Bureaucratic centralism signals a ruling group becoming a self-perpetuating clique.

Evidence

Democratic centralism is “organic” because on the one hand it takes account of movement, which is the organic mode in which historical reality reveals itself, and does not solidify mechanically into bureaucracy; and because at the same time it takes account of that which is relatively stable and permanent, or which at least moves in an easily predictable direction, etc. This element of stability within the State is embodied in the organic development of the leading group’s central nucleus, just as happens on a more limited scale within parties. The prevalence of bureaucratic centralism in the State indicates that the leading group is saturated, that it is turning into a narrow clique which tends to perpetuate its selfish privileges by controlling or even by stifling the birth of oppositional forces—even if these forces are homogeneous with the fundamental dominant interests (e.g. in the ultra-protectionist systems struggling against economic liberalism). In parties which represent socially subaltern classes, the element of stability is necessary to ensure that hegemony will be exercised not by privileged groups but by the progressive elements—organically progressive in relation to other forces which, though related and allied, are heterogeneous and wavering. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 777

Categorization

• DEFINE: Contrasts organic vs. bureaucratic centralism as distinct modes of state/party rule.
• XREF: Connects to Gramsci’s hegemony concept — leading group must remain organically progressive to maintain hegemony over subaltern classes.