Worker control in the soviet union

[Red Star Rising]

Was there ever any real worker control over the means of production in the USSR? Did the soviet political and social structure ever facilitate some kind of proletarian power? If so, how was this power manifested and did it ever actually achieve anything?

[RedKobra]

Others are far more expert in this field than I am but I'm fairly certain that the only window of opportunity existed between Feb & Oct when the Soviets were massively powerful in the Industrial sector. After the the Bolsheviks disbanded the democratic government and assumed sole control the only authority was Bolshevik authority and that lasted until the NEP at which point workers had to do what the Capitalists told them again and then after the NEP the state stepped in and assumed control of production rather than liberating the workers.

[Blake's Baby]

'democratic government'? What 'democratic government' was that?

[RedKobra]

I was referring to the Second Congress of the Soviets. 'Democratic Government' might have been stretching it but I was rounding up.

[Red Star Rising]

I was referring to the Second Congress of the Soviets. 'Democratic Government' might have been stretching it but I was rounding up.

Though I personally highly doubt that the majority of Russians had a say in establishing it.

[Creative Destruction]

I was referring to the Second Congress of the Soviets. 'Democratic Government' might have been stretching it but I was rounding up.

that'd be like if you had 1 and rounded up to 10.

[RedKobra]

All right, all right. Scratch 'democratic government'.:o

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Iirc many workplaces came under the direct control of workers during the civil war, however addressing this was one of the bolsheviks first priorities. They began putting managers under party control back into those workplaces immediately following their victory over the whites. Its probably important to point out that those work places were not exactly ideal while under direct worker control. The situation in the country was crazy to begin with combined with the worker's own inexperience with managing themselves, they weren't exactly well oiled machines. Then again 2 years isn't exactly a long time for improvement either.

[Blake's Baby]

I was referring to the Second Congress of the Soviets. 'Democratic Government' might have been stretching it but I was rounding up.

I think this pretty much marks the height of Soviet (ie working class) power, I certainly agree. It was the creation of the council of people's commissars that was the problem here I feel.

[Sewer Socialist]

I think this pretty much marks the height of Soviet (ie working class) power, I certainly agree. It was the creation of the council of people's commissars that was the problem here I feel.

Can you elaborate on the problem with the council of people's commissars?

[Red Star Rising]

Also, is Trotsky's analysis of it in The Revolution Betrayed worth reading? According to Trotsky, power of the proletariat was basically usurped by the power of the bureaucracy.How and why did this happen?

[Blake's Baby]

Can you elaborate on the problem with the council of people's commissars?

It's inconsistent with 'all power to the soviets'. The soviets were organs of workers' power - of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The Council of People's Commissars was a retrograde action, a move towards a bourgeois-style cabinet.

[The Idler]

There is a book Bolsheviks and Workers Control by Maurice Brinton
https://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

[Subversive]

There is a book Bolsheviks and Workers Control by Maurice Brinton
https://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
It is worth noting that these articles also have a particularly strong anarchist perspective and that they are not a purely historical view.
Although the articles provide a good and very detailed summary of the development of workers' rights in the USSR over time, ultimately the views and conclusions formed by the articles are ones purely of Anarchist views.

At one point in the 'Introduction' article they openly admit that they dismiss the entire USSR and the belief that the Workers held any sense of control only for one reason and one reason alone: That the Soviet State did not immediately abolish wage-labor. As well, they contrast this only to other anarchists whom they admit would dismiss the USSR entirely due only to the reason that a Soviet State ever existed, though there probably isn't as much distinction as they would have hoped to portray.

As such, the entire 'Introduction' article can be entirely skipped without loss and nothing stated in any of the articles should be taken purely at face-value, despite how they are represented (as factual). What underlies the history is a very biased political agenda.

Still worth a read if you're interested in the history and development, I guess.

[The Idler]

Simon Pirani is not an anarchist and he wrote
The Russian Revolution in Retreat
http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/
arguing much the same