Workplace democracy

[thriller]

Under socialism I believe workers of a single location will have equal and democratic control over policy and ownership over the means of production. I would like to know what YOU would prefer for a method of democracy: consensus or majority vote (and why)?

I prefer majority vote because it is more efficient, doesn't make the masses (majority of workers in the workplace) compromise, and leaves a voting record. I think the last point is vital because people can show they dissented on certain policies in the past and a change is required, if the current situation has stagnated. I feel consensus can hinder original ideas and force workers to accept a policy they are not satisfied with. Thoughts?

[Veovis]

Consensus is not democracy. It allows for a minority to hold up proceedings.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think that consensus could work in a small group of 5-15 people that know each other but that is it. It is a horrible model for large scale operations.

I believe that the workers and their communities should form into direct democratic councils in which power could be delegated out but the delegates re-callable at any time. This seems almost common sense to me, honestly.

It's funny, because the people who promote consensus tend to be anarchists (not saying that all anarchists support consensus). These same people rage against democratic centralism for it's "culture of conformity" yet at the same time promote a system that truly values absolute conformity!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also remember that for consensus to really work there needs to be a fundamental set of beliefs shared by the group; if there is no such system underlying the issues than things get held up quickly (consensus is based off of I think Quaker, though it might have been puritan, practices).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Generally a third-way between simple majority (which can override genuine minority and plural interests) and consensus (which often overrides the majority, and is horribly bureaucratic and as said, is not appropriate for heterogenous groups) needs to be found.

Personally I support a 2/3 majority, or 3/4 majority, for large scale decisions. Probably 75% at a smaller level (parish council, town council) and 2/3 for higher levels (city, regional and national councils). In a thriving democracy, this ensures that legislation must be a) properly scrutinised and b) have genuine support, be well-written and thought out etc.

Of course, this only really works within the framework of workers' councils, in the workplace and in the political sphere. Within the 'rubber-stamp' peoples' assemblies of yesteryear (and indeed in many countries still today), super-majorities have no effect as the votes are largely controlled by one dictatorship - of the person or of the party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Generally a third-way between simple majority (which can override genuine minority and plural interests) and consensus (which often overrides the majority, and is horribly bureaucratic and as said, is not appropriate for heterogenous groups) needs to be found.

Personally I support a 2/3 majority, or 3/4 majority, for large scale decisions. Probably 75% at a smaller level (parish council, town council) and 2/3 for higher levels (city, regional and national councils). In a thriving democracy, this ensures that legislation must be a) properly scrutinised and b) have genuine support, be well-written and thought out etc.

Of course, this only really works within the framework of workers' councils, in the workplace and in the political sphere. Within the 'rubber-stamp' peoples' assemblies of yesteryear (and indeed in many countries still today), super-majorities have no effect as the votes are largely controlled by one dictatorship - of the person or of the party.

I like a so-called "simple constitutional majority," which you referred to numerically, but I think a thriving democracy, thriving mass party activism, and "rubber stamp" non-party assemblies are compatible.

[Luís Henrique]

Generally a third-way between simple majority (which can override genuine minority and plural interests) and consensus (which often overrides the majority, and is horribly bureaucratic and as said, is not appropriate for heterogenous groups) needs to be found.

Personally I support a 2/3 majority, or 3/4 majority, for large scale decisions. Probably 75% at a smaller level (parish council, town council) and 2/3 for higher levels (city, regional and national councils). In a thriving democracy, this ensures that legislation must be a) properly scrutinised and b) have genuine support, be well-written and thought out etc.

I don't think the problem can be solved in such arithmetic way.

Discussion should make clear whether a consensus is possible or not, and, if not, what exactly are the bases of dissensus. Once this is established, a vote is in order.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Perhaps, but let's say, the population of X region is in need of recources.... It would be necessary for Y amount of recources produced, and this should over ride democratic proceudure. I agree that workplace democracy is useful, though it needs to operate within a constraint.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think the problem can be solved in such arithmetic way.

Discussion should make clear whether a consensus is possible or not, and, if not, what exactly are the bases of dissensus. Once this is established, a vote is in order.

Luís Henrique

I'm sympathetic to the sentiment of common sense and the airing of all views in such a way, but is this really possible on a mass scale? Is it not inevitable that such an approach - without a constitutional, legal framework - may actually naively lead to corruption and towards dictatorship?

I know the arithmetic approach of mine is far from perfect, but it seems the best compromise solution, if we are thinking of national assemblies, large regional and city-wide assemblies.

I agree that perhaps for local and town council-type structures, and perhaps within a single workplace, your approach is more of a common-sense one and may stand a better chance of working.

[pastradamus]

Its got to be voting as opposed to consensus. Consensus allows ego's to develope whereas voting there and then allows democratic decisions to be made.

A good documentary on this is "The Take" by Naomi Klein.

[ckaihatsu]

With all due respect to any and all participants at any time ever, the very *event* of a defined-context group-decision-making process is *fundamentally* problematic because it effectively favors the here-and-now in the greater context of scale-and-time.

The very defining of a specific political 'event' cuts against a potentially larger and broader consciousness over more-generalized issues.

I realize I'm being "glass-half-empty" and "devil's advocate" here, but it just seems that *any* such 'event', no matter how insurrectionary, is at best a *barometer* for the state of the larger political atmosphere, and may be effectively *sacrificing* an expansive, growing class consciousness for the sake of temporal formalism and territory.

The "glass-half-full" side of this is to say that such an 'event' -- like Occupy Wall Street -- can *springboard* greater consciousness and actually serve to shift the overall societal political climate. But, as for any of us, it's incumbent on participants to *sacrifice* any limited material gains made through participation in favor *of springboarding* a broader and greater political consciousness. The danger is the temptation to *consolidate* power won, at the expense of the class struggle.

Also posted to:


Consensus Democracy

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consensus-democracy-t169650/index.html

[thriller]

With all due respect to any and all participants at any time ever, the very *event* of a defined-context group-decision-making process is *fundamentally* problematic because it effectively favors the here-and-now in the greater context of scale-and-time.

The very defining of a specific political 'event' cuts against a potentially larger and broader consciousness over more-generalized issues.

I realize I'm being "glass-half-empty" and "devil's advocate" here, but it just seems that *any* such 'event', no matter how insurrectionary, is at best a *barometer* for the state of the larger political atmosphere, and may be effectively *sacrificing* an expansive, growing class consciousness for the sake of temporal formalism and territory.

The "glass-half-full" side of this is to say that such an 'event' -- like Occupy Wall Street -- can *springboard* greater consciousness and actually serve to shift the overall societal political climate. But, as for any of us, it's incumbent on participants to *sacrifice* any limited material gains made through participation in favor *of springboarding* a broader and greater political consciousness. The danger is the temptation to *consolidate* power won, at the expense of the class struggle.

Also posted to:


Consensus Democracy

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consensus-democracy-t169650/index.html

But surely this is a bit broad for making decisions in the work place such as deciding on certain parts to be ordered or how to make use of old equipment.

[ckaihatsu]

But surely this is a bit broad for making decisions in the work place such as deciding on certain parts to be ordered or how to make use of old equipment.


I'll suggest that these logistical sub-issues are secondary to the overall *politics* of what the workplace is being used for. Does everyone agree that they're working for the surrounding community, for example, or are they indifferent to the role of ownership / management and are there primarily as wage-laborers -- ? (If it's the latter then the workplace is nothing out-of-the-ordinary anyway.)

Certainly there would be work role(s) there that handle the day-to-day duties associated with that workplace.

[ckaihatsu]

Newsflash: This TV station is occupied and changes programming to Workers News Channel

Vassilis Dzimtsos, journalists’ union rep, AlterTV

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28036


“We have been on strike now for four months and we have not been paid for nearly a year.

Some 650 people work here. It is the third biggest news channel, with rolling live coverage 24 hours a day.

After our first strike last May, the owner agreed to give us 2,000 euros each to return to work. Then in July our wages stopped again. That is when the big strike began.

For the first month the station kept operating but with no live programmes. They were just showing movies and repeats.

Then we said to the owners that we would shut down the station completely so they could not collect money from the advertising.

We went into occupation to ensure that no news could be made here.

We started transmitting a workers’ news channel, giving other workers from different sectors the opportunity to come here and say what their strike is about. This made us very popular with workers from many different parts of Greece.

When we first started they cut the power to the building. But electricity workers came in and reconnected us.

Then in February, just three days before the government made their decision about the bailout, they cut our transmitter. That was because we were telling the truth about the strikes and what was happening on the streets.

Now we have an online video blog. We say the things that the other TV stations and newspapers will not say—the things that the government and bankers would rather people did not know about their system.”

[thriller]

I'll suggest that these logistical sub-issues are secondary to the overall *politics* of what the workplace is being used for. Does everyone agree that they're working for the surrounding community, for example, or are they indifferent to the role of ownership / management and are there primarily as wage-laborers -- ? (If it's the latter then the workplace is nothing out-of-the-ordinary anyway.)

Certainly there would be work role(s) there that handle the day-to-day duties associated with that workplace.

Yes, they are secondary, but if socialism has occurred I don't see the workers needing to make day-to-day decisions about, say the revolution (or counter-revolution [depending on the situation]). Yes I would argue they are working for the surrounding community, but as trivial as it may be, it's important that all workers of a location have a say in decision making, no matter how small. And if the power does come the masses (the bottom up) there needs to be a system set in place for it. I don't think in socialism workers are going to have gauge the current 'feel' of the Occupy movement, since, well, socialism has happened. The workers of a machining factory are going to need to decide when the work hours are, any sort of regulations regarding safety, and other trivial things. I don't think the 'surrounding community' should have a say in that unless they are either a). working at the machine shop, or b). have permission from the workers of the location to vote. (Under communism it would be different IMHO). And the basis of my question is what people on RevLeft would prefer for a democratic system in their workplace in socialism, not how they feel democracy in the workplace can help to change the current (capitalist) system).

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, they are secondary, but if socialism has occurred I don't see the workers needing to make day-to-day decisions about, say the revolution (or counter-revolution [depending on the situation]).


I'll actually argue this point with you, because what's of *paramount* importance is that the workers of the world are all "on the same page" at all times. This is the sum total of what a revolution is, since it's always a *political* struggle. It may not be about "day-to-day decisions", as over deciding on certain parts to be ordered or how to make use of old equipment -- it's of *far greater* significance.

The more advanced workers are in their understanding of what they're doing, contributing to, and struggling for, the more cohesive and effective the *entire world* of workers will be -- in a social sense, not a technical sense.





Yes I would argue they are working for the surrounding community, but as trivial as it may be, it's important that all workers of a location have a say in decision making, no matter how small.


Yes, I think this would be politically *understood*, but in practice if everyone was socio-politically "aligned" such details would virtually sort themselves out, as certain (possibly automated) procedures would already be in place, to everyone's satisfaction, that would administer to such details.





And if the power does come the masses (the bottom up) there needs to be a system set in place for it.


Well, yes and no -- from the bottom-up the masses should be creating *their own* power, as through constantly broadening and deepening the worldwide class struggle. If a particular formal 'system' happened to catch on in a popular way at the same time, then so be it -- perhaps this could be over a *communications medium* like the Internet, instead of primarily face-to-face.... *Procedurally*, it could be something else -- I'm attaching a sample protocol below as an example....





I don't think in socialism workers are going to have gauge the current 'feel' of the Occupy movement, since, well, socialism has happened. The workers of a machining factory are going to need to decide when the work hours are, any sort of regulations regarding safety, and other trivial things.


Certainly.





I don't think the 'surrounding community' should have a say in that unless they are either a). working at the machine shop, or b). have permission from the workers of the location to vote.


Agreed. I appreciate the distinction you're making between workers democracy and community-based "stakeholders". (I was only using the 'community' as an example before -- I wasn't arguing it.)





(Under communism it would be different IMHO). And the basis of my question is what people on RevLeft would prefer for a democratic system in their workplace in socialism, not how they feel democracy in the workplace can help to change the current (capitalist) system).


Yes.


[16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://postimage.org/image/1cqt82ps4/