Workers' Councils

[Comrade1]

Now im wondering how these would be run. I know by the workers but would it be national or localily? Would it consist of representitives. And what would they be planning. Production? What else?

[Sosa]

This should probably be moved to Learning

[Comrade1]

Ok, but can you awnser it please?

[RedTrackWorker]

Now im wondering how these would be run. I know by the workers but would it be national or localily? Would it consist of representitives. And what would they be planning. Production? What else?

The answer to all the questions: it depends.
What we want--or I want at least--is for the councils to be international. But they will almost certainly start locally though can spread quickly. There was a council in Seattle in 1919 or about there. Many other countries have had them nationally or virtually nationally.
As to what they would be taking control over, that's one of the most important questions. The answer I want would be about: everything. The councils in Russia in 1917 constituted themselves partly by taking more and more power (for instance, countering military orders from the provisional government). See Trotsky on "dual power" (referring to when the government still has power but the councils are taking more and more): Dual Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch11.htm).
Another thing you might like is John Reed on Soviets [councils] in Action (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/otherdox/whatnext/reedsovs.html).

[Comrade1]

The answer to all the questions: it depends.
What we want--or I want at least--is for the councils to be international. But they will almost certainly start locally though can spread quickly. There was a council in Seattle in 1919 or about there. Many other countries have had them nationally or virtually nationally.
As to what they would be taking control over, that's one of the most important questions. The answer I want would be about: everything. The councils in Russia in 1917 constituted themselves partly by taking more and more power (for instance, countering military orders from the provisional government). See Trotsky on "dual power" (referring to when the government still has power but the councils are taking more and more): Dual Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch11.htm).
Another thing you might like is John Reed on Soviets [councils] in Action (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/otherdox/whatnext/reedsovs.html).
Oh, alright, so what im understanding is it would control the entire economy and would be mosly locally, but is it through direct democracy or workers representitives?

[RedTrackWorker]

Oh, alright, so what im understanding is it would control the entire economy and would be mosly locally, but is it through direct democracy or workers representitives?

The councils would have councils representing larger groupings of councils, which would be composed by necessity of representatives. There is no other way I know of to attempt to control an entire economy (certainly not direct democracy).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Now im wondering how these would be run. I know by the workers but would it be national or localily? Would it consist of representitives. And what would they be planning. Production? What else?

They would consist of delegates rather than representative, who would be recallable and have a mandate of what their community has decided upon, if they stray from the mandate they can be recalled immediately and should be. There would have to be councils on a local basis, a regional basis and an international basis depending on what is being decided. They would plan production, what a community needs, what a city needs, what priority each product, material takes.

[Jose Gracchus]

Sadly, this is often historically not been the case. One must be quite clear what one means by "workers' councils", as they have been significantly different in character, origins, nature, and scale in different times. During 1917 in Russia, for example, there were both "party soviets" in some places which committed to a PR-form of organization and election (and of election of various committees); others, meanwhile, maintained an "organicist" (or even sometimes called "corporativist"!) "curial" form of organization, where the strict political representation was ignored in favor of delegates discretely and precisely being responsible to well-defined constituencies. In other words, in the former, where each party in the soviet might be represented according to proportion, including in committee; the latter would make sure, say, each ward or factory and its delegation was adequately represented, even if this was grossly politically disproportionate. It really varies. Workers' councils or soviets are one of those things every far-leftist offer rhetorical support for, but few are clear about it (and sadly), probably even fewer have a clear historical idea of what they were and how they functioned. I hope that was helpful, but I can provide a list of extensive sources and such if you would like. I'm currently involved in a significant historical research project vis-a-vis the "workers' councils" formation.

[Sasha]

to answer what i assume is the OP's question (with my viewpoint offcourse);
council will be as local as possible; one councel for every floor/section of the factory, one for each housing block/street, one for every militia unit etc etc. they would decides over matters that affect them directly and individualy.
these councels would then send dellagates to an councel dealing with subjects that affect the whole factory or the whole neighboorhood ect etc.

further, what "stranger than paradise" said ^

[Jose Gracchus]

Most of those organizations themselves will have cross-membership. This creates a serious problem in settled organization with having unclear lines of accountability and responsibility; furthermore, it violates the democratic principle of equality of individual participants. A worker who works two jobs and moonlights in the workers' militia is represented thrice over, and if he happens to have worked out a domestic arrangement with his or her partner remaining at home, what becomes of their functional representation?

[syndicat]

There are different kinds of organizations that have been called "workers councils." During world war 1 a radical shop stewards movement was developed in certain industries in Britain which were independent of the trade union bureaucracy. These were seen by radical workers participating in them as a precursor to worker management of the industries. In Italy in 1919-1920 in Turin there was another powerful shop stewards movement, based on general assemblies in the workplaces. This was organized jointly by members of the Italian Socialist Party and members of an anarcho-syndicalist group. These were called "factory councils." These were also seen by their participants as a precursor to worker management. Some of them did do some self-management of work during the month-long occupation of the factories in Italy in Sept 1920.

During the Russian revolution there were two rather different kinds of organization that could both be called "workers councils". There were city soviets and there was a factory committee movement. Factory committees consisted of worker delegates elected by the assemblies. In some cases these factory committee organizations became the basis for expropriating and managing a workplace. The soviets had a different role. These consisted of delegates elected from the various workplaces and also military units in that area. They were formed to act as a control on an unelected "provisiional" government, and they focused on political issues. They ultimately organized the removal of the old government.

Some soviets were highly democratic affairs where the delegates directly debated and made the decisions. Big city soviets in St Petersburg and Moscow were quite different. These were highly centralized with power concentrated in the party intelligentsia. A person didn't have to work in a factory to be elected as its delegate. Most city soviets were like this. These were like a city government controlled ostensibly by the working class, but in reality by the leaders of socialist parties.

I think highly centralized bodies of this kind are highly undesireable, as they lay down the basis for some new administrative elite.

For a broader region, what would be needed would be a congress of delegates. This leads me to another example of a worker council. During the Spanish revolution in the region of Aragon, the village unions invoked a regional congress of delegates which took over government authority in that region, by electing a regional defense council.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sadly, this is often historically not been the case. One must be quite clear what one means by "workers' councils", as they have been significantly different in character, origins, nature, and scale in different times. During 1917 in Russia, for example, there were both "party soviets" in some places which committed to a PR-form of organization and election (and of election of various committees); others, meanwhile, maintained an "organicist" (or even sometimes called "corporativist"!) "curial" form of organization, where the strict political representation was ignored in favor of delegates discretely and precisely being responsible to well-defined constituencies. In other words, in the former, where each party in the soviet might be represented according to proportion, including in committee; the latter would make sure, say, each ward or factory and its delegation was adequately represented, even if this was grossly politically disproportionate. It really varies. Workers' councils or soviets are one of those things every far-leftist offer rhetorical support for, but few are clear about it (and sadly), probably even fewer have a clear historical idea of what they were and how they functioned. I hope that was helpful, but I can provide a list of extensive sources and such if you would like. I'm currently involved in a significant historical research project vis-a-vis the "workers' councils" formation.

And that's why I oppose workers councils except those formed within Party-Movements as purely Party organizations in the mold of the Paris Communal Council (perhaps replacing "committees" and perhaps complemented by proper Bureaus to add insult to injuring anti-bureaucracy fetishes on the left).

The Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918, however deplorable, illustrated the key lesson: parties, not soviets, hold durable power.

[Jose Gracchus]

And that's why I oppose workers councils except those formed within Party-Movements as purely Party organizations in the mold of the Paris Communal Council (perhaps replacing "committees" and perhaps complemented by proper Bureaus to add insult to injuring anti-bureaucracy fetishes on the left).

The Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918, however deplorable, illustrated the key lesson: parties, not soviets, hold durable power.

I am unclear on this. Does this mean the party-movement - for lack of a better term - 'sponsors' the formation of councils as an instrument of class struggle or class self-organization and management, where it is broadly open to class participation? Or only pre-existing party-movement membership? What about bona fide class participation by class activists belonging to other parties, movements, or political organizations not formally in cooperation with (from the perspective of the discussion) 'our' party-movement?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The latter ("only pre-existing party-movement membership"). Normally, political parties have things like committees and commissions. Instead of labelling these "committees" and "commissions," just label them councils and bureaus.

In the case of worker-class parties, these should be workers councils and bureaus. So, instead of the central committee, have a Central Workers Council of the party. Instead of the central auditing commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPSU_Central_Auditing_Commission), have a Central Audit Bureau of the party.


What about bona fide class participation by class activists belonging to other parties, movements, or political organizations not formally in cooperation with (from the perspective of the discussion) 'our' party-movement?

I appreciate your acceptance of the party-movement model, comrade.

In the 1920s, the Comintern resolved that "soviets" were a sort of United Front. There could be other organs *not* labelled "workers councils" that stress some sort of cooperation but do not pull off an "all power" con job.

Ideally, that bona fide class participation would not be necessary, yielding to a singular party-movement model whose political support can be clearly measured (mass internal citizenship, mass membership just below, some electoral support, some spoilage support, etc.).

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think that there only available or substantive or legitimate form of class organization, economic or political, should be a one-way street to the party-movement. No party-movement in history has ever had a broad enough mass membership in practice for this to be something besides exclusionary, more importantly, in practice there will be class activity outside of the party. How is this contradiction managed? I don't see the organic solution to this problem. I don't pretend to have my own model as well-worked out as you, but I do perceive big questions here.

That said, I do like the idea of a popular council of the party-movement mass-membership providing a policy-making and decision-making center; the revolution extended to the party itself!

[Victus Mortuum]

@ OP

Radical Democracy and Sociopolitical Syndicalism is where it's at.

[Jose Gracchus]

I guess I'm skeptical in the real world one can simply count on the fact that the 'party-movement' will have majoritarian class-popular support (at least simple majority of both the class and the population) in any conceivable revolutionary situation. I feel there's a lack of contingency built into this model.

[syndicat]

parties are organizations built to capture the state and put their leadership into control of it. they've always been hierarchical and likely always will be. the idea that the whole working class en masse could gain control over their work and communities and society thru a "party" is sheer poppycock.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Marx said "sheer poppycock"? :lol:


I guess I'm skeptical in the real world one can simply count on the fact that the 'party-movement' will have majoritarian class-popular support (at least simple majority of both the class and the population) in any conceivable revolutionary situation. I feel there's a lack of contingency built into this model.

Who cares about the majority of "the population"?

Bakunin, Sorel, the Comintern, et al were also skeptical about the party-movement having majority political support from the working class itself. Unfortunately, their "contingency" revolves around nothing less than conning the workers to taking power.

The Bolsheviks did have majority political support from fall 1917 to March 1918, despite the low numbers of the Russian proletariat.

[Paulappaul]

Sadly, this is often historically not been the case. One must be quite clear what one means by "workers' councils", as they have been significantly different in character, origins, nature, and scale in different times.

They are first and foremost self expressions of the Working Class Self activity. They arise in certain material conditions (as you say) and insomuch are meant for those conditions. There is no real, solid definition of "Workers Councils" other then that they arise outside traditional forms of labor representation and often times in opposition to them.

Under all circumstances they have been both Political and Economic units. Some through Political and Economic strikes, some through organized militias which seize political pwoer and others arising alongside political parties (The KAPD/AAUD) which act as the "political" organ of the struggle.



During 1917 in Russia, for example, there were both "party soviets" in some places which committed to a PR-form of organization and election (and of election of various committees); others, meanwhile, maintained an "organicist" (or even sometimes called "corporativist"!) "curial" form of organization, where the strict political representation was ignored in favor of delegates discretely and precisely being responsible to well-defined constituencies. In other words, in the former, where each party in the soviet might be represented according to proportion, including in committee; the latter would make sure, say, each ward or factory and its delegation was adequately represented, even if this was grossly politically disproportionate.

I've always got a sense of that, but I am wondering where you found it.



Workers' councils or soviets are one of those things every far-leftist offer rhetorical support for, but few are clear about it (and sadly), probably even fewer have a clear historical idea of what they were and how they functioned.

Mainly because alot of sources don't come from within the Councils themselves, but from Political Revolutionaries passing stories done the line.


Now im wondering how these would be run. I know by the workers but would it be national or localily? Would it consist of representitives. And what would they be planning. Production? What else?

I matters from what perspective you view it, from the very unmaterialistic view of Theory or the Actual History of the Subject?

From Theory, I would say most Workers' Councils sympathizers would say that they plan production from a Central Council or a Federalised System of Planning. Although there are some who would combine Market Style Socialism with Workers Councils, whereby they don't plan the economy.

From the actual tendency of Workers' Councils, it doesn't seem as though the workers in them struggle for a planned economy. I know the Shoras in Iran often spoke of the Government and Shoras taken on their respective roles of providing simple necessities to all of the citizens under a national plan. I don't know if that is all that's needed for a "Planned Economy" Or if it has to be a giant government apparatus like in the Soviet Union. I'd say for the most part, Workers Councils have sailed towards Workers Self Management of production and distribution.

[Jose Gracchus]

Who cares about the majority of "the population"?

Because its a joke to pretend a classless society will be built from society where a minority party fraction of a single class, especially if it itself is a minority of the overall population, places itself in dictatorial dominance, and I don't mean revolutionary overthrow. How can party-workers successfully maintain their own decreasingly unhierarchical, withering-state revolutionary process while in the process of acting a minoritarian dictatorial caste over, ostensibly, unconscious members of the class and more importantly, the majority of the population? It defies reason.

[EDIT:] To be honest, on this position, I follow the classic broad line most Bolsheviks in 1917 held: if the progressive class strata is so minoritarian, you got to have the support of a broader bloc where the working class and geniune allies have the center of gravity. Internationally, the industrialized powers with enormous majorities of working class people should be in overall driver's seat of a world revolution whereby locally indecisive class configurations are carried along by the world proletariat (the great majority). Of course, I think the revolution should also be initiated in that manner - in a decisive bloc of majority working class, strongly revolutionary, industrial states, by the transnational working class and their organizations -, not in the indecisive locality in a huge Hail Mary play hoping to bring along the rest of a continent by persuasive example. A huge gamble that did not pay off successfully (and I doubt ever would).


Bakunin, Sorel, the Comintern, et al were also skeptical about the party-movement having majority political support from the working class itself. Unfortunately, their "contingency" revolves around nothing less than conning the workers to taking power.

So what? I'm asking you how you would deal with likely real-world scenarios, and how you'd deal with them, and you basically appeal to your rule and try to imply I'm arguing from one of those myriad positions? What gives? I want to know how this would be bridged: I offered my alternative.


The Bolsheviks did have majority political support from fall 1917 to March 1918, despite the low numbers of the Russian proletariat.

Yeah, Bolshevik meant an end to compromise with the bourgeoisie and revolution and ending the war, but you're moving the goalposts from the kind of "majority support" you describe in your theories to the kind of majority support the Bolsheviks had in this period. They didn't have that depth of support.

[Jose Gracchus]

I've always got a sense of that, but I am wondering where you found it.

Found it in Israel Getzler, "Soviets as Agents of Democraticization," in Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917, ed. Edith Rogovin Frankel et al. (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1992).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because its a joke to pretend a classless society will be built from society where a minority party fraction of a single class, especially if it itself is a minority of the overall population, places itself in dictatorial dominance, and I don't mean revolutionary overthrow. How can party-workers successfully maintain their own decreasingly unhierarchical, withering-state revolutionary process while in the process of acting a minoritarian dictatorial caste over, ostensibly, unconscious members of the class and more importantly, the majority of the population? It defies reason.

[EDIT:] To be honest, on this position, I follow the classic broad line most Bolsheviks in 1917 held: if the progressive class strata is so minoritarian, you got to have the support of a broader bloc where the working class and genuine allies have the center of gravity. Internationally, the industrialized powers with enormous majorities of working class people should be in overall driver's seat of a world revolution whereby locally indecisive class configurations are carried along by the world proletariat (the great majority). Of course, I think the revolution should also be initiated in that manner - in a decisive bloc of majority working class, strongly revolutionary, industrial states, by the transnational working class and their organizations -, not in the indecisive locality in a huge Hail Mary play hoping to bring along the rest of a continent by persuasive example. A huge gamble that did not pay off successfully (and I doubt ever would).

Here I think you make the most solid case ever against national revolutions.


So what? I'm asking you how you would deal with likely real-world scenarios, and how you'd deal with them, and you basically appeal to your rule and try to imply I'm arguing from one of those myriad positions? What gives? I want to know how this would be bridged: I offered my alternative.

Could you please repeat that alternative again, or is it the United Front stuff between the party-movement and those outside of it?


Yeah, Bolshevik meant an end to compromise with the bourgeoisie and revolution and ending the war, but you're moving the goalposts from the kind of "majority support" you describe in your theories to the kind of majority support the Bolsheviks had in this period.

On the other hand, it is argued by the likes of Lars Lih that the Bolsheviks, after losing majority political support from the working class and despite suppressing the peasant political organizations (even the Left SRs), moved swiftly to obtain their political support. Despite the grain requisitions, he said that the worker-peasant alliance survived the civil war. As Lenin himself predicted, the class balance shifted within the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry towards the latter class.

[Pravda Soyuz]

In a socialist "workers council" system, you would need local councils simply because economies differ from region to region. They would answer to another council with authority over the regional ones. This way, an economy can be centralized and still focus and expand on single localities.

[Jose Gracchus]

Here I think you make the most solid case ever against national revolutions.

I don't think the progressiveness of classes of petty proprietors of the primitive agricultural variety has been adequately or definitively resolved. (Teodor Shanin would even have us believe this ambiguity extends to the "late Marx", who may have been more ambiguous on the alignment of progressive class forces outside Western Europe.) However, if we are to take the tack the only the propertyless supply of productive labor has revolutionary potential (but here we must concern ourselves with the present-day expansion of the service proletariat, and the distribution of production, distribution, and allocation of goods and services across atomized workplaces across the entire modern imperial capitalist complex, worldwide).


Could you please repeat that alternative again, or is it the United Front stuff between the party-movement and those outside of it?

In essence, your approach to me feels sometimes too much like "checklist" or "flow chart" socialism. We have this organization, it meets these checks so its really good (class-restricted membership in line with Second International Marxian dogmata, etc.), and it will proceed in this fashion along these AND OR NOT gates to socialism (among them, not seize power for the extreme democracy - which I am skeptical imposition of demarchy would achieve credibly or robustly - unless it has unitary majority class support across a territorial-economic bloc that is autarkically-revolutionarily sustainable). In this case, I don't think one can proceed without admitting the possibility, no matter how good one's theories and lines are, that class forces are mixed, there are problems of xenophobia, craft and trade splits, extractive versus productive versus service sectors, and consciousness-that-doesn't-suit-our-party. Or the reactionaries forcing your hand as in Spain in 1936 with attempted coups or military suppression, etc. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but implicitly here I feel we're left with nothing but the shadow of a whisper of "That. Just. Won't. Happen." here. I find that unconvincing. Hopefully my comprehension is just poor.


On the other hand, it is argued by the likes of Lars Lih that the Bolsheviks, after losing majority political support from the working class and despite suppressing the peasant political organizations (even the Left SRs), moved swiftly to obtain their political support. Despite the grain requisitions, he said that the worker-peasant alliance survived the civil war. As Lenin himself predicted, the class balance shifted within the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry towards the latter class.

Based on what evidence? Its hard to fathom considering how broadly Bolshevik leadership used the peasant excuse for NEP and Kronstadt. Furthermore, when the regime moved against the peasantry, how was this reflected in the political superstructure? This seems to me a phantom assertion, lacking material substance in empirical historical evidence.

[Kaze no Kae]

The councils would have councils representing larger groupings of councils, which would be composed by necessity of representatives. There is no other way I know of to attempt to control an entire economy (certainly not direct democracy).
No other way in 1917. In the 21st century with advances in transport and telecommunications technology delegates to councils at every level can feasibly be accountable directly to the grassroots.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In essence, your approach to me feels sometimes too much like "checklist" or "flow chart" socialism. We have this organization, it meets these checks so its really good (class-restricted membership in line with Second International Marxian dogmata, etc.), and it will proceed in this fashion along these AND OR NOT gates to socialism (among them, not seize power for the extreme democracy - which I am skeptical imposition of demarchy would achieve credibly or robustly - unless it has unitary majority class support across a territorial-economic bloc that is autarkically-revolutionarily sustainable). In this case, I don't think one can proceed without admitting the possibility, no matter how good one's theories and lines are, that class forces are mixed, there are problems of xenophobia, craft and trade splits, extractive versus productive versus service sectors, and consciousness-that-doesn't-suit-our-party. Or the reactionaries forcing your hand as in Spain in 1936 with attempted coups or military suppression, etc. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but implicitly here I feel we're left with nothing but the shadow of a whisper of "That. Just. Won't. Happen." here. I find that unconvincing. Hopefully my comprehension is just poor.

I like that level of constructively critical comprehension, actually. You mention flow charts and logic gates (which begs the question of what your line of career studies is, but that's for elsewhere), which in turn imply my emphasis on some sort of process that should be followed.


Furthermore, when the regime moved against the peasantry, how was this reflected in the political superstructure?

Part of it was reflected in the under-weighting of the rural soviets.

[Jose Gracchus]

I like that level of constructively critical comprehension, actually. You mention flow charts and logic gates (which begs the question of what your line of career studies is, but that's for elsewhere), which in turn imply my emphasis on some sort of process that should be followed.

I don't think its a bad way to structure thought. However, the problem with any sort of reductionist comprehensive framework is there are pathways, triggers, and qualifications frequently unseen (or "outside the chart", if we're to follow the analogy). Considering the fact that a substantial quality of heterogenity and sectarianism has always afflicted class politics, as well as an assumption of initiative by institutions or even wild events we may not prefer at times, should be adequately accounted for. My point is, in essence, I feel like you described a model here that's a single-party state where we hope drawing lots regularly will prevent all the bad qualities we associate with that. What I'm also concerned by is the idea that any model or formation is assigned or implemented arbitrarily, rather than dynamically arising from realities of political development and struggle, of course.


Part of it was reflected in the under-weighting of the rural soviets.

That was in 1918 after the peasants' revolutionary fraction - the Left SRs - was already being suppressed. Is that what you mean? Because the grain requisitions were at their worst after. You also mentioned the Civil War, but I don't follow. You mean NEP was an attempt to support the Bolshevik party-dictatorship in alien class elements with a flagging of worker-class majority support? I'm afraid I'm all turned around in your chronology here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That was in 1918 after the peasants' revolutionary fraction - the Left SRs - was already being suppressed. Is that what you mean? Because the grain requisitions were at their worst after. You also mentioned the Civil War, but I don't follow. You mean NEP was an attempt to support the Bolshevik party-dictatorship in alien class elements with a flagging of worker-class majority support? I'm afraid I'm all turned around in your chronology here.

1) Left-SRs walk out (after Brest-Litovsk)
2) Bolshevik coups d'etat in 1918
3) Suppression of Left SRs
4) Grain requisitions
5) NEP

Yeah, I think NEP was part of an attempt to shift the Bolshevik party's class base of support from the working class to the peasantry. The worker-peasant alliance may have survived, but there was a shift. Another part was in the Rabkrin debate. Still another was in the Lenin Levy.


I don't think its a bad way to structure thought. However, the problem with any sort of reductionist comprehensive framework is there are pathways, triggers, and qualifications frequently unseen (or "outside the chart", if we're to follow the analogy).

To follow the analogy, most systems development projects fail on both time and money. ;)

[Jose Gracchus]

I have more detailed questions and replies for later, but for the time being, in which of Lars Lih's works (I've started on Lenin Revisited, but it is quite the tome heh) does he detail this look at Bolshevik class support?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://vimeo.com/6188759

http://vimeo.com/15023171

http://vimeo.com/15023530

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ironic-triumph-old-t145495/index.html
(Video: http://vimeo.com/17271793 )

[syndicat]

That was in 1918 after the peasants' revolutionary fraction - the Left SRs - was already being suppressed. Is that what you mean? Because the grain requisitions were at their worst after. You also mentioned the Civil War, but I don't follow. You mean NEP was an attempt to support the Bolshevik party-dictatorship in alien class elements with a flagging of worker-class majority support? I'm afraid I'm all turned around in your chronology here.

NEP came out of the failure of the repressive system of grain requistions. it led to massive peasant resistance and opposition. thus it actually undermined the ability of the Bolsheviks to govern. NEP was adopted at the party congress in 1921...the same congress that banned party factions and all oppositional political organization. the "dictatorship of the party" then became party orthodoxy. banning internal factions was a natural result of banning other left organizations. that's because that tended to lead to activists of the banned orgs then joining the CP.

[The Author]

Now im wondering how these would be run. I know by the workers but would it be national or localily? Would it consist of representitives. And what would they be planning. Production? What else?

They would be run on an international (eventually), national, regional, and local level. They would decide production, all kinds of planning, running the country(ies) in the place of traditional government, planning defense if need be, socialist construction, distribution of resources, consumer needs, etc. The Party (of advanced class-conscious workers, not bourgeois intellectuals) would be the ideological backbone that would educate and guide the Councils in the early stages. Then, once the material and political and cultural basis of socialism has been fulfilled and the Council members would have the experience and skill to run everything, the Party would be dissolved and the Councils would move on to Communism and maintain Communism by themselves.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Party (of advanced class-conscious workers, not bourgeois intellectuals) would be the ideological backbone that would educate and guide the Councils in the early stages.
I'm wondering, what would be some of the more concrete manifestations of this notion of guidancer and education be?
Would the party-state take on the role of a co-ordinator, ensuring access to education crucial to a redistribution of organizational skills?
And what about other working class organizations - such as anarchist organizations, different communist organizations, even intra-party factions - what is your stance on these?

[The Author]

I'm wondering, what would be some of the more concrete manifestations of this notion of guidancer and education be?
Would the party-state take on the role of a co-ordinator, ensuring access to education crucial to a redistribution of organizational skills?

It would be through rigid control of the education system and the media. Propaganda, literature, dissemination of all cultural activities would be under the hands of the Party in the early phases. Economic planning would obviously be influenced by the accountants and "thinkers" of the old order until a new workforce steeled in the ideas of communism and economics would gradually replace the old establishment. You would need an apparatus in order to keep the entire infrastructure functioning properly. Essentially, the Party is the figurative "White Collar" of the transitional period. The functions would become limited over time and then eliminated entirely once the material and social needs of everybody are met accordingly.


And what about other working class organizations - such as anarchist organizations, different communist organizations, even intra-party factions - what is your stance on these?

The Party would be run on the principles of democratic centralism. The members debate an issue, vote on it, majority holds the floor and the motion which has the most weight passes and all members must subscribe to it without exception. Liberalism and factionalism and "checks and balances" are a detriment to the revolutionary process. Nothing gets accomplished, the "debates" are circular, never-ending, help no one and creates tensions and splits. Those who want to create tension are removed from candidacy as a Party member. Hurts the Councils because if you don't have a functioning Party that knows what it's doing, but a Party that indulges in factions and infighting, then the Councils will have no easy sense of direction in how to run the country(ies). Sure, they could try running things on their own without the Party in the beginning of the revolution. But that process would be fraught with severe difficulties due to inexperience and lack of skill, hence why the Party's role is crucial.