Log in

View Full Version : Is Workers' Self-Management the right way to go about Socialism?



Karabin
29th June 2012, 06:26
A while ago I bought this old book from a second hand store called Workers' Control: A reader of labor & social change. It was published in 1973 in a response to a series of strikes and riots held by the proletariat across the United States, and it has a large section showing models of worker participation & Self-Management around the world, including the former Yugoslavia. I don't really understand a lot of the things said in the other sections because I'm not very learned about this sort of thing, but I find the idea of Workers' self management very interesting and appealing, particularly the system used in former Yugoslavia. Here are a few excerpts from the book regarding the system of self management in Yugoslavia:


Some Comments on the Economy

The Yugoslav system of social ownership and workers' self-management can be viewed as one in which labor employs capital, instead of a system in which capital employs labor, as is the case under capitalism. Theoretically all citizens possess ownership rights and delegate authority to manage property to autonomous enterprises and institutions which in turn are managed by the workers directly or through their elected organs of self-management. Three key economic components are at work in the Yugoslav economy:

1. Workers' self-management of the publicly owned enterprises
2. Social planning, which consists of an intricate network of enterprise plans, commune plans and indicative planning by republican and federal agencies.
3. The market mechanism [The book didn't explain what this was, so if somebody could explain this to me I'd appreciate it greatly]

Integration of the plans and activities of individual enterprises is now increasingly being transferred to autonomous associations of producers, economic chambers, and other groups. The flow of command has been partly reversed and the individual enterprise is increasingly becoming the focal point and originator of important decisions relating to planning, production, and investment (the latter in cooperation with the banks). This transfer of government functions to autonomous associations of producers is one step toward the final goal of the "withering away of the state".



The Organizational Framework in Enterprises

Yugoslav enterprises operate within a framework of workers' self-management. The supreme authority within each enterprise is the workers' collective which consists of all members of the enterprise. In all but the smallest enterprises, the workers elect a workers' council which meets approximately once a month and is charged with making decisions on all major functions of the enterprise (prices on its products whenever these are not controlled, production and financial plans, governing of the enterprise, allocation of net income, budget, etc.). The workers' council elects a management board, in practice largely from its own ranks, which acts as executive agent. At least three quarters of the members of the management board must be production workers. The board meets more frequently than the workers' council and works in close cooperation with the director, who is an ex officio member.

The workers' council is elected for a period of two years, half of its members elected every year. Its composition is supposed to approximate the ratio between production workers and employees. Meetings of the workers' council are open and every member of the working collective is entitled to attend. Decisions are made by majority vote and the members of the council, individually or as a group, can be recalled by the electors. No one can be elected twice in succession to the workers' council, and more than twice in succession to the management board. The management board is elected for a period of one year and is answerable for its work to the workers' council, which may recall individual members or the whole board at any time. Service on management boards and workers' councils is honorary and members do not receive payment. The director is the actual administrative manager of the enterprise. He is responsible for the day-to-day operations and he represents the enterprise in any external negotiations. He can be removed by the workers' council, which also determines his term of office.

There is more in the chapter, going into more detail about the decentralization of the government in regards to the economy of Yugoslavia and some statistics regarding self-management within Yugoslavia, but the two parts above are what really intrigue me. From my basic understanding of things regarding the economy, the example of Workers' Self-Management appears to me to be the method of choice in regards to managing a true socialist society. Can I get some thoughts on this? I'm really interested in this idea of Self-Management. Was it practised in other Socialist states, such as the USSR, China, Cuba etc.?

Also, can we avoid any Tito bashing or anything like that. I am just using the Yugoslav system as an example, I'm not referencing the political system or anything of the sort.

Karabin
11th July 2012, 16:38
Can I get ANY thoughts on this? :lol:

Ismail
11th July 2012, 16:59
I don't think it is, particularly since Yugoslavia was, after all, a capitalist state.

The USSR did not have the Yugoslav system of "workers' self-management," nor did any other state, although after 1955 the Soviets praised Yugoslavia as a fellow "socialist" country.

As for China, Hua Guofeng enthusiastically praised Tito. In addition:

"A comparison of the policies of the Deng regime up to 1992 with those implemented by the Tito regime in Yugoslavia after 1948, when it broke with Stalin, shows many similarities. Indeed, the similarities are not coincidental. In 1981 the Deng regime began avidly studying Yugoslavia's bureaucratically-controlled system of atomised 'workers' self-management' and its post-1965 combination of state planning and markets. By 1984, the Deng regime had begun implementing a whole range of Titoist-style policies. These included allowing state industrial enterprises to keep up to 70% of their investment funds under their own control and to make their own decisions abut the bulk of what they would produce. Like the Tito regime, the Deng regime also allowed... the setting up of joint ventures between state-owned enterprises and foreign capitalist investors.

Limited forms of workers' participation in enterprise management were also introduced. These took two forms. The first was annual workers' congresses (which were to review enterprise budgets and production plans, welfare and bonus funds, safety issues, wage systems and management structures and make recommandations on these to the higher levels of economic administration). The second was the authorisation of the election of factory managers by work collectives. However, as under the Titoist system of 'workers' self-management' such elections were not by secret ballot... such elections could easily be controlled by the bureaucracy."
(Doug Lorimer. The Class Nature of the People's Republic of China. Chippendale: Resistance Books. 2004. pp. 19-20.)

The practical effect of Yugoslavia's system was to teach workers how to be capitalists.


I am just using the Yugoslav system as an example, I'm not referencing the political system or anything of the sort.That makes no sense. "Workers' self-management" is a Titoist concept. That's like telling people to discuss "market socialism" (i.e. "socialism with Chinese characteristics") without mentioning China and the practical effects it has had on China's economy.

human strike
11th July 2012, 17:26
http://www.revleft.com/vb/greek-workers-mining-t173433/index.html

Tim Cornelis
11th July 2012, 17:27
Workers' self-management in Yugoslavia was hardly self-management, it was more co-determination than anything. In any case, markets are undesirable as they are still for-profit.

Socialist David McNally wrote:


Workers’ control is not possible … in a situation in which groups of workers continue to relate their labour and its products to those of other workers by means of the market. So long as acts of concrete labour are connected only through the market, society’s means of production will obey the competitive imperative to accumulation as an end in itself and will thus continue to evade the control of the direct producers—which is to say that they will remain a form of capital.
One can see some of these effects in the case of the Yugoslav economy of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Yugoslavia was that Stalinist state which most seriously tried to co-ordinate elements of workers’ participation in the firm with market regulation. And the results were entirely consistent with the analysis we have presented: inherent tendencies towards unemployment (partially relieved for a time through emigration), inflation, increasing social inequality, and concentration and centralisation of capital. The Yugoslav case demonstrates that market regulation imposes its own imperatives on the firm irrespective of its structure of ownership or the degree of workers’ self-management (which in the Yugoslav case was often exaggerated by commentators)

Grenzer
11th July 2012, 17:29
It doesn't seem like Yugoslavia was any more or less capitalist than the Stalinist USSR. The key thing is the relations of production, which don't seem to be qualitatively different.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod
11th July 2012, 18:41
"Workers' Self Management" is a silly little propagandist revisionist tool. In Yugoslavia workers might have gotten to decide more about their labor, but not about the fruits of their labor, as the wages and financial system was controlled by "The New Class". If you mean to ask if "Workers Control Over Production" is the way to go about Socialism, yes, it is a necessity to give the working class complete democratic control over their surplus in socialism to direct democratic control in communism. But giving workers' control over their own production is not enough, the economy needs to be completely socialised and nationalised to have a planned socialist economy run by workers councils once it is completely socialised/centralised.

Veovis
11th July 2012, 18:46
Workers' self-management along with collective ownership are the only way to go about socialism.

Karabin
12th July 2012, 16:17
I don't think it is, particularly since Yugoslavia was, after all, a capitalist state.

Could you explain to me how it was a Capitalist state? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious to know more. I know it borrowed a fair amount of money from the IMF and openly traded with the West and had Market Socialism.


The second was the authorisation of the election of factory managers by work collectives. However, as under the Titoist system of 'workers' self-management' such elections were not by secret ballot... such elections could easily be controlled by the bureaucracy."

If it was done confidentially by secret ballot and not openly like in Yugoslavia and in China, wouldn't that make the chances of bureaucratic control much less likely? If so, then I believe that the system would still be a good thing.


But giving workers' control over their own production is not enough, the economy needs to be completely socialised and nationalised to have a planned socialist economy run by workers councils once it is completely socialised/centralised.

Okay, I understand that, but wouldn't Workers' self-management be a good starting point to further build and expand Socialism until the society is, like you said, completely socialized and nationalized?

Zav
12th July 2012, 16:19
Worker self-management (along with capital-management) pretty much is Socialism.

Ismail
12th July 2012, 16:35
Could you explain to me how it was a Capitalist state? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious to know more. I know it borrowed a fair amount of money from the IMF and openly traded with the West and had Market Socialism.I thought this thread wasn't about Yugoslavia?

In any case Enver Hoxha's work Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - A Capitalist Theory and Practice is a good introductory read. It can be downloaded here: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_yugoslav_selfadministration_a_capitali st_theory_and_practice.pdf

(read from PDF page 22 onwards)

Comrade Jandar
12th July 2012, 16:41
I think it's important for everyone to realize that worker's self-management does not necessarily imply socialism. Worker's self-management can and has existed under capitalism.

Karabin
12th July 2012, 16:41
I thought this thread wasn't about Yugoslavia?

In any case Enver Hoxha's work Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - A Capitalist Theory and Practice is a good introductory read.


Touche...

And thank you, I am interested to read this.

The Jay
12th July 2012, 17:38
I admittedly don't know much about the Yugoslav system, but I do support workers' self-management as a path towards socialism. That said, even if every business was equally owned and democratically run by all the workers, that would not be socialism. I do think that such a set-up would make the transition to socialism easier though.

Economist Richard Wolff does a pretty good job at explaining the importance of self-management. I really liked his latest book Occupy the Economy.

YugoslavSocialist
11th January 2013, 19:48
Workers self management is Socialism as long as it is functioning in a Decentralized Planned economy or Parecon.

Blake's Baby
11th January 2013, 19:58
Ooh, great, so the Co-operative group in the UK (one of the largest retail organisations in the country) is by nature socialist? Smashing, I shall buy all of my socialist grapes from there then. Not like those evil capitalist grapes from ASDA.

Let's Get Free
11th January 2013, 22:32
Workers' self-management along with collective ownership are the only way to go about socialism.

I agree