struggle against the concepts that engender these evils, against the petty-bourgeois mentality within the revolutionary State.
*The translation of this editorial from Granma is taken from the March 5 issue of the English-language edition of the official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist party of Cuba. The subheadings appear in the original. Some obvious typographical errors have been corrected. Emphasis, where indicated, appears in the original.
This editorial, as well as those that will be appearing during the next few days, proposes to collaborate on this struggle.
"A Purely and Exclusively Bourgeois Institution"
Where and when did bureaucracy arise? In what social system did it originate? This is the first question we must analyse, because bureaucracy is not a product of our society, but rather one of the most unsavory holdovers from the past we have had to deal with. The rise of bureaucracy is closely related to the capitalist system. Its development has taken place parallel with that of the bourgeoisie in its rise to the position of the ruling class in contemporaneous capitalist states. Although in former societies there did exist some incipient forms of bureaucratic work, such as that of functionaries, scribes and priests, it cannot be said that a highly developed bureaucracy existed under slavery or feudalism. Why not? Because in those societies, such activity did not favor the growth and consolidation of a social stratum that would exercise power in the name of the ruling class. But such a parasitic stratum does exist in bourgeois society. The basis for its existence is the greater complexity in administration and government demanded by the centralized bourgeois state -- which involves multiple forms of mercantile and financial relations determined by an active domestic and world trade requiring numerous controls; a government with a complex fiscal system, and finally a state apparatus with forms of organization that must necessarily be complex in view of the veiled character of exploitation in bourgeois society.
Bureaucracy also constitutes the most negative product of the division between manual and intellectual labour.
This division, between the productive work of society and that of the members of the ruling class -- dedicated to political or cultural activities -- arose at the onset of class society. The slave system's ruling class, owners of great extensions of land and slaves, was exempt from all physical productive work. This they relegated to the great masses of the people, considering it “unworthy of true men." This also was a characteristic of the feudal regime, in which the landowning aristocracy considered the work of the agricultural serfs as unfit for them.
Under capitalism, this division is sharpened to even greater extremes by the bourgeoisie. Bureaucracy, a bourgeois creation, is profoundly steeped in this attitude toward manual labour. Educated in the petty-bourgeois ideology, bureaucrats disdain productive activity and consider themselves an intellectual stratum on a level with the bourgeoisie, situated above the working people.
Indeed, it must be stressed that even if we go so far as to classify bureaucratic work as "intellectual," if it is "intellectual" at all, it is one of the most simple and mediocre forms of intellectual work. Of this there is no doubt. There is nothing creative about bureaucratic work: deviation from the beaten path of routine can cost any functionary or employee his job.
There are other products of the division between physical and intellectual work that can be considered as historically necessary, since they have played a véry important role during class society in the development of science, art and literature. But bureaucracy, on the contrary, is a sterile entity that can claim no important accomplishment in the history of human culture.
Social Mainstay and Weapon of the Bourgeoisie
Where could the bourgeoisie discover a social base to use in the establishment of this bureaucratic stratum? The bourgeoisie had no interest, nor were they in the position, to take over intermediate posts in government and business, since they were busy with the running of their own private affairs. They reserved high offices in the State and business for themselves. Therefore, they needed a specified sector of society to be used as instruments in the running of government matters and the management of the companies they owned, with the purpose of organizing, controlling and administering their exploitation of wage earners. Moreover, the bourgeoisie, although they were masters of the nation's economy, were a rather smatl group numerically. A wider social stratum was required to give them support, one allied to their own interests, which could be used in the exercising of their dictatorial class power, as a direct instrument against the working classes. The creation of a bureaucratic stratum was one of the solutions seized upon to fill this need. Together with the bureaucracy, we also had the "labour aristoeracy," set up with the same end in mind, the strengthening of the basis of power and extension of social influence.
Both the bureaucracy and the labour aristocracy in a bourgeois regime became mere extensions of the capitalist class into the petty-bourgeois sectors and the proletariat.
Both groups served as supports to the dominant power, carrying on political maneuvering, causing division in the ranks of the proletariat and hampering any kind of popular movement.
In the early days of capitalism this stratum was drawn from middle-class urban groups whose position was neither that of the feudal aristocrats nor of the workers and poorer artisans. In this evironment the bourgeoisie created and nurtured the appropriate ideology and outlook on life. It developed a petty-bourgeois mentality in this social sector.
This was achieved through a hierarchy of officials and employees. Each of these was subject to the authority of an immediate superior, and all were trained to stick to routine work, obey more or less inflexible rules and regulations and to abhor the introduction of innovations. They sought security and rank in society which would give them certain "respectability," placing them above the working class.
This gave rise to the criteria of the bureaucratic post as a profession, and the concept became ingrained that the duty of one holding such a post was to blindly abide by the orders of superiors in the hierarchy. The bureaucrat was given the guarantee of a secure livelihood in exchange for his absolute submission to the bourgeoisie's planning. This explains why bureaucracy was born and grew identified with the capitalist class ideology, possibly to a greater degree than any other sector of the pettybourgeoisie.
Bureaucrats were formed by the division between manual and intellectual work. They were trained to completely ignore and despise production and those who made it possible.
What is bureaucracy?
As Lenin points out, it is "that particular stratum holding power..." It is the intermediary entrusted by the dominant class with the handling of affairs of State and administrative work in capitalist enterprises; an intermediary which reflects faithfully the thinking and the conceptions of the capitalist class. That is, in a bourgeois regime bureaucracy constitutes a social stratum playing a role subordinate to the political and administrative authority of the dominant class. It is an intermediary stratum that executes. the decisions of the bourgeois dictatorship. It is the administration of power by employees and officials placed between the capitalist and the working masses. This stratum is invested with power and government by the exploiting classes whom it serves.
Therefore, we should define bureaucracy on the basis of its relations with the capitalist class and its participation in the government of that class, rather than on the basis of its concrete administrative functions.
We have analysed the origin of the bureaucratic stratum, have determined at what moment in history it arose and have shown what classes it merged with: This proves Lenin's idea that, "...owing to its historical origin as well as to its contemporary sources and its mission, bureaucracy is always a purely and exclusively bourgeois institution."
Imperialism and Underdevelopment
Engendered by and serving the interests of the bourgeoisie, bureaucracy reaches the zenith of its reactionary, antipopular nature under imperialism.
Impersonal bureaucratic functions reach their highest degree of dehumanization. There is a veritable army of clerks and offices, acting as a machine of international oppression.
The phenomenon that had appeared with the rise of capitalism grows more pronounced: in industry, in commerce, in the trade unions, in social institutions: on every hand, bureaucracy manifests itself and becomes entrenched. Its end is always the same: alienation of the worker -- turning him into an object, a cipher, one more item of merchandise -- expediting the exploitation of man by man.
In underdeveloped countries, the problem of bureaucracy takes on very particular characteristics. It is tied toand facilitates exploitation by foreign monopolies; it is steeped in the imperialist ideology and often comes into conflict with the interests of the nation itself.
Servitor of neocolonial governments, bureaucracy is allied with administrative
corruption and the sinecures typical of countries under the national domination of militarists and land barons.
It no longer serves only as a social bulwark of the bourgeoisie, but has become an international mainstay of imperialist policy and exploitation.
While this may not be so in each and every case, it is a widespread reality affecting bureaucracy in underdeveloped countries.
Bureaucracy in Bourgeois Armies
The bourgeois states formed their armies in keeping with their particular organizational concepts. The armies of the capitalist states took on a bureaucratic structure. The growing use of artillery, complex troop movements, the formation of enormous armies, required the presence of an extensive apparatus of officers, liaison men and many other command cadres, directed from the top down through a hierarchy.
In the era of bourgeois revolutions, these armies represented a force superior in organization to the feudal forces. Obviously, the methods brought into play were. not the only determining factor; many others determined the superiority of the bourgeois armies over the feudal counterparts. But the establishment of bureaucratic methods in modern armies is sufficiently important for us to pursue the matter further.
Side by side with expansion of its sphere of action and development in its highest stage -- imperialism -- capitalism needed to augment its entire military apparatus, to create a large war industry and to operate transports that could move its armies anywhere. As this took place, the bureaucratic structure of the armies expanded.
The military forces of any imperialist nation have thousands of command cadres; there are modern armies that need seven men in the rear to back up three men in the front lines.
Besides the administrative or command function realized by this entrenched bureaucracy in the armed forces, it also fulfills the function of a stratum closely tied to the military caste and to the monopolists of the regime; that is, from the army, this stratum serves the political interests of the most reactionary class.
Bourgeois ideologists claim that there is no organization technically superior to that of an imperialist army, and they point to the structure of modern armies as an example of the efficiency and superiority of bureaucratic methods.
But history teaches us something else. The peoples who fight for liberation organize their armed forces without resorting to bureaucratic techniques.
We are not going to enter upon an analysis of all the factors moving the struggle forward nor all the elements present in a victory in a war of liberation. We only wish to stress that there exist organizations which are not constituted bureaucratically and which are capable of standing up to armies set up with the highest techniques of bourgeois organization.
To take only a few examples, we have the War of Liberation of the Algerian and Vietnamese peoples against the French army, and the present battle of the Vietnamese guerrillas against the hierarchically superorganized forces of the imperialists.
The armies of the underdeveloped countries are characterized by their swollen staffs.
In an article entitled "Latin American Viet Cong" in the Canadian newspaper Toronto Star, appearing on November 5, 1966, it is stated:
"U.S. officials in Guatemala City are astonished at the rapid tendency of Guatemalan officers, returning after months of tough training in the United States to develop large stomachs and settle down in easy, secure office jobs which they do not seem to want to relinquish."
The article later describes the Guatemalan army as: "An overgrown corps of topranking officers, with 400 out of the thousand officers assigned the high rank of colonel."
This army has tried and failed on numerous occasions to destroy the popular forces organized into guerrilla detachments.
Of course, this bureaucratic tendency typical in all spheres in underdeveloped countries is not the essence of the phenomenon, but it is one of its most injurious manifestations. It is an element that comes to have a determining character in the decomposition of these regimes.
We Cubans know this situation very well. The pro-imperialist army of the tyranny was completely rigid in structure. Among the consequences of the decomposition of the capitalist system under the exploitation of Yankee capital was the bureaucratizing of the army, a sort of fossilization, an inability to face a new form of struggle. Our Rebel Army -- the popular forces -- dispensed with everything superfluous, conducting the war in a direct, very concrete way, bringing into play a nonbureaucratic organization that showed organizational superiority over the bureaucratic military apparatus.
We can draw a conclusion from the confrontation of the Liberation Forces, based on the incorporation of the masses, with the traditional armies: it is possible to excel bureaucratic ways of organization. There are organizational forms which are far more efficient than bureaucratic ones.
In Socialism, the incorporation of workers via the militias -- the revolutionary origin of the armed forces -- and the system of an army of technically trained cadres, with large numbers of young men coming in through conscription makes possible an army free of the evil of bureaucracy.
II.
"THE DANGER OF BUREAUCRACY AS A SPECIAL STRATUM"
We have been analysing the more obvious and immediate aspects of bureaucracy in our country, which we have fought and will continue to fight tirelessly. But it is also necessary to ponder deeply the problems posed by the existence of a bureaucratic stratum to the process of constructing socialism and communism. This is a phenomenon of universal validity. It is a danger we must abolish from our country since the complete success of the Revolution depends to a great extent on its elimination.
Bureaucracy, without any doubt, constitutes a special sector with a specified relationship to the means of production. We can affirm that, with the triumph of the Socialist Revolution, bureaucracy acquires a new character.
On what basis do we affirm this? Under capitalism bureaucracy holds the same positions and apparently has the same relationship to the means of production. Nevertheless, in such a regime, it plays a subordinate role to the administrative and political power and authority of the dominant class, the bourgeoisie.
Capitalist bureaucracy is made up of public employees and the functionaries and employees of private enterprises. Neither group is directly concerned with political or governmental policy. In fact public functionaries and employees as well as those in private enterprise are trained to think of their activity as a specialized professional function, removed from politics, and even to view political activity with a certain disdain. Thus capitalist bureaucracy serves as an intermediary, totally submissive to the domination of the bourgeoisie.
But what happens following the triumph of the Revolution? In the first place, all of the formerly dispersed bureaucratic apparatus is vertically redeployed into the State apparatus and, to a certain extent, organized and strengthened. If we add to this the problems of lack of experience and knowledge on the part of revolutionaries, the tendency toward centralization or the application of bureaucratized foreign patterns, it
of revolutionary power.
However, there is much more to the question than this. In addition to greater organization and growth in size, bureaucracy takes on a new character in its relation-
the Revolution triumphs and the direction of the economy passes into the hands of the State, bureaucracy intervenes in the administration of production, in the control and governing of the material and human resources of the nation.
Minor functionaries, who previously were not entrusted with making decisions on political and administrative questions, move into posts which require political decisions and decisions affecting the means of production. That is, a change occurs in their
relation to the entire life of the nation.
The fact that many workers begin to hold administrative posts does not give a class content to State administration. On the contrary, when a worker or farmer takes over an administrative post, he is in danger of being influenced politically and ideologically by this administrative job, of becoming one more bureaucratic functionary. A worker transformed into a position of authority in the direction of production is not necessarily thereby transformed into a leader of the working class.
As long as the State exists as an institution and as long as organization,
continue to exist that a special stratum of citizens will form in the heart of the bureaucratic apparatus which directs and administers the State. This apparatus has given relationship to the means of production, different from that of the rest of the population, which can convert bureaucratic posts into comfortable, stagnant or privileged positions.
And this is the most profound and serious problem to be considered in the campaign against bureaucracy!
Starting on the Road to Communism is no Guarantee of Arrival
Socialism and communism are not spontaneous phenomena. Arrival at these higher stages of social development is achieved by following a correct policy and orientation. The fact that a Revolution triumphs and proclaims its intention to construct a new society is no guarantee that this society will become a reality.
To achieve socialism and communism, two factors must be combined: the development of the new man with new awareness and attitudes toward life, and the advance of technology to a level which will multiply productivity and bring about abundance of material goods. In order to reach this high goal in human society, a policy consequent with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, with the concepts developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin and other great leaders of the working class, is essential. A policy which will lead to the disappearance of the concepts and ideology of the exploiting classes and of petty-bourgeois mentality is essential. This demands the existence of a Party
and united with the masses, never a Party which is simply resigned to repeating what has been done by others without first evaluating this critically in the light of the concrete situations under which it must exercise its function of leader and guide.
Starting on the road to communism is no guarantee of arrival. At the least, it could happen that the Revolution's ascendant movement be frustrated and that stagnation and decomposition appear in the earliest stages of the process.
A number of factors are involved in this problem which, taken as whole, depend upon the general conception that is held of how socialism and communism are to be constructed.
If we allow certain categories characteristic of the capitalist system to survive within the organization and development of our economy, if we take the easiest way out, using material interest as the driving force in the construction of socialism, if merchandise is held up as the central core of the economy, if the presence of money remains omnipotent within the new society, then selfishness and individualism will continue to be the predominant characteristics in the conscience of men and we shall never arrive at the formation of the new man.
And if such concepts prevail within the society, if an individualist and pettybourgeois ideology survives, a bureaucratic mentality will likewise survive, together with a bureaucratic concept of administration and politics, but with the aggravating factor that now this concept will prevail among a special stratum of men whose relation to_ the means of production and political decisions places them in a position of leadership. Thus there is nothing strange about the fact that the desire to belong to this bureaucratic stratum of society is kept alive or that this becomes a material objective for those seeking comfort and privilege.
If the Party does not win this battle over bureaucracy, if this danger is not eliminated through the formation of the new man and the application of an unyielding policy, consequent with Marxist-Leninist principles, the Party will end by bureaucratizing itself. And a Party which stagnates is a party in decomposition.
What does this mean? What occurs if the Party organization sinks into this bureaucratic morass? When that occurs, a special stratum consolidates itself in the administration and direction of the State and in political leadership, a special stratum
with aspirations toward self—perpetuation that draws constantly farther away from the masses, divorced from fruitful productive labor and from those who perform it, to become a privileged body, incapable of impelling the people forward, incapable of leading the conscience of the people toward high levels. ~
And when this occurs the construction of socialism and communism has already been abandoned.
Avoiding the Danger
As. ‘long as certain functions of an- administrative nature, necessary in the transitional period, continue to exist, certain measures can be taken to aid in the avoidance of this danger. One of, these is to maintain mobility in the posts of administrative officials and public employees, to prevent their becoming fossilized and to avoid the formation of a special stratum-of society.-
The apparatus for the direction of. the State must be kept simple and at the same time dynamic, informed in the technical processes involved in production, capable of coordinating efforts of stimulating activity, and of inspiring the spirit of work in those who function under their leadership.
_Danger also exists that, within political organizations and the Party itself, a special category of citizen be created among professional cadres, differentiated from the rest of the population. This is a danger that must be assessed and taken into consideration, because the historical and social process is a result of certain laws and principles which we must understand extremely well or run the risk of falling into grave errors.
The . way “to avoid functionaries and administrative cadres within the Party becoming a special sector of society is by confronting them directly with problems of production. This danger will be avoided to the extent to which the cadres face up to the concrete tasks of agriculture and industry in the closest possible contact with production itself. And this rule is valid for functionaries and administrative employees as well. . _ 4,In our own present reality, since the Party is a product of the Revolution and grew out of the Revolution, the need has arisen for the Party cadres to dedicate themselves to tasks of production and management in the most -direct and immediate form. They must be in contact with technical problems as they come up in the fields, on State Farms, in industrial plants. We are aided in this task by the fact that our party is young, without professional experience in most cases.
Thus, measures are being taken within the Party to avoid the development of a special stratum of professionals, which in any case should always be as_ limited and reduced in size as possible, and as close as is possible to production. We -will be helped in this task by the constantly increasing trend toward the formation of new cadres which will provide greater movement among them from production to the Party, and.from the Party to production.
A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF MAO'S INFALLIBILITY
In a graphic account of a tour which she and other Australian and New Zealand students recently made of China, Janet Lang reports in the February 27 Newsweek that one of.the outstanding impressions they received was the "appalling ignorance of the outside world which almost all the Chinese displayed." She mentions specifically, "Most young Red.Guards we met had never heard of Winston Churchill, or even of Trotsky, though they know .all about ‘Comrade Ted Hill,' the leader of Australia's tiny pro-Chinese Communist splinter party.'
The 20-year-old Miss Lang describes a conversation with their guides and some "Red Guard friends" about Mao. "I asked how they could.be so sure that Mao is infallible. Such a question clearly seemed absurd. 'Mao reads the foreign newspapers,' one of them answered with assurance. 'He knows what's going on. He must be right -- look what he's done for China.'"
It is to be hoped that Miss Lang assured her Red Guard friends that reading the foreign newspapers does not exactly guarantee infallibility. But the implication that it is highly desirable to read something besides quotations from the works of Mao would seem to indicate that at least one Red Guard has not yet firmly grasped the true nature of the "cultural revolution."