Workers-Control-Over-Prod
17th March 2012, 23:17
"Socialism is the revolutionary phase of Communism" - Lenin.
The way i see it, the underdeveloped countries have to first go through a phase of industrialisation/capital accumulation, which is autocratic in nature. It is though very much in marxist theory to change the relation of the worker to his production in Socialism, the "State of Flux" (Engels) transitional phase to communism which tries to implement the majority's economic interest. So, State ownership of the means of production, with the Soviet being the political institution.
But, during the revolution when workers take over their factories and form direct councils (as in every revolution) this needs to go on when the turmoil is past; The workers should (instead of like in the Soviet Union where the party elected the "Commissar" State Capitalist class) keep direct democratically council at their workplace once a week and select a colleague to represent their ideas and needs to the Soviet. These sent workers would plan production in a national or trans-national workers council in communication with the Soviet.
Every single revolution in history ended in the liquidation of the previous classes, the DE-centralisation of control of production and emergence of control of the new highest revolutionary class. The Soviet Union and most other examples of now failed communist revolutions, have NOT changed the capitalist organisation of the workplace, they always re-instated the capitalist class. Imagine if the bourgeois revolution of France had all of a sudden thought it would have been better to centralise production for the revolutionary cause, to re-instate a king until the world followed their same ideals, would this have been a revolutionary change in history?
The way i see it, the underdeveloped countries have to first go through a phase of industrialisation/capital accumulation, which is autocratic in nature. It is though very much in marxist theory to change the relation of the worker to his production in Socialism, the "State of Flux" (Engels) transitional phase to communism which tries to implement the majority's economic interest. So, State ownership of the means of production, with the Soviet being the political institution.
But, during the revolution when workers take over their factories and form direct councils (as in every revolution) this needs to go on when the turmoil is past; The workers should (instead of like in the Soviet Union where the party elected the "Commissar" State Capitalist class) keep direct democratically council at their workplace once a week and select a colleague to represent their ideas and needs to the Soviet. These sent workers would plan production in a national or trans-national workers council in communication with the Soviet.
Every single revolution in history ended in the liquidation of the previous classes, the DE-centralisation of control of production and emergence of control of the new highest revolutionary class. The Soviet Union and most other examples of now failed communist revolutions, have NOT changed the capitalist organisation of the workplace, they always re-instated the capitalist class. Imagine if the bourgeois revolution of France had all of a sudden thought it would have been better to centralise production for the revolutionary cause, to re-instate a king until the world followed their same ideals, would this have been a revolutionary change in history?