Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:19:55.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucracy and Dictatorship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Fritz Morstein Marx
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bureaucracy may mean many things. So may dictatorship. Until Sulla, the technique of dictatorial interludes provided the Roman republic with a convenient form of political catharsis to relieve the constitutional framework from the strain of military exigencies. Greek depotism was not the style of Caesar; Richelieu's gouvernement personnel was not an imperialist version of Cromwell's Commonwealth. Less compelling still are the parallels between Latin America's “strong man” regimes, Japan's “new structure” à la Konoye, and the one-party systems of National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia. It is the totalitarian formula alone to which we intend to address ourselves —dictatorship built upon the masses.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1941 , pp. 100 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cf. Fitzgibbon, Russell H., “Continuismo in Central America and the Caribbean,” Inter-American Quarterly, vol. 2/3 (1940), pp. 56 ffGoogle Scholar.

2. Cf. Cole, Taylor, “Corporative Organization of the Third Reich,” Review of Politics, vol. 2 (1940), pp. 438 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, “Totalitarian Politics,” Proceedings of he American Philosophical Society, vol. 82 (1940), pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

4. It is hoped that the broader application of this term (once considered the exclusive property of Italian Fascism) will not offend the sensibilities of the reader.

5. It is worth recalling that nearly half a century ago Gaetano Mosca's acute mind anticipated this development by calling what has subsequently emerged as the totalitarian system the “exclusively bureaucratic” state. See Mosca, Gaetano, The Ruling Class (New York, 1939), p. 256Google Scholar. Cf. also Marx, F. Morstein, “The Bureaucratic State,” Review of Politics, vol. 1 (1939), pp. 457 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Cf. Sullivan, Lawrence, The Dead Hand of Bureaucracy (Indianapolis, 1940)Google Scholar.

7. It is hence not surprising that German students of industrial management have not hesitated to appropriate the term “bureaucracy” for nongovernmental activities. Cf. von der Gablenz, O. H., “Industriebürokratie,” Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 50/2 (1926), pp. 539 ffGoogle Scholar. We should keep in mind, however, that on the European Continent, with its firmly established civil service tradition, “bureaucracy” and “bureaucratic” never became primarily political fighting phrases the way they have always been used in this country and in England. Cf. Finer, Herman, The British Civil Service, 2d ed., (London, 1937), pp. 15–16Google Scholar. The first edition (London, 1927) contains a still more sweeping statement wide open to critical comment. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, “Berufsbeamtentum in England,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, vol. 89 (1930), pp. 458–459Google Scholar. In the German literature on public administration, “bureaucratic” meant characterized by single-headed responsibility, as contrasted with multiple control or board direction. Throughout his writings, especially in his monumental contribution to the Grundriss der Sozialökonomik (1925), Max Weber used the term “bureaucracy” as a scientific concept, and Weber's influence in clarifying the relationships between the representative and administrative spheres was far-reaching indeed (if one of his disciples is allowed to testify). Reliance on hierarchy for the control of large-scale industrial organization has become commonplace; the battles over Standard Oil merely marked the beginnings. Cf. Nevins, Allen, John D. Rockefeller (New York, 1940), vol. IIGoogle Scholar. How closely private and public management follow each other in both structural devices and operative methods, especially in modern personnel administration, no longer needs substantiation. For a cross section see Seventh International Management Congress, Papers and Proceedings (Washington, 1938)Google Scholar.

8. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, “Bureaucracy and Consultation,” Review of Politics, vol. 1 (1939), pp. 84 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. We are far from arguing the mutual incompatibility of democracy and bureaucracy —at best a dangerous fallacy. The problem will be taken up elsewhere in this paper.

10. A landmark is Finer, Herman, The Theory and Practice of Modern Government, (London, 1932)Google Scholar. Cf. my review in Zeitschrift für die Cesamte Staatswissenschaft, Vol. 94 (1933), pp. 301 ffGoogle Scholar. See further Friedrich, Carl J. and Cole, Taylor, Responsible Bureaucracy (Cambridge, 1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Stalinism (since 1933) is properly classified as totalitarianism.

12. Cf. Lerner, Max, It is Later Than You Think (New York, 1939)Google Scholar. Cf. also Marx, F. Morstein, “Individualism and the Future,” in Winslow, Thacher and Davidson, Frank P., ed., American Youth: An Enforced Reconnaissance (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 162 ffGoogle Scholar.

13. As Justice Schinz of Zurich, Switzerland, put it May 5, 1830: “Alle Regierungen der Schweiz müssen es erkennen, dass sie bloss aus dem Volke, durch das Volk und für das Volk da sind.” Cf. Morell, Karl, Helvetische Gesellschaft (Winterthur, 1863), pp. 397–398Google Scholar.

14. This was the comment (1849) of another Swiss statesman, Jakob Stämpfli, later a Federal Councilor. Cf. Weiss, Theodor, Jakob Stämpfli (Bern, 1921), vol. 1, p. 276Google Scholar.

15. As does Rappard, William E., L'Individu et l'Éstat en Suisse (Zurich, 1939)Google Scholar. Cf. my review in Revue Internationale de la Théorie du Droit, new series, vol. 1 (1939), pp. 237–238Google Scholar. I owe the above pointers to Rappard's study. There is similar evidence in the contemporary German literature, but the Swiss materials are for us more relevant.

16. The new Occupational Dictionary published by the Bureau, Federal of Employment Security lists 17, 452 different kinds of jobs (Washington, 1940)Google Scholar.

17. For the independent regulatory commissions and boards cf. Landis, James M., The Administrative Process (New Haven, 1938)Google Scholar.

18. Friedrich, Carl J., Constitutional Government and Politics (New York, 1937), p. 510Google Scholar.

19. The term is used in a more restricted sense by Fuller, Lon L., The Law in Quest of Itself (Chicago, 1940)Google Scholar.

20. Among the first to emphasize this point was Gaetano Mosca. See supra note 5.

21. I speak of course of politics in the Aristotelian meaning.

22. For the text of the main clause of the law see Marx, F. Morstein, “German Bureaucracy in Transition,” American Political Science Review, vol. 28 (1934), p. 476, n. 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. No legislation is in this respect more explicit and elaborate than the National Socialist. The ideological distance between the new German civil service law and equally detailed enactments such as the Brazilian is impressive. On the latter cf. Marx, F. Morstein and Wood, Bryce, “The Brazilian Civil Service,” Inter-American Quarterly, vol. 2/4 (1940), pp. 42 ffGoogle Scholar.

24. Cf. Manfrin, P., Tirannia Burocratica (Rome, 1900)Google Scholar. In this matter, as in others, the Italian intelligentsia borrowed liberally from the French.

25. Royal Decree Law of November 11, 1923 (No. 2395).

26. Royal Decree Law of December 30, 1923 (No. 2960). For a translation see White, Leonard D., ed., The Civil Service in the Modern State (Chicago, 1930), pp. 318 ffGoogle Scholar.

27. On this point I differ with Lasswell, Harold D. and Sereno, Renzo, “Governmental and Party Leaders in Fascist Italy,” American Political Science Review, vol. 31 (1937), pp. 914 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. The “liberalist” origin of Continental European administrative law has never unduly agitated Italian jurisprudence, and administrative justice has by no means become mere ornament. Both are interwoven with Italy's administrative tradition. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, “Comparative Administrative Law: A Note on Review of Discretion,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 87 (1939), p. 955, n. 4Google Scholar.

29. Cf. also Steiner, H. Arthur, Government in Fascist Italy (New York, 1938), p. 108, n. 14Google Scholar.

30. Cole, Taylor, “Italy's Fascist Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review, vol. 32 (1938), p. 1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Mussolini, Benito, Fascism (Rome, 1935), p. 27Google Scholar.

32. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, Government in the Third Reich, 2d ed. (New York, 1937), p. 67Google Scholar.

33. Cf. Cole, loc. cit. in note 2.

34. For a translation of the law, see Pollock, James K. and Boerner, Alfred V., The German Civil Service Act (Chicago, 1938)Google Scholar.

35. Cf. Brecht, Arnold, “The Relevance of Foreign Experience,” in Marx, F. Morstein, ed., Public Management in the New Democracy (New York, 1940), pp. 107 ffGoogle Scholar.

36. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, “Germany,” in Anderson, William, ed., Local Government in Europe (New York, 1939), pp. 267 ffGoogle Scholar.

37. Such as Kamenev, the ill-fated opportunist.

38. Socialism Victorious (New York, 1934), p. 121Google Scholar.

39. Cf. also Morstein Marx, loc. cit. in note 3.

40. For an appraisal of National Socialist labor policy cf. Hamburger, L., How Nazi Germany has Mobilized and Conlrolled Labor (Washington, 1940)Google Scholar.

41. Cf. Marx, F. Morstein, “Germany's New Civil Service Act,” American Political Science Review, vol. 31 (1937), p. 879CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. See supra note 26.

43. Pollock, James K., The Government of Greater Germany (New York, 1938), p. 112Google Scholar. For an analysis of one of the technical services cf. Macmahon, Arthur W. and Dittmer, W. R., “Autonomous Public Enterprise—The German Railways,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 54 (1939), pp. 481 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and vol. 55 (1940), pp. 25 ff., 176 ff.

44. Cf. Morstein Marx, ed., op. cit. in note 35.