Workers Self Management usurped by liberals?

[RadioRaheem84]

Most [socialists] have, in the end, come down on the side of centralized bureaucratic rule, while socialists who favored decentralized forms of "industrial democracy" have never agreed on the relative balance or the appropriate forms of internal and external controls.- Robert Dahl

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10531

Seems like I've been reading a lot of stuff from progressive and liberal websites about the recovered factories in Argentina and other workers self management ventures. It seems as though that these articles like the one I posted above give little credence to socialism in regards to these enterprises. Again, the liberals make the mistake of assuming that socialism just equals nationalization without fundamentally changing the social relations of each enterprise in terms of production. They're taking the issue of autogestion as another liberal project they can add to their collection of "friendly capitalism" initiatives, i.e. social enterprises.
Should we just give in and let the liberals and progressives have this one for the benefit of workers across the globe to self organize or should we let them know that this is closer to what Marx, Bakunin, Proudhon, etc. envisioned over anything state capitalist the USSR promoted? I just don't know if I could stand smug liberals using this great effort by workers as another badge of honor in their quest for the "moral medium", but I am willing to let them usurp this movement if it means it would benefit the workers of the world (considering liberals get more attention than we do). It just doesn't seem like they fully understand the movement and won't know how to uphold or defend it against capitalists.

[syndicat]

Dahl's original book on "economic democracy" had been influenced by guild socialism. He's a social-democratic political scientist who advocates a kind of market socialism. He advocates a market economy of competing worker cooperatives.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well this is good. Glad I was proven wrong somehow. But what about his comments?

[syndicat]

but you're not entirely wrong. Dahl is an advocate of the liberal "pluralist" theory of the state that denies its class character.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, Dahl is not the only one promoting this as a happy medium. The progressive and liberal communities have jumped on this as a new venture yet like Dahl totally deny the class roots behind the need to recover factories in the first place.

The question is should we let them take over the spreading of the ideas of autogestion while they deny the socialist roots behind it for the sake of the worker or should we make our voices clear that this movement will not succeed without an understanding of class antogonisms/relations. They see it as a happy way of competing against capitalists; a feel good social enterprise, way of "saving" or reforming capitalism. We've seen it as closer to the goal of socialism the entire time.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don't think it's right to say the workers' self-management has been 'usurped' by liberals or any other political faction of the bourgeoisie. 'Self-management' is a weapon of the ruling class. The ruling classes know this well, leftists by contrast have a much greater difficultly.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think it's right to say the workers' self-management has been 'usurped' by liberals or any other political faction of the bourgeoisie. 'Self-management' is a weapon of the ruling class. The ruling classes know this well, leftists by contrast have a much greater difficultly.

Considering that I am relatively new to most of the nuances of leftism, this went a bit over my head. Explain please? How again is workers self management or the recovered factories movement in Argentina a weapon of the ruling class?

[syndicat]

I don't think it's right to say the workers' self-management has been 'usurped' by liberals or any other political faction of the bourgeoisie. 'Self-management' is a weapon of the ruling class. The ruling classes know this well, leftists by contrast have a much greater difficultly.


well, the Left-communists have some peculiar ideas. within the anarcho-syndicalist tradition, self-management of production is a part of a larger social self-management of society in a society where the dominating and exploiting classes have been evicted from power, that is, it's a component of libertarian socialism. the taking over management of production is also a necessary part of the revolutionary process.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh I agree with that. The whole of society has to change. I was just saying that liberals see the movements in Argentina as something new and progressive in the sense of it being a new social venture. They want to stop there. It just seems like another project to them in their quest for the happy medium. They might ursurp the movement and claim that going any further would be radical.

[Kléber]

Usurped by Carlists as well :rolleyes:

http://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/ediciones/2009/05/06/politica/navarra/fotos/10695434.jpg

[syndicat]

well, the word "self-management" has various uses. for example, in medicine it is used to refer to getting patients to take care of their own medical conditions. this banner here doesn't say "workers selfmanagement" or autogestion industrial nor is it clear how they mean self-management as something opposed to the crisis. somehow I doubt they mean workers should seize their workplaces.

[RadioRaheem84]

Usurped by Carlists as well :rolleyes:

http://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/ediciones/2009/05/06/politica/navarra/fotos/10695434.jpg


OK, you made your point. :unsure: But liberals still have more clout than Carlists.

Weren't there national syndicalists groups in Spain too? The JONS? Doesn't make anarcho-syndicalism any less socialist.

[Kléber]

yes the JONS were a pathetic attempt to provide a renewed left cover for fascism. The blue overalls and red-and-black flag were pretty painful attempts to look like workers.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think it's right to say the workers' self-management has been 'usurped' by liberals or any other political faction of the bourgeoisie. 'Self-management' is a weapon of the ruling class. The ruling classes know this well, leftists by contrast have a much greater difficultly.
Well, to be fair, workers' self-management is generally a defensive measure, to protect jobs and income, and the workers involved tend to know this. Certainly, they don't tend to have any illusions of escaping the economic laws of capitalism. Though the liberals certainly do have a right to put this on a higher pedestal than we do; it's them that advocate reforming capitalism, after all.

[AmericanRed]

but you're not entirely wrong. Dahl is an advocate of the liberal "pluralist" theory of the state that denies its class character.

Originally, yes. He later changed, I think. He said in later works that liberal-democratic capitalist societies weren't really democratic but "polyarchic."

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally, yes. He later changed, I think. He said in later works that liberal-democratic capitalist societies weren't really democratic but "polyarchic."

That's a step in the right direction. I mean isn't it funny that so many end up coming to the same conclusions Marx premised in his writings almost two centuries ago.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, to be fair, workers' self-management is generally a defensive measure, to protect jobs and income, and the workers involved tend to know this. Certainly, they don't tend to have any illusions of escaping the economic laws of capitalism. Though the liberals certainly do have a right to put this on a higher pedestal than we do; it's them that advocate reforming capitalism, after all.

Well do not we advocate for this too as a step toward socialism? Just leaving it as a matter of reforming capitalism doesn't make sense. You're changing the whole social relation of a workplace. That isn't reform that's taking out the capitalist. This brings up the whole issue of class relations in society not just in the workplace. It just seems like the liberal would use this as another venture to promote frinendly capitalist alternatives instead of pushing the social and class issues raised in autogestion.

[RadioRaheem84]

yes the JONS were a pathetic attempt to provide a renewed left cover for fascism. The blue overalls and red-and-black flag were pretty painful attempts to look like workers.

But even they claimed not to be capitalist. Also they never claimed to be left wing either.

[syndicat]

Originally, yes. He later changed, I think. He said in later works that liberal-democratic capitalist societies weren't really democratic but "polyarchic."

"polyarchy" and "pluralism" are the same thing.

[syndicat]

Well, to be fair, workers' self-management is generally a defensive measure, to protect jobs and income, and the workers involved tend to know this. Certainly, they don't tend to have any illusions of escaping the economic laws of capitalism. Though the liberals certainly do have a right to put this on a higher pedestal than we do; it's them that advocate reforming capitalism, after all.

what are you referring to by "workers self-management"? are you thinking about things like the recuperated factories in Argentina?

but it would not be correct to say that the seizures of plants in Chile in 1972-73 or the even more extensie self-management of industry by workers in the Spanish revolution was "defensive". after all there can be no authentic worker run socialism if the workers don't take over and self-manage the workplaces.

you're a De Leonite, you say. Well, De Leon was for the workers managing the industries. it was essential to his point of view.

[Red Commissar]

While I don't agree with his statement in the entirety, it's obvious that other political parties have stolen the loyalty of workers. Some relevant quotes from Upton Sinclair and Norman Thomas over it,

Norman Thomas on accusations that Roosevelt is "socialist"

Thomas said Roosevelt has not “carried out most of the demands of the Socialist platform—unless he carried them out on a stretcher.”

“There is nothing Socialist about trying to regulate or reform Wall Street,” Thomas said. “Socialism wants to abolish the system of which Wall Street is an appropriate expression.”

And Upton Sinclair to Norman Thomas

The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Really good point and this is what I meant by letting the liberals usurp the workers self management movement. Upton Sinclair is right to an extent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder what the relationship between "workers self-management" and "industrial democracy" is. Apparently, liberals like the former only because they see it as more localized.

[Red Commissar]

And I'd imagine with some modification, it would allow for them to continue a capitalist system. I suppose it was a reasonable "trade-off" for a long-term guarantee of the system.

[gorillafuck]

And I'd imagine with some modification, it would allow for them to continue a capitalist system. I suppose it was a reasonable "trade-off" for a long-term guarantee of the system.
Do you think everyday liberals advocate reforming capitalism because they see it as a way to preserve capitalism?

[syndicat]

I wonder what the relationship between "workers self-management" and "industrial democracy" is. Apparently, liberals like the former only because they see it as more localized.


I don't know of any liberals, off hand, who advocate workers self-management. There are various social democrats who advocate it in the form of cooperatives. Dahl usually uses the term "Economic Democracy."

The phrase "industrial democracy" was coined in the World War 1 era. This was used by the Intercollegiate Socialist Society as their substitute for "socialism" when they changed the name of their grroup to "League for Industrial Democracy." Dahl seems to come out of that tradition except that LID got their ideas from the guild socialists who were not market socialists, whereas Dahl's "Economic Democracy", like David Schweickart's "Economic Democracy" is a form of market socialism. The difference is that Dahl envisions collective private ownership of enterprises whereas Schweickart follows the Yugoslav model of state ownership of assets, allocated to a worker coop to run, but in a market economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know of any liberals, off hand, who advocate workers self-management.

Well, perhaps I am stretching things too much when I'm relating this to corporate spin on "empowering employees" on mainly operational issues.

Thanks for highlighting the difference between Dahl and Schweickart. The former (Dahl) isn't any better than "Socioeconomic Democracy" on voting levels of Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) and Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth.