What is socialism? by ERIC RUDER

[OriginalGumby]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/65/feat-socialism.shtml

[New Tet]

A quote from the Ruder article:
"Workers’ councils at the school, hospital, warehouse, and factory level would be essential to give workers a say in the day-to-day running of their workplaces. Each workplace council would also send elected delegates to coordinate decision-making on an industry-wide and economy-wide basis. Because these delegates would be drawn directly from and accountable to the base, because they would be paid the same as the rest of the workers in that workplace and known by their co-workers, and because they would be recallable if they failed to exercise the will of those who elected them, such councils would give workers the ability to have a real and deciding say in every aspect of society."

The SLP of America had been saying that for over 100 years. I fact, it's their original plan. Check out the "What Is Socialism" link in slp.org

[Niccolò Rossi]

The SLP of America had been saying that for over 100 years. I fact, it's their original plan.

There is nothing special about the SLP in this regard. All real socialists since the Russian revolution have understood workers councils to be the organs of proletarian dictatorship and democratic control post-revolution.


In demanding such nationalizations, however, the left calls for these institutions to be placed under democratic workers’ control. This is essential because such nationalized institutions continue to operate within a wider capitalist context and therefore must be subject to pressure from below to answer to the needs of the working class rather than capital. What a bizarre and contradictory thing to say, though I suppose reflects the contortions performed by the ISO in attempt to defend statified capital and 'socialism from below'.

[OriginalGumby]

I think that nationalization of industry whether finance, auto, or healthcare or the creation of new state sectors like the Works Project Administration during the Depression would be a positive thing when compared with the situation in the private sector. Of course this is not a form of socialism but I think it should be a demand to preserve jobs and, also importantly, introduce in a serious way the idea of democratic control of production. Of course that is not what nationalization would accomplish but I believe the ISO idea is that a movement which demands nationalization and workers control ultimately will recognize in the process that such control of industry is possible but with a new form of state.

[New Tet]

There is nothing special about the SLP in this regard. All real socialists since the Russian revolution have understood workers councils to be the organs of proletarian dictatorship and democratic control post-revolution...

Ah, but the SLP's Socialist Industrial Union program precedes the Russian Revolution by at least ten years! It emerges out of the struggle to establish the original IWW in Chicago, 1905.

"[D]emocratic control post revolution" sounds somewhat confusing as it is the very task of the SIU to make this revolution while simultaneously becoming the government based at the workplace.

If "all real socialists" understood this (presumably a whole bunch of non-SLP reds), why didn't they openly fight for it or, at the very least, support the Deleonists?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think that nationalization of industry whether finance, auto, or healthcare or the creation of new state sectors like the Works Project Administration during the Depression would be a positive thing when compared with the situation in the private sector.

I know this is what you think. I on the other hand think this is an incorrect and contradictory position for socialists to defend.


Of course this is not a form of socialism but I think it should be a demand to preserve jobs and, also importantly, introduce in a serious way the idea of democratic control of production. Of course that is not what nationalization would accomplish

The real question is whether nationalisation represents a step forward for the working class, that is whether it can really preserve jobs and at what cost.


I believe the ISO idea is that a movement which demands nationalization and workers control ultimately will recognize in the process that such control of industry is possible but with a new form of state

Neither nationalisation nor workers control fundamentally challenge capitalism and are in fact perfectly compatible with it.


Ah, but the SLP's Socialist Industrial Union program precedes the Russian Revolution by at least ten years! It emerges out of the struggle to establish the original IWW in Chicago, 1905.

The Soviets also originally arose in 1905. Besides, I'm not sure what your purpose is in trying (wrongly) to claim the workers councils for DeLeonism.


If "all real socialists" understood this (presumably a whole bunch of non-SLP reds), why didn't they openly fight for it or, at the very least, support the Deleonists?

Maybe because the industrial unions is not the same as workers councils? Maybe because workers councils can not be created voluntaristically and permanently maintained?