ciPlle du pouvoir politique et du pouvoir économique; disparition ou transf ormation radicale des catégories juridico-économiques du capitalisme comme la propriété privée et le marché; formes nouvelles ou parttellement nouvelles d'extorsion et d'accaparement du sur-travail soczal. Enfin, cause et effet de ce qui précède, la montée des nouveaux maitres, dont le pouvoir, les privilèges, les prérogatives de classe proviennent d'une sorte de propriété intellectuelle des connaissances inhérente à la direction des grandes agrégats économiques et sociaux. L'article se termine par une « typologie » de la technobureaucratie dans les pa.ys de capitalisme avancé, en faisant particulièrement référence à l'ltalie. Elle esquisse l'importance relative, les interrelations et les caractéristiques particulières des divers types de « nouveaux maitres », du haut bureaucrate administratif au dirigeant politique et syndical, du «manager» d'entreprise publique ou privée au dignitaire des forces armées. SUMMARY This study, « towa.rds a definition of the new bosses », was the introductory « keynote paper » at the conference in Venice. The author denies tha.t it is possible to take a « neutra[ » stance when faced with a social phenomenon of such vast proportions and with so many implications, as the rise and consolidation of a new form of social domina.tion, and briefly examines its principal ideological positions and the main interpretative currents which a.rise as a consequence. There are those who recognise the phenomenon and maintain that it is «progressive» (the ideologues of the bureaucracy and technocracy) or that it is « regressive,, in relation to capitalism (the apologists for the latter) and those, who in arder to exorcise it or for the purposes of mystification, deny that it exists. The latter is the case with almost a.li the marxist analyses which deny that the « new bosses » ha.ve any class nature and see in them only a form or variant of the capitalist bourgeoisie. 1 he author of the present paper, af ter having made his egalitarian and libertarian ideologica[ perspective explicit, and after having drawn up a definition of the social classes and an interpretative model with two/three antagonistic classes (dominated-dominating/aspiring to power) on the basis of the position occupied in the hierarchical division of labour in society, goes on to define the new bosses as the dominant class and/or as a cla.ss aspiring to power in the post-ca.pitalist and in the latecapitalist countries. The term technobureaucracy is used to describe them. The choice of terminology is also a conceptual choice because not only do the bureaucracy and the technocracy display, according to the aurhor, sufficient class affinity to warrant the sa.me definition, but also because the bureaucracy and technocracy can be seen as two ways of be:ng of the sa.me power system, which coexist to varying degrees within the different functional structures of the ruling class. The technobureaucracy, moreover, expresses very well the particular nature of the form assumed by the bureaucracy, a social group which is as old power itself, in its industrial and post-industrial manifestations. 60
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==