Socialism and the Theory of Bureaucracy

Abstract

Throughout the world governmental regulation of social and economic affairs has increased during the first half of the twentieth century. Whether prompted by the emergencies of two World Wars, by the wide-spread extension of social welfare measures, or by the rise of totalitarianism, this increase has caused apprehension among liberals and socialists alike. Enthusiasm for social reforms, whether they be moderate or radical, has declined in the face of these developments. The many social problems, which remain unsolved, call for reform measures as insistently as ever; yet the fear of governmental regulation besets the advocates of social change. They are confronted by the danger of regimentation in every extension of governmental power.This concern with the danger of bureaucracy has grown apace with the realization that the countries of Western Europe and North America are on the road to a planned society. It is curious that among the advocates of a planned society, socialists are perhaps more apprehensive of these dangers of regimentation than are New-Deal liberals. In fact, fear of bureaucracy and dictatorial methods has been a recurrent theme of socialist thought. Before and after World War I the Revisionists advocated a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism in order to safeguard the institutions of democratic government; during the same period the Guild Socialists attempted to formulate a programme of industrial democracy, which would regularize worker-participation in the management of industry and government; and throughout the nineteenth century anarchists and “utopian socialists” sought to safeguard the freedom of the individual by conceiving of voluntary associations and co-operation in community organizations as the foundation of the ideal society of the future. Others, then as now, retained the belief that a proletarian revolution was necessary or inevitable; but they insisted that democracy could be preserved, if the people gave full support to the revolution; indeed, only then was a successful revolution possible. All these interpretations were concerned with the transition to a planned society. They were concerned to retain democratic institutions in this transitional period. Yet it is fair to say that the interpreters who were specific in proposing organizational safeguards against a future tyranny were usually vague when they discussed the political means by which socialism was to be established. Conversely, those who specified the necessary political means were ordinarily vague when they discussed how a revolutionary dictatorship could avoid a new oppression.