Adherence to tradition is also the reason for the even more fateful error of Marx as well as Lenin – that mere administration, in contrast to government, is the adequate form of men living together under the condition of radical and universal equality. Administration was supposed to be no-rule, but it actually can only be rule by nobody, that is, bureaucracy, a form of government in which nobody takes responsibility. Bureaucracy is a form of government from which the personal element of rulership has disappeared, and it is also true that such a government may rule in the interest of no class. But this no-man-rule, the fact that in an authentic bureaucracy nobody occupies the empty chair of the ruler, does not mean that the conditions of rule have disappeared. This nobody rules very effectively when looked upon from the side of the ruled, and, what is worse, has one important trait in common with the tyrant. Tyrannical power is defined by tradition as arbitrary power and this originally signified a rule for which no account need be given, a rule that owes no one any responsibility. The same is true for the bureaucratic rule by nobody, thought for an altogether different reason. There are many people in a bureaucracy who may demand an account, but there is nobody to give it, because ‘nobody’ cannot be held responsible.
Hannah Arendt, “From Hegel to Marx,” from The Promise of Politics, pg. 77-78
