Why aren't we on the left organizing workers councils?

[Decommissioner]

I can understand that money is an issue, but if we actually pool together, I believe organizing true councils can be possible.

I understand that workers councils wont be totally mature under capitalism, but I am of the opinion that focusing all of our resources into organizing the working class into councils would be far more effective than pouring resources into our many sectarian revolutionary parties. I believe this because nothing will bring solidarity to the working people as swiftly and effectively as actually letting them participate in their workplace.

The words socialist or communist or anarchist should not even matter initially when spearheading a workers council, what needs to matter is uniting people and making a stab at workplace democracy and creating better working conditions and better pay within these councils. I see talk of how the american working class, as of now, seems hopeless, and being from the south myself I am often times guilty of that same feeling.. BUT, I also have this feeling that much of the backwardness can be reversed relatively easily if the working class were offered an alternative (and then allowed to change this alternative to how they see fit). Once the working class has experienced this firsthand, I believe they will be much more receptive to the ideas of communism, and a revolutionary party or organization will organically emerge from that.

And I use the term alternative rather loosely, as obviously I would rather see the workers council replace any form of workplace. They would appear as alternatives at first under capitalism, but they could have the potential to spark a revolutionary situation as soon as working people start to demand the councils be a standard and not an exception.

I have many anarchist friends that mean well, and they do great things (community farms, infoshops etc etc.) but none of them seem interested in actually engaging the working class for the sake of letting the working class emancipate itself, they would rather create exclusive alternatives that tend to alienate working people. The few socialists I know, as I mentioned earlier, seem to interested about trying to organize a party..as if we need more parties. Not saying this applies to anyone on this board (those examples actually apply to real life people I personally know), but generally this seems to be the case. I think if there is one thing we on the left can band together and definitely accomplish, that is organizing a network of workplaces for real working people with livable wages, free of ideology and with the sole intent of creating an avenue where working class people can decide their own fate. What happens after that we will see, but coupled with propaganda from the left I am willing to bet a revolutionary movement would erupt into existence.

I am posting this in learning since my understanding of how the workers council should be implemented is vague and premature, so I welcome anyone to inform me why organizing councils isn't a priority on the left right now.

[JJM 777]

What needs to be done (and is not done enough by anyone right now, as Socialists are not in power) is:
- creating employment (but it typically requires some economical investments: from where would the money come?)
- keeping a minor share of the work profits for future investments, which is necessary for generating more future employment to the same people (or to a growing number of people)
- equally distributing a major share of the profits to people (= workers, pregnant women, mothers at home, children, students, pensioners, the sick, the mentally invalid)
- probably also the state would take its share of all this, as various taxes, no matter if money actually moves in the system or not

All this is very complex, and requires a lot of money, 100% trust to the honesty of the system, and effective legal defence against anyone who might try to abuse or harm the system.

But anything less than this will not change the world in any essential way. If you make a council of "workers", that probably doesn't help much the unemployed people (people without work, pregnant women, mothers at home, children, students, pensioners, the sick, the mentally invalid).

Well, it is better to start from something good, than not start anything at all, so starting a council of currently employed "workers" would be better than not having even that. But it cannot be the final goal.

[ls]

What needs to be done (and is not done enough by anyone right now, as Socialists are not in power) is:
- creating employment (but it typically requires some economical investments: from where would the money come?)
- keeping a minor share of the work profits for future investments, which is necessary for generating more future employment to the same people (or to a growing number of people)
- equally distributing a major share of the profits to people (= workers, pregnant women, mothers at home, children, students, pensioners, the sick, the mentally invalid)
- probably also the state would take its share of all this, as various taxes, no matter if money actually moves in the system or not

To be honest, with your usertitle as "Liberal Totalitarianist" this makes sense; you want social-democracy which most people on this site find disgusting and do not want.


But anything less than this will not change the world in any essential way. If you make a council of "workers", that probably doesn't help much the unemployed people (people without work, pregnant women, mothers at home, children, students, pensioners, the sick, the mentally invalid).

Except workers' councils are not "less" than that.


Well, it is better to start from something good, than not start anything at all, so starting a council of currently employed "workers" would be better than not having even that. But it cannot be the final goal.

Unemployed workers have councils too, at least there are some initiatives over here.

The answer to the OP is that workers' councils and mass assemblies happen more during struggles and especially ongoing ones, however even they tend to be marred by dogmatism. The best that can happen is that truly socialist demands be put forward by people willing to demonstrate true political militancy. That said, more spontaneous struggles that aren't likely to last long could probably do more with workers' councils - effective immediately than the longer term ones, so only certain people will agitate for them whereas others will try to get nice interviews for their paper, make workers into <whatever tendency here> and generally do that kind of thing.......

[Decommissioner]

As far as the unemployed are concerned, they were kind of who I had in mind when I thought workers councils should be strived for in the here and now. With the economy getting worse and worse, I think more people would be willing to turn to experimental alternatives.

Also, if the councils are successful, there could also be shops where people can come in and get paid for their labor on the spot. This could be very productive for those who are without a home or any help. Coupled with soup kitchens and other free resources that can be given to them, they would have a better chance at getting a foothold on their lives and while also getting paid for productive labor. They can work their way in the council if they meet some sort of criteria that the workers have voted on (or maybe they wouldn't have to meet any certain criteria at all).

The ultimate goal to me would be to have workers councils be comprised of manufacturing jobs, to provide a backbone for other councils in other industries. Since this would require access to multiple raw resources, I can see this may be impossible right now, which is why I think a council "company" of sorts can manifest in something like the shipping industry.

[JJM 777]

Socialists could try to start employing each other. If 100 persons in the same city are same-minded Socialists, and 15% of them are unemployed, the working 85% could try to think what services they can buy from the unemployed comrades instead of outsiders. This would be a small step to the right direction at least.

[Decommissioner]

Socialists could try to start employing each other. If 100 persons in the same city are same-minded Socialists, and 15% of them are unemployed, the working 85% could try to think what services they can buy from the unemployed comrades instead of outsiders. This would be a small step to the right direction at least.

I have no problem with employing other socialists, especially for organizational purposes, but I would want the councils to open to all workers, left, right, racist, and progressive. I think through workers councils, workers will gradually learn to drop their prejudices by working together as a cohesive democratic unit. I think it is only then that they will truly be receptive to revolutionary ideas.

[MarxSchmarx]

And I use the term alternative rather loosely, as obviously I would rather see the workers council replace any form of workplace. They would appear as alternatives at first under capitalism, but they could have the potential to spark a revolutionary situation as soon as working people start to demand the councils be a standard and not an exception.

Yes but what would these councils do? I mean, presumably folks woulod have to show up after an exhausting day at work to meetup. Well, there has to be something concrete that the councils could offer.

At this stage of capitalism, most of the grievances are better dealt with as a union and these can sharpen class consciousness as well. I think radicalizing and overhauling unions from teh inside are more productive tools than creating councils denovo for ambiguous ends.

[blake 3:17]

You've got lots of great ideas. You could really run with some. They do involve huge amounts of work, providing practical mutual aid and winning recognizable demands, both from particular employers and industries, and from the state.

There've been a whole bunch of mutual aid organizations formed by laid off workers here in Ontario. They involve basic community solidarity, somewhere to go, food banks and community kitchens, negotiating with government and employers for extra funds for education. These have been coming from unionized workers with help from their unions. Other community groups aid workers in facing employers and linking worker to worker in fighting evictions, deportations, cuts to social benefits.

Here's a link to an advocacy group that provides aid and organizational capacity to working people here in Toronto and its sprawl: http://www.workersactioncentre.org/ Also the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty: http://www.ocap.ca/ OCAP meetings have been the closest I've felt to having been in a workers council. Pretty limited, but democratic, inclusive, and action oriented.


Both groups work in solidarity with the official labour movement but are not controlled by it.

As for full blown workers councils? They develop at times of massive social crisis when a significant number of workers recognize common economic and political interests. They usually involve large scale wars and wide spread contempt for the powers that be. Also a sense of radical hope.

99% of us working stiffs don't really want to have endless meetings. In different left social movements I've found a fair number of people who liked meetings for their own sake. It tends to discourage people who have other stuff to do...

[MarxSchmarx]

There've been a whole bunch of mutual aid organizations formed by laid off workers here in Ontario. They involve basic community solidarity, somewhere to go, food banks and community kitchens, negotiating with government and employers for extra funds for education. These have been coming from unionized workers with help from their unions. Other community groups aid workers in facing employers and linking worker to worker in fighting evictions, deportations, cuts to social benefits.


Groups specifically targeted at the unemployed, undocumented, and the non-unionized are terrific resources. If they could be brought up to speed with regular unions in terms of providing concrete benefits like food and temporary rent assistance to strikes that would be a sign of tremendous progress.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why didn't somebody tell me earlier that the appropriate term for all these food banks, community kitchens, etc. was "mutual aid"? :(

Anyway, if only these mutual aid organizations were fully integrated into an alternative culture of the working class organized by their mass political party...

[MarxSchmarx]

Anyway, if only these mutual aid organizations were fully integrated into an alternative culture of the working class organized by their mass political party...

For what it is worth, I would suggest that they be understood as part of the broader "worker's movement" and fit into that category. After all, many of these people are working class if not workers in the sense that they have full time employment...

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think there is alot of confusion here on what a workers' council (or soviet) actually is (they are not just any grouping of workers in a workplace and they are not 'mutual aid societies', etc.).

In response to the OP; Simply, revolutionaries are not organising workers' councils because they can't. This is for two reasons. One, workers' councils are revolutionary organs which can only be forged by the working class itself and not just by the will of revolutionary minorities. And two, following from this, the class struggle is today not at a point which could allow workers' councils to be formed, let alone for them to be sustained. Workers' councils have historically, and can only be, formed in revolutionary situations by the consciousness and combatitivity of the proletariat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think there is alot of confusion here on what a workers' council (or soviet) actually is (they are not just any grouping of workers in a workplace and they are not 'mutual aid societies', etc.).

In response to the OP; Simply, revolutionaries are not organising workers' councils because they can't. This is for two reasons. One, workers' councils are revolutionary organs which can only be forged by the working class itself and not just by the will of revolutionary minorities. And two, following from this, the class struggle is today not at a point which could allow workers' councils to be formed, let alone for them to be sustained. Workers' councils have historically, and can only be, formed in revolutionary situations by the consciousness and combatitivity of the proletariat.

Meh. The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries forged the Russian soviets of 1917. The SPD and USPD in Germany forged the German equivalent. I agree with you on the spontaneous formation of soviets during revolutionary periods, though, which is certainly less organized than establishing sovereign economic parliaments and attached government bureaucracies (http://www.revleft.com/vb/separate-economic-parliaments-t118633/index.html).

[BobKKKindle$]

To add to what NR said, to see the dangers of forming Soviets outside of revolutionary periods or when the working class has just suffered a crushing defeat we only need to look at the experiences of the Chinese communists who were ordered to form the Canton Commune in 1927, shortly after thousands of trade unionists and communists had been killed or imprisoned in Shanghai by the right-wing of the KMT. In that instance, the commune was effectively imposed from above instead of being a spontaneous creation of the working class in the midst of struggle, and so its members were appointed, it did not assume any of the duties that Soviets have historically assumed such as managing production and allowing workers to defend themselves from the state, most workers in the city were not even aware of its creation until the final hour, and hardly any workers came to its defense once it came under attack from KMT forces. It lasted, in total, two days. As noted, Soviets are spontaneous creations of the class once its struggles and consciousness have reached a level that enables it to think not merely in terms of economic struggles within capitalism, but in terms of challenging state power and the economic basis of capitalist rule. It is in these bodies that the revolutionary party intervenes, but they cannot be created by the revolutionary party, as that would signify an attempt to supplant the class as the main agent of emancipation and liberation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As noted, Soviets are spontaneous creations of the class once its struggles and consciousness have reached a level that enables it to think not merely in terms of economic struggles within capitalism, but in terms of challenging state power and the economic basis of capitalist rule. It is in these bodies that the revolutionary party intervenes, but they cannot be created by the revolutionary party, as that would signify an attempt to supplant the class as the main agent of emancipation and liberation.

Historically, soviets have always been created before class consciousness has reached a level that enables the class to think in terms of having a full-fledged alternative to existing state power, and this includes controlling the huge administrative system of bureaus known as "bureaucracy." Challenging state power is quite different from having a full-fledged alternative, and this is the "non-bureaucratic" illusory flaw of the soviets, especially if they arise from mass strike waves.

Parties, on the other hand, if properly organized, can provide the full-fledged alternative.