Note
The author puts forward the thesis that State and Party bureaucracy are the means to maintain power in the hands of the State ruling élite and of the Party political leaders. In exchange of their services the bureaucrats obtain jobs in the State or Party apparatus. This assure their allegiance to State rulers and Party leader instead of possible continuous rebellions that might make the existence of any political power quite precarious if not impossible in the long run.
Source: Robert Michels, Zur Soziologie der Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie, Second Edition 1925. [English Title: Political Parties. A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy].
The organisation of the State needs a vast and highly articulated bureaucracy. This is an essential factor in the politics of the ruling class, in order to maintain itself in power and to ensure the continuity of government. The instinct of self-preservation compels the modern State to incorporate and bind to itself the greatest possible number of interests. This need of the State organism increases in parallel with an increase among the masses of the conviction about the defectiveness, even the inadequacy, of the present order of society; in short, with the increase of what is called, by the authorities, 'discontent'.
The State, especially the democratic state, best meets this need to create for itself as large a group of defenders as possible by forming a caste of functionaries directly dependent upon the State. In this it is greatly helped by the trends of modern economics. On the part of the State there is an enormous supply of official positions. On the part of the citizens an even greater demand of jobs. The reason for the latter is the insecurity in which the members of the intermediate social strata (small industrialists, artisan tradesmen, peasants, etc.) find themselves due to the formation of large-scale expropriatory capitalism and the organised resistance of the working class, both movements converging, whether they wish it or not, against the middle classes.
All these people, whose economic existence is seriously threatened by the modern economy, endeavour to find safe situations for their sons, to secure a social position which shall shelter them from the play of economic forces. For this purpose, they find the State trough, with the important pension entitlement it grants, particularly suitable. The enormous demand that arises from this situation, a demand which is always greater than the supply, creates the so-called “intellectual proletariat.” This constitutes a mass subject to great fluctuations in numbers. The State in fact, from time to time, put in a difficult situation by the increasing demand for positions in its service, finds itself forced to open the floodgates of its bureaucratic channels even wider to accommodate a few thousand new postulants, in order to transform them from dangerous enemies into zealous partisans and defenders.
Two intellectual classes are thus formed: the first consisting of those who have managed to find a place in the manger of the State, whilst the other consists of those who, in the words of Scipio Sighele (L’intelligenza della folla, Turin, 1903), have besieged the fortress without succeeding in entering it.
The former can be compared to a group of slaves, always ready to defend the State, their employer, under any circumstances, partly out of class selfishness, partly out of personal selfishness (the fear of losing their jobs). They are therefore undoubtedly to be regarded as the most loyal supporters of the State. The latter, on the other hand, are the sworn enemies of the State. They are the eternal restless spirits who lead the bourgeois opposition and in part also assume the leadership of the revolutionary parties of the proletariat. It is true that the State bureaucracy does not in general expand as rapidly as do the discontented elements of the middle class. None the less, it is constantly expanding, sometimes even beyond the actual demand for official positions. Thus, it happens that the bureaucracy presents itself as an endless screw that is less and less in tune with the general welfare.
And yet this bureaucratic machinery remains necessary. Through it alone can be satisfied the claim of the educated members of the population for secure positions for life. At the same time, the mechanism of bureaucracy is also a means of self-defence for the State or the inevitable consequence of the need to defend a property right that has a weak legal basis, and an antidote for preventing the uprising and revolt of the public conscience. This is how Amilcare Puviani, an economist from the University of Perugia who died prematurely, and to whom we owe an important paper on the myth of the State, expressed it (Teoria della Illusione Finanziaria, 1903).
The tendency of the modern State to rely on bureaucracy is reinforced through the institution of parliamentarism, in which the people's representative must continually reinforce his or her popularity with bribes (pots de vin are called in France, which, however, are found everywhere in other forms). Against the bureaucracy, however, two powerful enemies are rising: the financial instability due to the immense amount of post-war State debts and the advent of new oligarchic governments, which rely not on unhealthy armies of employees (unhealthy because they were created by old governments and imbued with their spirit), but rather on an elite of devoted personal followers; to these is added a third factor: the ethical need to clean the Augia stables [1], which have become too smelly. In all three cases — which can, of course, occur together — a demobilisation of the employees may result. Only the future can tell us if this counter-trend will prevail or represents only a temporary parenthesis.
Some of these traits indicated for the State are shared by the Party. A State or Party in which the circle of the élite is unduly restricted, i.e. in which the oligarchy is composed of too small a number of individuals, runs the risk of being swept away by a democratic revolution of the masses. Hence the modern Party, like the modern State, endeavours to give to its own organization the widest possible base, and to attach to itself, even financially, the largest possible number of individuals. Thus arises the need for a strong bureaucracy, and these tendencies are reinforced by the increase in the tasks imposed by modern organization.
The bureaucratic growth of the Party [The Socialist Party] necessarily undermines two elements that are among the essential prerequisites of any socialist conception: an understanding of the broader, ideal and cultural aims of socialism and an understanding of the international multiplicity of its manifestations. The Party mechanism becomes the main thing. The capacity for an accurate grasp of the peculiarities and the conditions of existence of the labour movement in other countries diminishes in proportion as the single national organizations become broader.
In the days of the so-called “socialism of the émigrés,” the socialists devoted themselves to an elevated policy of principles, inspired by the classical criteria of internationalism. Almost all of them were, so to speak, specialists in this general field. They were guided in this direction by their way of life, characterised by the frequent exchange of thoughts in quiet evenings, while the samovar [2] boiled, and by constant contact, elbow to elbow, with men of the most diverse languages, by the enforced isolation from the bourgeois world of their respective countries, and the utter impossibility of any “practical” action.
[…]
To some of those who form the lower and middle strata of the Party bureaucratic hierarchy, may be aptly applied what Alfred Weber said (in 1909) at the Vienna congress of the Verein Für Sozialpolitik: bureaucracy in matters of internal policy is the number one enemy of all individual freedom and of an honest conscience. The dependence upon higher powers, characteristic of the average employee, suppresses individuality and gives to the society in which employees predominate a narrow petty-bourgeois and philistine stamp.
The bureaucratic spirit corrupts character and leads to narrowness. In every bureaucracy we may observe place-hunting, a mania for promotion, and obsequiousness towards those upon whom promotion depends; there is arrogance towards inferiors and servility towards superiors.
Wolfgang Heine, who in the German socialist party is one of the boldest defenders of the personal and intellectual liberty of the members, and who is always in the breach to denounce “the tendency to bureaucracy and the suppression of individuality,” goes so far, in his struggle against the socialist bureaucracy, as to refer to the awful example of the Prussian State. It is true, he says, that Prussia is governed in accordance with uniform principles and by a bureaucracy which must be considered as a model of its kind; but it is no less true that the Prussian State, precisely because of its bureaucratic characteristics, and notwithstanding its external successes, is essentially retrogressive. Prussia could hardly produce any distinguished personalities, or at least it is unable to tolerate their existence, so that Prussian politics tend more and more to degenerate into a spiritless and mechanical regime, displaying a lively hostility to all inner progress.
Notes
[1] In Greek Mythology, the stables of King Augeas housed the single greatest number of cattle in the country and had never been cleaned, until the time of the great hero Heracles. The expression means a challenging task, improving or fixing something that is currently in a very bad condition.
[2] A samovar is a metal container traditionally used to heat and boil water, generally to make tea.