Workers' Councils

[The Man]

How would these Workers Councils not turn into a government?

[Magón]

Because whoever is currently in the Worker's Councils could simply, and quickly, be taken from power if they become a problem for whatever reason.

[Comrade1]

Because whoever is currently in the Worker's Councils could simply, and quickly, be taken from power if they become a problem for whatever reason.
Or you could just simply have a direct democracy lets say the council will meet every saturday and be very localized

[Sensible Socialist]

There is no problem in workers councils being a form of governance, if that is what the people wish. The danger is a "state," a hierachial system of power dominated by a minority. Government, to create a stable society, is fine when power is equally divided among the citizens.

But as long as representatives have the ability to be re-called almost immediately, there shouldn't be much of a problem. Also combined with most issues being voted on directly by the people.

[The Man]

I'm going to be honest, it really sounds like these Workers' Councils control everything, and are similiar to a government.

[Sensible Socialist]

I'm going to be honest, it really sounds like these Workers' Councils control everything, and are similiar to a government.
They can be a form of government. Anarchism does not oppose government.

Workers councils control the distribution of resources, but considering anyone can be involved, and has a say, with workers councils I don't see the problem.

[Magón]

Or you could just simply have a direct democracy lets say the council will meet every saturday and be very localized

What's more democratic than having the workers kick out those that they find unsuitable for the job at the moment, without having to go through all the bureaucratic shit. If you're talking about Worker's Councils, they're already pretty localized to start with, they're not a nation wide Worker's Council, they'd be much smaller, because then you could focus on specific tasks of the people in certain areas.

Having the ability to kick out two or three council leaders at will, is direct democracy.

[Diello]

It seems to me that having universal transparency of administration would also help keep power from illegitimately concentrating in the hands of a minority.

[Comrade1]

What's more democratic than having the workers kick out those that they find unsuitable for the job at the moment, without having to go through all the bureaucratic shit. If you're talking about Worker's Councils, they're already pretty localized to start with, they're not a nation wide Worker's Council, they'd be much smaller, because then you could focus on specific tasks of the people in certain areas.

Having the ability to kick out two or three council leaders at will, is direct democracy.
Also very true ^

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

How would these Workers Councils not turn into a government?

I think you misunderstand the concept of both anarchy and the worker's council. Anarchy doesn't mean there wouldn't be some method of organization, and a communist society would likely be organized on the basis of worker's councils. However, the councils would be similar to an Athenian democracy with universal suffrage with citizens voting directly on most issues and with any delegates being immediately recallable by vote of the citizens.

[The Man]

I think you misunderstand the concept of both anarchy and the worker's council. Anarchy doesn't mean there wouldn't be some method of organization, and a communist society would likely be organized on the basis of worker's councils. However, the councils would be similar to an Athenian democracy with universal suffrage with citizens voting directly on most issues and with any delegates being immediately recallable by vote of the citizens.


So do these Worker's Councils have the power institute regulations against individual freedom?

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

So do these Worker's Councils have the power institute regulations against individual freedom?

Only if you think of them in a pre-revolutionary sense. Class society will have been destroyed and the effects of capitalism will no longer have any bearing on society. No more commercialism attempting to sell you bourgeois ideals and no more crime of desperation. Ostensibly, the purposes of the Worker's Councils will be for the democratic self-management of the economy by the proletariat itself (though such class distinctions will no longer exist as capital will have been abolished).

[BIG BROTHER]

The Soviets or Worker's councils ARE a form of goverment. The difference is that this State would be radically different from the previos ones by the fact it represents the vast majority of people, the working class.

As the Proletariat goes on with destroying capitalism and eradicating counter-revolutionaries the need for the Worker's council be part of a repressive apartus would go away.

Also keep in mind that this are organs of direct democracy, were the workers would be actively participating on it so the chances for it to turn authoritarian would be low since I could recalled from any duties, position, etc

[syndicat]

there have been historically different kinds of organizations called "workers councils" so it's actually not clear which the OP has in mind.

in the world war 1 era, for example, there were radical movements of workers in workplaces where there were stop work meetings and election of shop steward or factory councils. movements of this sort existed in Scotland, in Russia in 1917 (the factory committee movement), in Italy during the biennio rossi (1919-20). these movements in that era were often of syndicalist inspiration and aimed at workers management of production. when workers have taken over production, as in the Spanish revolution, and set up assemblies and elected councils to self-manage production, this arrangement has also been called a "workers council."

the second type of organization called a "workers council" were the Russian soviets ("soviet" means council in Russian). these were not about management of workplaces but were city-wide labor councils, with delegates elected from the various workplaces or military units. these were a check on the "provisional government" originally and dealt with political issues, and eventually supplanted in the local city governments after Oct 1917. In the main cities these soviets were often organized in a top-down way, controlled by party leaders. There were some cases where the worker delegates were in control of the debates and decision-making, but this was not the most typical situation.

so it's not clear which type of "workers council" the OP has in mind. are you talking about governance of a workplace or governance of the society? from a libertarian socialist point of view, there will need to be a system of governance -- a government -- to replace the state apparatus. Left-anarchism is not opposed to self-government but requires it. But it has to be rooted in direct democracy of face-to-face assemblies. These could be neighborhood assemblies, meetings of the residents of an urban area, or they could be assemblies of workers in workplaces. These would elect both committees to ensure decisions are carried out in their particular sphere of decision-making....the neighborhood or the workplace, and elect delegates to meetings or congresses of delegates from larger geographic areas.

so this means there would be a form of government, since self-government is a form of government.

Why would this fail to be repressive? Ask yourself, why does the state engage in repression? first of all, because the people don't really control it. and, secondly, because the existing society has various forms of oppression, there are various groups who are oppressed, especially the working class, but sometimes other groups, such as gays or a racial or ethnic minority.

thus oppression of individuals in the present society is usually tied into their membership in a group that is oppressed in some way.

Now, a movement that ends the class system, and creates working class power in the workplaces and communities, has to be a movement that opposes all the various forms of oppression, in order to unite the working class to be an effective force in fighting for its liberation. A movement that aims at equality and generalized self-management isn't aiming at creating new relations of subordination and oppression.

and part of this has to be the recognition of the individual's right to their own opinions and to participate freely in decision-making. and this can't happen if individuals are subject to a repressive regime of control. participatory democracy, an authentic democracy, also presupposes the freedom of speech and opinion among its participants.

[The Man]

there have been historically different kinds of organizations called "workers councils" so it's actually not clear which the OP has in mind.

in the world war 1 era, for example, there were radical movements of workers in workplaces where there were stop work meetings and election of shop steward or factory councils. movements of this sort existed in Scotland, in Russia in 1917 (the factory committee movement), in Italy during the biennio rossi (1919-20). these movements in that era were often of syndicalist inspiration and aimed at workers management of production. when workers have taken over production, as in the Spanish revolution, and set up assemblies and elected councils to self-manage production, this arrangement has also been called a "workers council."

the second type of organization called a "workers council" were the Russian soviets ("soviet" means council in Russian). these were not about management of workplaces but were city-wide labor councils, with delegates elected from the various workplaces or military units. these were a check on the "provisional government" originally and dealt with political issues, and eventually supplanted in the local city governments after Oct 1917. In the main cities these soviets were often organized in a top-down way, controlled by party leaders. There were some cases where the worker delegates were in control of the debates and decision-making, but this was not the most typical situation.

so it's not clear which type of "workers council" the OP has in mind. are you talking about governance of a workplace or governance of the society? from a libertarian socialist point of view, there will need to be a system of governance -- a government -- to replace the state apparatus. Left-anarchism is not opposed to self-government but requires it. But it has to be rooted in direct democracy of face-to-face assemblies. These could be neighborhood assemblies, meetings of the residents of an urban area, or they could be assemblies of workers in workplaces. These would elect both committees to ensure decisions are carried out in their particular sphere of decision-making....the neighborhood or the workplace, and elect delegates to meetings or congresses of delegates from larger geographic areas.

so this means there would be a form of government, since self-government is a form of government.

Why would this fail to be repressive? Ask yourself, why does the state engage in repression? first of all, because the people don't really control it. and, secondly, because the existing society has various forms of oppression, there are various groups who are oppressed, especially the working class, but sometimes other groups, such as gays or a racial or ethnic minority.

thus oppression of individuals in the present society is usually tied into their membership in a group that is oppressed in some way.

Now, a movement that ends the class system, and creates working class power in the workplaces and communities, has to be a movement that opposes all the various forms of oppression, in order to unite the working class to be an effective force in fighting for its liberation. A movement that aims at equality and generalized self-management isn't aiming at creating new relations of subordination and oppression.

and part of this has to be the recognition of the individual's right to their own opinions and to participate freely in decision-making. and this can't happen if individuals are subject to a repressive regime of control. participatory democracy, an authentic democracy, also presupposes the freedom of speech and opinion among its participants.


Thank you for clearing that up. So from what I see, Anarcho-Communists believe that you have ultimate liberty and freedom (Except Rape, Murder, Robbery Etc), through a Direct Democracy Government?

[Paulappaul]

Anarcho-Communists believe that you have ultimate liberty and freedom (Except Rape, Murder, Robbery Etc), through a Direct Democracy Government?

Basically Anarchists believe in absolute freedom to do what they please as long as it doesn't hurt the collective. So in this sense it stress' the individual, while maintaining the security of the Collective.

[syndicat]

Thank you for clearing that up. So from what I see, Anarcho-Communists believe that you have ultimate liberty and freedom (Except Rape, Murder, Robbery Etc), through a Direct Democracy Government?


in essence we have to make a distinction between collective decisions and certain decisions that only affect you, or are only your business. these are decisions about how you are going to conduct your own life. the collectivity has no right to concern itself here, but the collectivity is concerned about actions that have social effects, actions that affect others. so any harm to others that you or a group engage in comes becomes an issue of the collectivity. sometimes this may mean that the collectivity has to intervene to resolve disputes between different groups or parties. somethings you have serious harm that has to be addressed, such as the sort of crimes you mention.

the collectivity is also concerned with issues of public planning and use of the common resources for social production.

an organized governance system is needed, first of all, to try to determine the truth of accusations. so there needs to be some way for accused parties to defend themselves and for independent investigation of the question, such as is done by forensics at present. if a determination of guilt is reached, then the preferred method, from a libertarian point of view, would be some form of community-based restorative justice...community service, public sanction, and the like. in hardened cases of amoral individuals, it may be necessary to consider things like banishment to some work camp. ultimately the community retains the right of collective self-defense.

[BIG BROTHER]

the second type of organization called a "workers council" were the Russian soviets ("soviet" means council in Russian). these were not about management of workplaces but were city-wide labor councils, with delegates elected from the various workplaces or military units. these were a check on the "provisional government" originally and dealt with political issues, and eventually supplanted in the local city governments after Oct 1917. In the main cities these soviets were often organized in a top-down way, controlled by party leaders. There were some cases where the worker delegates were in control of the debates and decision-making, but this was not the most typical situation.



I find the whole Top-down characterization of the Russian Soviets a bit insulting to all the worker's who died defending them.

It is true that the Soviets did end up becoming subjugated and "top-down" to the Party as the degeneration of the Revolution occurred, but they were certainly not top down.

[Paulappaul]

I find the whole Top-down characterization of the Russian Soviets a bit insulting to all the worker's who died defending them.

Oh geez, really that's the oldest argument in the book. Hey how about those Workers Fighting in Iraq? Man its a bit insulting to be saying they are only perpetuating imperialism and bourgeois top down institutions which they help to make. That's fucking pitiful argument. Don't even pull that.


It is true that the Soviets did end up becoming subjugated and "top-down" to the Party as the degeneration of the Revolution occurred, but they were certainly not top down.

Many of the Soviets were made by the Intelligentsia, Labor Unions, etc. and the executive committees were very top down, the workers' half the time were merely the rubber stamp of the proposals. This is widely known and widely recognized.

[BIG BROTHER]

Oh geez, really that's the oldest argument in the book. Hey how about those Workers Fighting in Iraq? Man its a bit insulting to be saying they are only perpetuating imperialism and bourgeois top down institutions which they help to make. That's fucking pitiful argument. Don't even pull that.



Many of the Soviets were made by the Intelligentsia, Labor Unions, etc. and the executive committees were very top down, the workers' half the time were merely the rubber stamp of the proposals. This is widely known and widely recognized.

Its very different when worker's consciously fight to defend their power, than when they are sent to die on behalf their own ruling class. I'm sure you can tell the difference.

And yes the Soviets were so top down! That perfectly explains why the Proletariat mobilized under the slogan of "All power to the Soviets" the working class obviously wanted all power to this top down structure!

[Paulappaul]

Its very different when worker's consciously fight to defend their power, than when they are sent to die on behalf their own ruling class. I'm sure you can tell the difference.

The people in Iraq right now very much believe they are defending Democracy and Freedom.


And yes the Soviets were so top down! That perfectly explains why the Proletariat mobilized under the slogan of "All power to the Soviets" the working class obviously wanted all power to this top down structure!

What's your point? Workers en mass mobilize every year for another president under another slogan, for the same government which they know fucks them over.

[BIG BROTHER]

The people in Iraq right now very much believe they are defending Democracy and Freedom.



What's your point? Workers en mass mobilize every year for another president under another slogan, for the same government which they know fucks them over.

So are you basically saying that the Russian workers were a bunch or retards who didn't know they were being oppressed?

I think there is a sea of difference between workers rallying behind a bourgeoisie different and workers setting up factory committees, having discussions and debates in Soviets and deciding to overthrow capitalism.

[syndicat]

Its very different when worker's consciously fight to defend their power, than when they are sent to die on behalf their own ruling class. I'm sure you can tell the difference.

except that if workers don't control the soviet, it's not their power. it's the power of the party intelligentsia. in fact workers have often fought to defend various things...including governments of various kinds.

at the beginning, the parties in the soviets had a lot of support in the working class. and even those critical of the top down nature of the soviets fought in the miltiias and red guards. for one thing, as long as there was some democracy there, they felt they could fight to improve the soviets. workers have often fought hard in strikes to defend bureaucratic trade unions. that doesn't show workers effectively control them.

but the point about the top-down nature of the soviets is that it is one of a number of early institutional moves by the Menshevik and Bolshevik parties that led to the consolidation of a new bureaucratic class regime.



And yes the Soviets were so top down! That perfectly explains why the Proletariat mobilized under the slogan of "All power to the Soviets" the working class obviously wanted all power to this top down structure!

virtually the entire radical left supported the transfer of power from the unelected provisional government to the soviet congress and transfer of local government power to the soviets. but many thought this would mean the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Congress would be the new government. except that the Bolsheviks were able to concentrate power into a smaller group and eventually rule by decree and by spring of 1918 they overthrew many of the soviets when they refused to reelect bolshevik majorities. so much for "soviet power".

just because workers support something in a given situation doesn't mean there are no problems with that or that it did not contribute to their defeat thru the development of a bureaucratic class regime.

[Paulappaul]

So are you basically saying that the Russian workers were a bunch or retards who didn't know they were being oppressed?

I don't think the working class are retards. I think they are consciously aware of their exploitation but they think its for the good. They think War and Exploitation secures their "Freedom" Their "Democracy".

The Russian Workers trusted the parties. Then they trusted the Bolsheviks. They had liberated them Feudalism and they hoped they good help them in the future. When did wrong, they thought it was for the revolution.

Take Kronstadt. The Workers really believed the massacre of their comrades was for the revolution, for the good. During the Stalin era, the workers really believed they were working for Socialism and for the revolution.

But they knew. They knew their liberties were being taken away. Like in America when you go to worker and you ask them so why are we in a war? Oh to defend our country and our Freedom.


I think there is a sea of difference between workers rallying behind a bourgeoisie different and workers setting up factory committees, having discussions and debates in Soviets and deciding to overthrow capitalism.

Except the Soviets composition were mostly revolutionaries and intellegensia whose main goal was overthrowing the Czar and fulfilling Russia's historical goal of transcending Feudalism into Capitalism.