Also in a theoretically perfect company how do you manage getting things done / ship without any kind of process while having a way for people to grow and advance in a company and still not bog it down with "political" "bureaucracy"?
What we can find are behaviors and characteristics that can act as a test for bureaucratic or political because its hard to imagine a company embodying them without embodying some others.
Political is neither equitable nor meritocratic. If a decision is made for neither of those reasons, it will probably be described as political. Applying it to hiring, promotions, raises, partnerships and sales seems to hold up well. If the beauty queen isn't the prettiest and there aren't any equity issues involved, it's political. If a hire isn't the best or a raise isn't fair, it's probably political. I think there's a definition here. It's interesting that this defines political decisions as pretty much a particular class of wrong decisions.
Bureaucratic is when rules are obeyed for their own sake, not for whatever reason they were made. I think it also implies lots of rules.
With those two definitions it seems like political is always bad. Bureaucratic might have some uses.
The implication is that the organization that runs like that will get bigger and bigger, worse and worse, and the activities of the group will make them exhaust themselves and lose their ability to understand their market and to adapt quickly, as the source of their ability is based on seeing things that exist now rather than a year ago. It's hard for a small organization to stay afloat like that, much less an entire country. Although countries are so big that they can appear to be doing just fine for a while but eventually the interest catches up with them.
I'm not saying those things can't be good, but they're not panaceas. If you're aiming that high your sights are too low.