseases, including early dementia among mental workers. In a spontaneous way, the process of overcoming specialization has been going on for a long time – through hobbies, enthusiasm for extreme sports, and gardening. Many are still shy to recognize the existence of a need for hard work, and mask their actions by the need to obtain utilitarian results, but the fundamental physiology of a person takes its own.
Any ruling class carries out its dictatorship, however it is called (democracy, monarchy, republic, etc.), through its own economic units. The feudal organization grows out of the structure of agricultural production. Bourgeois – from factory and bank offices. Various explicit political authorities are only external representation of economic structures. The proletariat is economically organized into labor collectives, and the Soviets were originally their external representation. Since the proletariat is not occupied with the organization of an antisocial society, it can openly declare its dictatorship and has no fundamental need to hide the power of its economic units behind certain political bodies.
As a result, due to the universalization of social functions and the intensification of production, the primary government bodies on which the system of centralized state administration will be based, in the future become armed factories, comprehensively carrying out all the functions of government bodies. The political situation should look like this, that people will seek to solve their problems not in some abstract territorial body, which can be or be in anyone’s hands, but directly to the plant. The system of bourgeois democracy is based on the fact that people vote for certain candidates, whom they never saw in their life, especially since they never worked together with them, but they were nominated (funded for nomination) by completely closed structures from society. The hierarchy of trust in factories is not based on voting at all, not based on opinions, liking, image and anything else, for which they call upon us to sell our lives. It is based on the objective properties of people – the ability to perform the tasks assigned to them, and accordingly, it is formed without any vote and other procedures (from the russian word “дурачить” (durachit’) that means “to fool somebody”). People either enjoy the confidence of other members of the team, or not, there you already have to decide what is more important to you, your life or voting procedure. That is, it is technically applied, of course, but only as a consolidation of an already accomplished fact. Therefore, in the socialist Soviet Union elections were a holiday, not a criminal squabble. Lenin called this state of affairs “the autocracy of the people.”
It is also important to consider the theoretical perspective of building a classless and stateless society. A classless society is imagined as a tasty and nutritious community of declassed individuals. In reality, class society denies itself in the class struggle leading to the creation of a one-class society, a society in which one of the classes grows into the whole of society and thus destroys its class structure. Similarly, with the state. The famous Stalin’s formula “the withering away of the state will not come through the weakening of state power, but through its maximum strengthening,” means that so many people are drawn into the state administration, the bureaucracy, that it ceases to be a designed apparatus, its functions are distributed throughout the mass of society. Functionally, this process is associated with Stalin’s thesis about the need to reduce the working day to 5 hours.
In the modern world, science has entered not only in the number of productive forces, but also in the number of decision-making bodies, organs of political management. We shall not go into the extent to which the views of bourgeois science correspond to the observed reality, but the fact is that with the establishment of the global dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, science has lost the ability to create an integral picture of the world. With the establishment of its rule, the bourgeoisie lost its common goals, and, accordingly, bourgeois science serving its interests can not have holistic views and approaches. However, the reality is holistic in nature and without any discussion, the lack of an integral picture of the reality world is not adequate. The occupation of science has always been the prerogative of the ruling class. It began with joint libations at symposiums of slaveholders, then moved on to monasteries and universities, then to scientific institutions at the offices of the respective firms. In the early stages of the development of capitalism, often the most successful researchers became the founders of the corresponding production corporations. The further way of shifting the centers of scientific activity also leads us to factories. Like the ruling classes in the past, the proletariat inevitably concentrates in its hands all methods of governance, including the creation of ideas about the world. The process is already under way – an increase in the number of research (amateur) electronic resources is explosive. The logic of the further development of knowledge requires the expansion of its experimental, personnel, organizational and intellectual base. The universal nature of man has always been in the field of production and, accordingly, the universalization of production must lead to the fact that the structure of the factories will include power units, production units, scientific units and military law units (rights can only be guaranteed by force of arms). For example, a production building, a laboratory building, a hangar with tanks, a production building, a laboratory building, a hangar with combat helicopters, etc.
What will society receive as a result of such changes? A society that seeks to omit all people to the position of working cattle will get what it deserves. What kind of society do we get? First of all, a society with a high quality of life. Not an infinite amount of junk that turns into garbage in a year, what the bourgeois agitators give us for the level or quality of life, but the real quality of life. The quality of life should be understood only as a person’s ability to manage his destiny, build it according to his will and build a society in accordance with his ideas. If it is possible to change the type of activity during the year, a person acquires the opportunity to study the society from several points of view and to influence it from several directions. If you are not satisfied with the work of medicine, the army or the administration, why not work there for a start in the grass-roots positions, which will greatly improve the situation. If there is an interest in the type of activity in which you do not have professional knowledge, why not get the missing special education on a short working day, based on the already available practical experience? Any activity can be managed only through direct participation in it. About oblique bonds in the society you read here for the first time. If you look at the technical facilities, it’s easy to see that this is a permanently present structural element that prevents its folding (cross, angular, diagonal ties, etc.). And in the society they were not even heard of. What fate awaits it? Approximately this – https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=196192&cid=9. But, probably, designing skew connections in the society is aerobatics for us yet, we still do not understand that the management vertical should be based on a proportional horizontal, although the architectural design, built without regard to this circumstance, became a saying – “built on the sand”. It would be safer for everyone if the management cadres received at least an elementary building experience. This is the oblique connection, which was mentioned above.
So, what is any bureaucracy in its essence? These are people who will dispose of you as raw materials for making something. The bureaucracy, consisting of people who at best do not know how to do anything, will waste you for nothing. The bureaucracy, consisting of people who have learned not to spoil equipment, not to waste raw materials and not to cripple themselves at least, will spend you quite diligently, especially because it will spend you with themselves.
Оригинал текста на русском: https://russianwasteland.ru/теория/322/
20 February 2018