The Soviet Form

[subcp]

Is the Soviet form determined by particular material conditions?

I'd like to know how other communists view the developed soviet form, rather than 'soviet type organizations':

Soviet (Council of Worker's Deputies/Delegates): begins with either a strike committee, a shopfloor general assembly, or factory committee of elected and revocable worker-delegates, which sends deputies/delegates to a higher body encompassing similar delegates from a geographic area.

Soviet-Type-Organization: the joint-strike committee's that assert control over production or distribution (Seattle but also Toledo, Butte, etc. in 1919), embryonic factory committees (Germany 1918, Italy 1919-1920) that haven't consolidated geographically, inter-firm solidarity committees (South Korea 1989) and geographic inter-firm/inter-industry committees (Poland 1980-1981), shopfloor general assemblies with worker-delegates that make demands of an employer (China 2010), and all other similar forms of organization that resemble certain aspects of developed worker's councils/soviets, but is not a 'complete' worker's council/soviet.

The soviet form originally developed in productive (and especially heavy) industry; in Russia and Hungary, soviets developed by steelworkers in large "Worker Fortresses" (large factory complexes that employ thousands of workers) exercised influence over other workers and workplaces in the geographic vicinity. These powerful and archetypal soviets were often the reason the soviet form spread to other industries, types of workplaces, and were the center of the effort at dual power/proletarian revolution- having large influence and power.

Must the soviet-form, the archetypal/traditional Worker's Council/Soviet, develop in these specific conditions?

Mouvement Communiste's analysis of the attempted council-based insurrection in Hungary 1956 describes in highly specific detail how the soviet-form came to be and develop in Hungary, and it also gives us clues as to what the soviet form is, how it develops and why.

Example:


Budapest thus possessed two unusual traits for a large western city: the central districts of Pestwere always densely populated and the industrial infrastructure, present everywhere except on the hills of Buda, was very close to the town centre and was represented by big factories: Ganz Electric(Second District), MOM (Twelth District), Beloiannisz and Gamma (Eleventh) in Buda; MAVAG and Ganz Vagon (Eighth), Télefongyár (Fourteenth), Dreher and KöbanYa breweries (Tenth), Ganzshipyards(Thirteenth) and Óbuda (Third), Láng factory (Thirteenth). In addition to the factories of the peripheral districts of Egyesült Izzó (Újpest, Fourth), Vörös Csillág (Kispest, Nineteenth) and Ikarus (Rákosmihaly,Sixteenth), there are those of Csepel (TwentyFirst): oil refinery,vegetable oil factory,Csepeli Papirgyar(paper mill)and the Weiss complex(renamed“
Mátiás Rákosi”in honour of the Hungarian Stalin since 1948) composed of 18 factories makingsteel, arms, munitions, machine tools, trucks, bicycles and motorbikes, etc. Each one of these factories had a staff of 2-4000; the Csepel complex itself had 40,000 workers. This proximity was favourable to organisation and contacts during the first moments of the insurrection, between workers and demonstrators and then between workers. Nevertheless, the workers of the Budapest councils complained, along with their comrades from the provinces, about the dimensions of the town (15 km from Csepel to Újpest, from south to north; 10 km from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth districts, from the west, for example) which in addition to the fighting which blocked the centre of the city created difficulties of communication. This was unlike the towns of the provinces, like Miskolc (the DIMAVAG factory) or Györ (the wagon factory Györi MAVAG and the truck factory RAABA), where one big factory concentrated them into councils and the workers’ guard and served as the rallying point for the population.


http://mouvement-communiste.com/documents/MC/Booklets/booklet_hungary_56.pdf


The heavy concentration of thousands of workers under 1 factory complex, with similar complexes nearby, creates a densely populated work and domestic environment in urban cities- conditions which have seen similar concentrations and compositions of workers in the peripheral countries, which shows in their open struggles (China 2010, Egypt 2011-2012, Bangladesh 2008-2013, South Korea 1989-2000ish).


Is the soviet form, the traditional Worker's Council, dependent on such urban, productive/heavy industrial and densely populated conditions?

[tuwix]

Is the soviet form, the traditional Worker's Council, dependent on such urban, productive/heavy industrial and densely populated conditions?

No. The soviet form period of Stalin or even earlier had to be approved by the party. Approval of central bureaucracy has nothing to do with idea of Worker's Council.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But surely, councils similar to the soviets can form outside factories? The kebele councils, for example, seem to have functioned somewhat like the soviets under the MEISON and the WPE.

Nonetheless, I think you are onto something. A large concentration of militant proletarians involved in immediate struggle against the bourgeois state is probably the most potent nucleus of the soviet system. But, again, the factories are not the only such nuclei. It seems to me that in the countryside, these nuclei exist in the form of large capitalist estates employing the rural proletariat; in the cities, there exist in addition to the factories areas of high unemployment, and even, perhaps, branches of militant organisations that could act as nuclei in the formation of soviet organs.

I think another material condition is the existence of instruments that allow administration to be carried out by the average worker, and it is important to note that such instruments do not exist in sufficient number in every state that currently experiences proletarian militancy. The soviet form would probably experience difficulties if the soviets do not have access to a robust communications infrastructure, for example.

Then, of course, there are the subjective conditions, including the level of education of the workers and so on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Moved to Learning.

[Aurora]

It's certainly an interesting question, i've often wondered about the flip-side of this particularly about whether the predominance of few workers employed in small service industries in the advanced capitalist countries affects the capability of developing as a class e.g if you work in a small shop beside one or two workers and the owner it might be more difficult to develop your interests as a worker as separate from the interests of the shop.
There are other negative factors too, unions seem to find it more difficult to organise few workers in many workplaces, the precariousness of a lot of service jobs could possibly mean workers don't develop an affinity for their workplace making sit-down strikes and factory committees less likely.

On the other hand few workers in many workplaces could mean that struggle necessarily becomes geographic i.e struggle in one shop must make appeals for support in separate shops to succeed, the only way forward is through a geographical council rather than workers self-management or co-ops.

Just a few thoughts.

[subcp]

But surely, councils similar to the soviets can form outside factories? The kebele councils, for example, seem to have functioned somewhat like the soviets under the MEISON and the WPE.Yes; but that's the crux of why this topic is difficult. Soviet-type organizations spring up all over the place and throughout historical periods; but the original, archetypal soviets (the ones that begin council-based proletarian revolutions), and those that, since 1956, have most resembled soviets of those revolutions, have originated in similar conditions.

The MC article is very specific on concentrations of workers, the geographic layout of Hungary, the size and type of industries involved, etc.- which suggests that, the soviets that prelude a council-based revolutionary movement, always develop in heavy industry which are 'worker fortresses' (employ over a thousand workers in 1 factory or complex). This seems to be the case in the first soviet in 1905, then again in 1917 in Russia, but also the 2 council based revolutionary movements in Hungary (1919-1956); that the first soviet, originating in these conditions, exercises a large amount of influence on workers in neighboring workplaces, and whole other regions after that. The soviet-type-organizations in Iran in the 1970's and Poland in 1980-1981 also seem to have followed this pattern

Densely populated urban city, high concentrations of industry (of all kinds) in this environment, 'worker fortresses'; factories that employ thousands of workers, in heavy industry- first soviet influences neighboring workplaces, which then create a geographic based soviet of all the workers delegates in that area.


I think another material condition is the existence of instruments that allow administration to be carried out by the average worker, and it is important to note that such instruments do not exist in sufficient number in every state that currently experiences proletarian militancy. The soviet form would probably experience difficulties if the soviets do not have access to a robust communications infrastructure, for example.That's an interesting point; it could be that the traditional densely populated city with a highly concentrated industrial proletariat, in the past, acted as the means of communication (just by nature of being in close proximity with thousands and thousands of other production workers)- that this is why this condition appears necessary in historical instances of council-revolutions, to facilitate rapid communication. Just speculating, though.


It's certainly an interesting question, i've often wondered about the flip-side of this particularly about whether the predominance of few workers employed in small service industries in the advanced capitalist countries affects the capability of developing as a class e.g if you work in a small shop beside one or two workers and the owner it might be more difficult to develop your interests as a worker as separate from the interests of the shop.That's originally what brought this up- the change in the composition of the working-class in the central capitalist countries and that of the peripheral/emerging countries. Recent (post-1971) struggles in the peripheral nations (lately China, Bangladesh and Egypt) and less recently South Korea, show 'green shoots' or forms of self-organization developed in struggle that resemble the soviet-type-organizations that had appeared in the West a century earlier.

If the form of the worker's council proper is dependent on specific material conditions, it would change how the next revolutionary wave is conceived.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The soviet form originally developed in productive (and especially heavy) industry; in Russia and Hungary, soviets developed by steelworkers in large "Worker Fortresses" (large factory complexes that employ thousands of workers) exercised influence over other workers and workplaces in the geographic vicinity. These powerful and archetypal soviets were often the reason the soviet form spread to other industries, types of workplaces, and were the center of the effort at dual power/proletarian revolution- having large influence and power.

Must the soviet-form, the archetypal/traditional Worker's Council/Soviet, develop in these specific conditions?

Very likely.


But, again, the factories are not the only such nuclei. It seems to me that in the countryside, these nuclei exist in the form of large capitalist estates employing the rural proletariat; in the cities, there exist in addition to the factories areas of high unemployment, and even, perhaps, branches of militant organisations that could act as nuclei in the formation of soviet organs.

With more service workers, the form most conducive to worker militancy is not the workplace-based organization or collectives of such, but geographic organizations: districts, cities, regions, and so on.


On the other hand few workers in many workplaces could mean that struggle necessarily becomes geographic i.e struggle in one shop must make appeals for support in separate shops to succeed, the only way forward is through a geographical council rather than workers self-management or co-ops.

Actually, to answer this and the OP, the 1917 soviets were necessarily geographic, not based on workplace strike committees or other workplace committees.

[subcp]

Actually, to answer this and the OP, the 1917 soviets were necessarily geographic, not based on workplace strike committees or other workplace committees.

I agree that the first fully formed soviets, in Petrograd and Budapest (Berlin too I think) were geographic; but was under the impression that they originated with the revolutionary factory committees, which elected mandated delegates from within the factory to send to a geographic soviet encompassing the city- a form that spread to other workplaces (from heavy industry to railworkers, bakers, etc.); but wasn't the context of both the factory committees and the elected worker-delegates the mass strike? An unplanned, generalization of a near general strike across a critical mass of workers and workplaces in a geographic area?

[Blake's Baby]

I think the point is 'who was it delegating the delegates that formed the soviets?'

Some were delegates of factory committees or maybe assemblies rather. Some were delegates of soldiers' committees. Were some delegates of neighbourhood assemblies too?

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the form of the worker's council proper is dependent on specific material conditions, it would change how the next revolutionary wave is conceived.

The concept of indirect (s)elections / council pyramids is worker-friendly for only two levels above the constituent worker at best, and is very problematic for levels higher than them: http://thecommune.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/machoverdecisionmaking.pdf

[subcp]

Do you mean the conception of a 'World Soviet' type body? Where the shopfloor and community level councils federate or centralize and send delegates to higher and higher bodies until they encompass large regions (multiple nation-state size) or at the global level?

Another issue related to the original soviets that were the basis of the council-revolutions in 1917-1919, was the role of the trade unions (specifically the metalworkers unions in Petrograd and Budapest). In the embryonic council-type organization in Seattle in 1919, the metalworkers union formed most of the joint-strike committee, had an important role in the organization of the general strike; the 'Council of Sailor's, Soldier's and Workingmen's Deputies' played a role that doesn't seem to be nailed down definitively.

Sometimes the words soviet and council are used in communist literature when speaking of a future revolution; some make it sound very cut and dry, others sound like they are talking about 'soviet-type-organizations' or organizations which fulfill the function of soviets (organ of power, decision making and production of the working-class) rather than the specific form that sparked the council-revolutions.

The high organic composition of capital in heavy manufacturing in the central capitalist nations has reduced the concentration/density of proletarians on the shopfloor and in industrial cities.

Ex.


see the number of employees at the Bay City GM Powertrain plant throughout the years, beginning in 1916 when the plant began producing parts for Chevrolet and the peak numbers of employees every year thereafter: 1916 - 135
1918 - 378
1925 - 542
1928 - 1,567
1935 - 2,407
1936 - 2,251
1943 - 4,873
1950 - 2,346
1955 - 2,661
1959 - 2,465
1966 - 3,149
1977 - 4,000
1983 - 2,600
1985 - 2,500
1999 - 1,500
2004 - 968
2009 - 402
Source: GM Powertrain Bay City




http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2009/06/how_many_workers_have_been_emp.html

Some groups that are present in the United States place a lot of emphasis on the US autoworker; it's something that has gone on since there's been an auto industry. During the 1960's-1970's, one of the 'New Communist Movement' groups wrote an ironic description of the average autoworkers shift; part of which meant being bombarded with leaflets and requests to buy cheap leftist newspapers from competing sects when going to the food truck outside the factory.

Today, groups like the Socialist Equality Party have a separate section of their website devoted to US auto workers:

http://www.socialequality.com/struggles/auto

which almost seems like a subconscious understanding of a tie between heavy manufacturing and metalworking work as a key component to revolutionary change (as they see it).

But the dramatically reduced number of auto workers (and 'traditional' industrial jobs in heavy manufacturing and metalworking) begs the question whether a form of self-organization that rose in conditions which are different or reduced changes how communists theorize the next revolution?

Does it matter to the soviet-form that, rather than hundreds of thousands of workers densely concentrated in cities like Lansing, Detroit, Flint, Gary, etc. in the auto and steel industries, there are hundreds per factory (of those that are still in operation)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do you mean the conception of a 'World Soviet' type body? Where the shopfloor and community level councils federate or centralize and send delegates to higher and higher bodies until they encompass large regions (multiple nation-state size) or at the global level?

It's already problematic even at the provincial and national levels. While China isn't a socialist example, it has five levels of government based on pyramidal bodies (i.e., People's Congresses), and this has exhibited a lot of problems.


But the dramatically reduced number of auto workers (and 'traditional' industrial jobs in heavy manufacturing and metalworking) begs the question whether a form of self-organization that rose in conditions which are different or reduced changes how communists theorize the next revolution?

Does it matter to the soviet-form that, rather than hundreds of thousands of workers densely concentrated in cities like Lansing, Detroit, Flint, Gary, etc. in the auto and steel industries, there are hundreds per factory (of those that are still in operation)?

You already know I don't care about this question (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ad-hoc-popular-t174039/index.html?t=174039&highlight=town), since I'm all for mass party-movement organization. The party-movement branches at appropriate geographic levels more than make up the differences between "hundreds of thousands of workers densely concentrated" and smaller workplaces in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

[subcp]

It's already problematic even at the provincial and national levels. While China isn't a socialist example, it has five levels of government based on pyramidal bodies (i.e., People's Congresses), and this has exhibited a lot of problems.



You already know I don't care about this question (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ad-hoc-popular-t174039/index.html?t=174039&highlight=town), since I'm all for mass party-movement organization. The party-movement branches at appropriate geographic levels more than make up the differences between "hundreds of thousands of workers densely concentrated" and smaller workplaces in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

I knew you were for the mass party; but wasn't aware you don't care about the root and forms of self-organization at the base of a proletarian revolution.

I agree that pyramidal models or hierarchies of more and more authority over larger geographic areas or more people are problematic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

subcp, you posed the question in the framework of councils, hence my response. In reality, the root and forms at that base pose the comparison between the not-so-durable ad hoc town hall meeting and its "industrial worker" derivatives, on the one hand, and the durable branch organization, on the other.

There's a durable reason why the PCF was able to "hijack" the way it did, though if a class-strugglist party-movement existed in the really-not-so-revolutionary May 1968, it would have done something similar yet different (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html) (in both cases telling the wildcats to get back to their jobs, but conducting a participatory membership recruitment drive for real political support instead the PCF merely telling the wildcats to stand down for electoral gimmicks), but referred instead to the July Days as precedent.

[ckaihatsu]

On the other hand few workers in many workplaces could mean that struggle necessarily becomes geographic i.e struggle in one shop must make appeals for support in separate shops to succeed, the only way forward is through a geographical council rather than workers self-management or co-ops.





Actually, to answer this and the OP, the 1917 soviets were necessarily geographic, not based on workplace strike committees or other workplace committees.


I'd like to qualify my 'Thanks' on this by wondering aloud if material conditions today aren't *better*, and *more conducive* to genuine democracy for the workplace entity itself, as a starting point.

I think it's worth striving for, and will note that if *instead* the starting point begins at a level 'higher-up' -- more-generalized, as with a geography-based one -- then that is probably for the sake of expediency, and necessarily detracts from the workplace-democratic process at a more-organic level.

(Of course if there was already a broad-based groundswell of militancy then such workplace-by-workplace approval would only be a formality anyway.)