Question about Workers Councils

[Red Sun]

One of the ways of organizing a socialist society that I have seen proposed is workers councils. This seems like a good idea, but I was wondering how workers councils would deal with people who can't work. Would they still get a say in society? What about students or retired people?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm wary of putting forward a blueprint here, but it seems to me that the best way of organising society is to have both workers' councils to oversee production, and district/neighbourhood councils as an advisory body.

Basically, the way I see it working is that the neighbourhood councils would include everyone, and make requests to the workers' councils, which would then work out how those requests would be fulfilled.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think Blake's right and that would probably be the most logical way for workers to deal with these sorts of situations as well as just balencing popular needs and wants with worker-run production.

In addition I think in many revolutionary situations we see that these formations also begin to form in working class communities - sometimes ahead of workplace councils. Egypt had some rudimentary formations like this as neighborhoods set up patrols and barricades to keep out police and provacatures and looters.

Also I see no reason that people wouldn't mutually organize together around certain specific interestes among workers - from retirement groups and groups with specific needs to just people who like certain kinds of passtimes and so on.

Another likely possibility is just that the demands of labor would be different making it possible for people who can't work under the present conditions of exploititive labor under capitalism to fully contribute to society. People who can't keep the pace set by capitalist competition and drive for profits, or can't work a 40 hour workweek are simply tossed aside in capitalism - often segregated and warehoused - unless reforms are won for unemployment aid and so on. A worker's society would not need labor for squeezing out surplus wealth, but just for the labor itself - so if someone was manic-depressive, then there would be no reason they couldn't work when they were able and then take months off to take care of themselves when they are too clinically depressed. I believe people want to be useful and make their lives better (as long as it's being "useful" not "being used") and tons of retired people as it is organize recreation or help in their community etc. When work is not an alientating and exploitative process, then there would be a lot less barriers to people finding something that they can feel is worthwhile without streatching their bodies or minds to the point of exhaustion.

[Positivist]

I anticipate that all council-like bodies will be more focused on deliberation than actual decision making so I'd expect all people to be included in them, with more potence belonging to the words of specialists and active workers because they will most likely have a better read on the situation.

[The Jay]

Consumer Councils will work with those of the workers in their workplace to coordinate the quantities of goods to be produced. Community Councils will make political decisions. At least, that is what I would prefer.

[Blake's Baby]

And what of workers' councils? Don't they get a mention?

Why the distinction between 'consumer' and 'community' councils?

[DVRA]

One of the ways of organizing a socialist society that I have seen proposed is workers councils. This seems like a good idea, but I was wondering how workers councils would deal with people who can't work. Would they still get a say in society? What about students or retired people?
In the free association of producers, no-one would "work".

[The Jay]

And what of workers' councils? Don't they get a mention?

I did mention them. I just didn't use the word since I thought it would have been obvious given the previous conversation and the OP.


Why the distinction between 'consumer' and 'community' councils?

I suppose that the consumer side could be a part of a general community council but the issues would be different: purely economical with quantities of production deliberation to be negotiated with Workers' Councils and the other being for general political deliberation.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see what the three different councils are for, nor how th 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is to be excercised through community councils that include non-workers, when the workers' councils will be subservient to the 'community'. Nor do I understand why you need 'consumer councils' when the omnipotent 'community councils' could just tell the workers' councils to do stuff.

What you've got there is an early-19th century (maybe even late-18th century) conception of 'the sovereignty of the people'. Fine for the French Revolution, but not applicable to the 20th-21st century and the DotP, I'd argue.

[The Jay]

How about you remove the straw men from that and take a chill pill? I don't even think that you are trying to understand what I'm saying so why bother with you.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, why don't you understand what I'm trying to say to you?

How does the working class excercise its dictatorship, if there are non-workers in the community councils, which are in a position over the workers' councils? In other words, why aren't the workers' councils the supreme body?

[The Jay]

Are you saying that disabled and elderly people have no place in making decisions in the community? Shame on you.

Communication between workplaces and the general population is necessary to determine quantities of materials to be produced. This needn't be a domination of the community over the workplace, but I am sure that workers would feel quite silly making 40,000 tables when only 20,000 are needed. Hence, consumer councils communicating with workers' councils.

When it comes to general political decisions, everyone who has a stake in an event should have a say in that event to the degree to which that event effects them. In this sense those who do not work should also have a say in things.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It seems to be logical that workers' councils would be integrated into councils that represent larger communities. Of course a network of workers' councils would be an integral part of the system, along with councils to represent the interests of retirees, the disabled etcetera. In the 21st century we ought to recognize that not all proletarians work in factories or other large-scale enterprises, and that the "precariat", retirees, the disabled and a;; other workers deserve to participate in the DotP.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you saying that disabled and elderly people have no place in making decisions in the community? Shame on you...

Are you saying that lepers should be fucked to death for shits and giggles? Shame on you.



...
Communication between workplaces and the general population is necessary to determine quantities of materials to be produced. This needn't be a domination of the community over the workplace, but I am sure that workers would feel quite silly making 40,000 tables when only 20,000 are needed. Hence, consumer councils communicating with workers' councils...

You didn't say 'communicating', you said that 'Community Councils will make political decisions'. That means that the community councils can over-rule the workers' councils. That means the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually 'the dictatorship of the whole people', and that means you're a 19th century bourgeois democrat.


...
When it comes to general political decisions, everyone who has a stake in an event should have a say in that event to the degree to which that event effects them. In this sense those who do not work should also have a say in things.

I agree, and that's why the community councils should exist - because there are layers of the population that might not be working (because they're too old, maybe, or because they're too unfit, maybe...). But they shouldn't be able to over-rule the workers' councils.

[The Jay]

Try to read my posts better then. You are making assumptions and I don't feel like holding your hand when you are throwing a tantrum.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm quoting you, and you want me to read your posts 'better' (I presume you mean, 'more carefully')?

How much 'better' do you want me to read them? Maybe I could just take all of my commentary and questions out, and just post back exactly what you've already said, would that suit you?

Here's an attempt:

"Community Councils will make political decisions."

"I suppose that the consumer side could be a part of a general community council but the issues would be different: purely economical with quantities of production deliberation to be negotiated (by the Consumer Councils) with Workers' Councils and the other (Community Councils) being for general political deliberation."

Nah, couldn't do it, I had to include some bits to explain what you were talking about because it wasn't very clear.

So; why is your version of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' actually another version of the liberal dream of 'the sovereign people'?

[The Jay]

When you get rid of Capitalism - the capitalist/proletarian dynamic - then what and where are the proletarians to be dictating over the rest of the population, namely the elderly and disabled? My goal is Communism.

[Blake's Baby]

Sure, but are we talking about the DotP, or are we talking about communism? If we're talking about communism, how ca there be 'workers' councils'? As the working class has abolished itself, through abolishing property and the state, how can there be a class content of 'workers' councils'?

Conversely, if there is a class content, property and the state must still exist, and therefore we're talking about the DotP.

So, I think it's pretty clear I'm talking about the DotP. What do you think you're talking about?

[The Jay]

I don't know what you in particular mean by the State, private property, or class since everyone here seems to have a different definition.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Under the DotP the elderly and disabled as well as the "precariat" as entitled to full representation. Perhaps in Russia circa 1917 the majority of proletarians worked in large-scale facilities, but in the 21st century economy that is no longer the case. Workers' councils cannot simply be based in factories lest millions of proletarians be disenfranchised. One solution might be to form workers' councils on the union model and to provide for unions for all workers, including the elderly and disabled.

[The Jay]

Under the DotP the elderly and disabled as well as the "precariat" as entitled to full representation. Perhaps in Russia circa 1917 the majority of proletarians worked in large-scale facilities, but in the 21st century economy that is no longer the case. Workers' councils cannot simply be based in factories lest millions of proletarians be disenfranchised. One solution might be to form workers' councils on the union model and to provide for unions for all workers, including the elderly and disabled.



http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/848/hi5rj5.jpg



Most certainly. That's what I'm getting at.

[Blake's Baby]

Under the DotP the elderly and disabled as well as the "precariat" as entitled to full representation. Perhaps in Russia circa 1917 the majority of proletarians worked in large-scale facilities, but in the 21st century economy that is no longer the case. Workers' councils cannot simply be based in factories lest millions of proletarians be disenfranchised...

Who said they should?


... One solution might be to form workers' councils on the union model and to provide for unions for all workers, including the elderly and disabled.

Alternatively, the workers' councils could work on the workers' council model.

So, you're advocating unitary councils, and EmmanuelGoldstein, who's agreeing with you, is advocating 3 tiers of councils, with the community councils on top, whereas I'm advocating the DotP be excercised by the working class through the workers' councils, and that 'the people' get their say through community councils.

Oh, it's going to be fun on day two of the revolution, I'm sure.

[The Jay]

Let me explain this in as little words as possible:

Unitary, communication between dem wrkplaces and community, me = syndicalist

If you're so savvy you should understand my position now.

[Blake's Baby]

You're not a syndicalist. Or if you are, Rudolf Rocker and Gregory Maximov aren't.

'Everything for the workers' councils! Nothing above them!'

Just so you understand my position.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Workers' councils are fine IMO as long as they encompass the entire proletariat. including the disabled, elderly and all other workers who may be employed under circumstances that make "soviet" representation not feasible. The union model seems to solve this dilemma, but I am open to any reasonable idea that addresses the class structure as it exists today.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, in practice, how do the councils that include non-working proletarians actually decide on membership? Everyone over the age of 65 gets into the 'Senior Comrades' Council'? Everyone currently in a hospital as a patient in the 'Temporarily Incapacitated Workers' Council'? Or will there be some process of selection? If there is a process of selection, who does the selection? As Stalin is alleged to have said, it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes.

Workers' Councils, by definition, exclude non-proletarian strata. Community Councils ('Territorial Soviets'), and Consumer Councils (co-ops?), by definition include non-proletarian strata.

I understand that there may be a problem about the under-representation of proletarians who are temporarily unable to work, or whatever but really, the way to solve that isn't to throw open the workers' councils to everyone, to dilute the working class into 'the people', it's for the workers' councils to make sure that the non-working proletarians (and only the non-working proletarians) also have a say.

[The Jay]

OK, in practice, how do the councils that include non-working proletarians actually decide on membership? Everyone over the age of 65 gets into the 'Senior Comrades' Council'? Everyone currently in a hospital as a patient in the 'Temporarily Incapacitated Workers' Council'? Or will there be some process of selection? If there is a process of selection, who does the selection? As Stalin is alleged to have said, it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes.

Hence, general assemblies which I call community councils.


Workers' Councils, by definition, exclude non-proletarian strata. Community Councils ('Territorial Soviets'), and Consumer Councils (co-ops?), by definition include non-proletarian strata.Firstly, there are several kinds of cooperatives. You are thinking of a consumer coop, which is when individuals own shares in a company but the maximum vote number of that individual is one. There is no difference between that kind of coop and a general corporation other than the number of votes that owners have or are allowed to have.

There are also workers' cooperatives in which only the workers are allowed to have shares and those shares have a maximum of one vote per individual.

http://www.democracyatwork.info/learn/?topic=history

Consumer councils would have no authority over workers' councils and would only exist to coordinate productive necessity.


I understand that there may be a problem about the under-representation of proletarians who are temporarily unable to work, or whatever but really, the way to solve that isn't to throw open the workers' councils to everyone, to dilute the working class into 'the people', it's for the workers' councils to make sure that the non-working proletarians (and only the non-working proletarians) also have a say.Again, the workers' councils would have autonomy over what to produce and how to produce except if the entire community determines those actions to be a threat to the community: dumping trash on the sidewalk, excessive pollution, ect.

I don't think that such would be a problem since the workers would also be a part of the community councils and they would be living in the same community that they are working in for the most part.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The distinction between workplace and "territorial" soviets/councils seems predicated upon a 1917-era economy where a few large-scale factories were dominant. In the 21st century, the proletariat is more diffuse, the economy characterized by smaller-scale facilities. Professor David Harvey has done some excellent work on Marxism as it relates to the 21st century economy. It would seem to be necessary to locate some workers' councils in the community as a practical matter. How else will elderly or disabled proletarians, or members of the precariat achieve workers' council
representation?

[Blake's Baby]

The distinction between workplace and "territorial" soviets/councils seems predicated upon a 1917-era economy where a few large-scale factories were dominant...

People live in a place, workers work in a place. Both those places have a council. Why does that imply a pre-1917 economy?


...
In the 21st century, the proletariat is more diffuse, the economy characterized by smaller-scale facilities. Professor David Harvey has done some excellent work on Marxism as it relates to the 21st century economy. It would seem to be necessary to locate some workers' councils in the community as a practical matter...

What do you mean? If an enterprise has workers, it can have a workers' council. Why do you need to invite non-proletarians into the workers' councils?



... How else will elderly or disabled proletarians, or members of the precariat achieve workers' council representation?

Members of the precariat? In exactly the same way as other workers, in their workers' councils. Precarity will cease to exist on day 2 of the revolution.

The two-fold councils I'm advocating would include the entire population (including workers qua workers, the elderly, students, the disabled, and non-proletarian strata) in the 'community councils' - these would be advisory; and the working class organised at the point of production to be the actual DotP. I'm not averse to the workers' councils setting up parallel bodies for non-working proletarians but I think your solution allows non-proletarian strata into the DotP. That's not the idea at all: other classes should be excluded. As long as that happens, how the workers involve non-working proletarians is up to them, not me.

If they want to set up a 'Senior Comrades' Council' and only have a membership composed of elderly ex-workers (and somehow manage to exclude elderly ex-bosses and elderly ex-small-business-people and elderly ex-peasants) which they then decide has equal status with the other workers' councils, that's up to them. But it's their power to share out and dispose of; the authority is granted to the Senior Citizens' Council by the Workers' Councils, because the Workers' Councils embody the DotP.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thank you for articulating your position on Workers' Councils. While I generally support the idea, there seem to be some gaps and a potential to relegate some disabled and elderly workers to a secondary status. Hopefully there are ways in which the empowerment of the worker at the workplace can be enhanced to be more inclusive of workers who are not connected to a large-scale workplace. These days many workers toil in small offices or shops where it would seem difficult to form a council in one particular location.

[Blake's Baby]

... These days many workers toil in small offices or shops where it would seem difficult to form a council in one particular location.

I don't see this as being a problem, honestly. I used to work at a small printing firm with maybe 12 employees (can't be totally accurate as there were two shifts, and I worked nights, with 3-4 other people, and there were maybe 6-8 people during the day) but even then, we were on a small industrial park with maybe 10 other units - there were probably about 100 of us altogether employed on the park. If you think 12 is too small for a workers' council, then maybe the 100 of us who worked there could have formed a workers' council for the park.

Or, maybe, all the people who worked at small printers in my corner of town (I can think of at least 12 small print-works that employ less than 20 people within a 20-minute walk of my house) could form a council for workers in small print-works.

There's no reason why workers, wherever they are, can't form a council, really.

[Avanti]

how to prevent the worker's councils

from becoming boring

obnoxious forums

for dicks and twats

who for hours

debate whether

the declaration

should begin with

"we think"

or

"persons and gentlepersons"

?

[Red Sun]

If avoiding boredom is the biggest problem the workers' councils face, I think things will be going fairly well.

Going back to something that was said earlier,

One solution might be to form workers' councils on the union model and to provide for unions for all workers, including the elderly and disabled.
Is the main difference between the union model for workers' councils and the traditional model that the union model includes councils for people who aren't exactly workers in the typical sense, or are there other differences?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The two-fold councils I'm advocating would include the entire population (including workers qua workers, the elderly, students, the disabled, and non-proletarian strata) in the 'community councils' - these would be advisory; and the working class organised at the point of production to be the actual DotP. I'm not averse to the workers' councils setting up parallel bodies for non-working proletarians but I think your solution allows non-proletarian strata into the DotP. That's not the idea at all: other classes should be excluded. As long as that happens, how the workers involve non-working proletarians is up to them, not me.


I think in responce to some of the comments by others, one other issue is just structural: if workers control production through council-based decision-making, then that automatically gives them the real weight of power in society (with only the worker militias being a power that could really pose a threat [if somehow severed from worker's power] from within). So even if workers tried to have legal parity between workplace and community councils, social power would still largely favor the worker councils - just as today we can have "legal" equality with the rich but the rich still have all the material power because they dictate production and control the wealth. So IMO it doesn't make sense to speak of community councils (which I support in theory) as being equal to workplace councils - they would necissarilly be a subordinate body.

However, I don't think workers or non-workers (who support worker's power) would have to fear because unlike in capitalism, the goal of production for workers would be meeting the community's needs in a sustainable and humane (as far as work-pace and conditions) way. "Pressure/Advocacy" groups IMO would be organized just to make people's concerns and voices heard, and so people would organize themselves if they wanted or needed better or specific services.

And in responce to the idea of "consumer councils" I think this would be redundant - "consumer" isn't really a category in society as everyone consumes or uses the fruits of labor (if you drive on roads or have a car or eat food that you have not grown yourself). SO community councils and worker councils for distribution sites (communal kitchens, stores etc) would take on that role, informing manufacturing councils and other worker councils of what products and services are desired.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Going back to something that was said earlier,

Is the main difference between the union model for workers' councils and the traditional model that the union model includes councils for people who aren't exactly workers in the typical sense, or are there other differences?

No other difference, but IMO it is important not to exclude the elderly, disabled, and non-traditional workers from the workers' councils.