If Workers Councils take power, does this exclude part of the working class?

[boomerang]

Whenever I read about revolution, smashing the state, and the working class taking power, it's always proposed that this power will be embodied in a federation of workers councils. There are "layers" of these councils at different geographic levels.

As far as I understand, councils at the lowest level (say, city districts) have delegates elected from the workplaces in that area. The "higher" councils (for larger geographic areas) are then elected from these lower councils.

The problem is this excludes members of the working class who aren't employed. (The unemployed, stay at home parents, retired workers, students without jobs.)

Has this been addressed in previous revolutions? For example, in the Russian revolution, did the soviets include delegates from neighborhoods as well as workplaces?

Seems to me that electing delegates from neighborhood assemblies and/or committees would solve the problem.

What are people's thoughts on this? And does anyone know how this problem has been dealt with in the past?

[Q]

The idea of workers councils has been pioneered in the first (1905) Russian revolution. The Russian word for 'council' is actually soviet, hence Soviet Union. So, that should cover the question about Russia.

Now, the idea of taking power through councils goes something like this: First we have a escalating wave of strikes, the bigger the impact on society, the better. As the strike becomes more absolute, more general, more crippling on society, the more the need arises that strike councils take on political tasks. From this point then it is not hard to imagine a society being run by such councils.

There are however several problems with this construction. In the first place you need to develop from workplace based councils to councils that work on a social scale, in order to be representative of all layers of society. Secondly, in most schemes they don't solve the issue of elections (they don't even ask the question whether elections are at all democratic; they aren't). Thirdly and most profoundly, the layered setup of the council republic (a local council electing a regional council, a regional council electing a statewide council, and so on) is actually less representative than an ordinary bourgeois parliament (Machover (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51148/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Machover,%20M_Machove r_Collective_%20Decision_Making_Machover_Collectiv e_%20Decision_Making.pdf) discusses why and gives mathematical proof supporting this claim).

So, the question of democracy is not settled by simply stating "workers councils!". It remains an open question. Bouricius (http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=jpd) gives a concrete proposal for a different setup (one which doesn't rely on elections and can scale up to run billions of people democratically). But of course, there are no blueprints and we have much to figure out. I would argue though that this is a live question for the workers movement today and communists need to think about it and make concrete proposals.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whenever I read about revolution, smashing the state, and the working class taking power, it's always proposed that this power will be embodied in a federation of workers councils. There are "layers" of these councils at different geographic levels.

As far as I understand, councils at the lowest level (say, city districts) have delegates elected from the workplaces in that area. The "higher" councils (for larger geographic areas) are then elected from these lower councils.

The problem is this excludes members of the working class who aren't employed. (The unemployed, stay at home parents, retired workers, students without jobs.)

Has this been addressed in previous revolutions? For example, in the Russian revolution, did the soviets include delegates from neighborhoods as well as workplaces?

Seems to me that electing delegates from neighborhood assemblies and/or committees would solve the problem.

What are people's thoughts on this? And does anyone know how this problem has been dealt with in the past?



The original revolutionary workers' councils, the soviets, were geographic. There was, for example, a Petrograd Soviet, a Kiev Soviet, etc. Workplace association was through factory committees. (In Hungary, it was another thing entirely. Hungary was a soviet republic, because it was a republic, which was ruled by something called a supreme governing soviet.)

And the soviets were not federated - they elected representatives to a congress of soviets. Regional associations, to the extent that they existed (e.g. the Union of the Communes of the Northern Region), were mostly ineffective.

And yes, it might turn out that some workers need to be excluded - as the workers in the city dumas and the zemstvos were during the early Soviet period. That is due to the stratification and the real differences that exist in the proletariat today.

[Rudolf]

Now, the idea of taking power through councils goes something like this: First we have a escalating wave of strikes, the bigger the impact on society, the better. As the strike becomes more absolute, more general, more crippling on society, the more the need arises that strike councils take on political tasks. From this point then it is not hard to imagine a society being run by such councils.

There are however several problems with this construction. In the first place you need to develop from workplace based councils to councils that work on a social scale, in order to be representative of all layers of society.

Id imagine that this wouldn't necessarily be an issue depending on how the movement has been developing. The anarcho-syndicalists have already given this thought. You organise geographically as well as industrially. Like the councils in the workplace developing organically into vying for hegemony so too must its geographic element. There are after all important battles to be fought outside the workplace. Whereas the council's industrial formation must expropriate factories its geographic formation must expropriate dwellings. So in this way we can formulate it instead of one being developed from the other both develop from the concrete struggles in their respective spheres bolstering each others' strength and forming a pincer movement against capital.





So, the question of democracy is not settled by simply stating "workers councils!". It remains an open question. Bouricius (http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=jpd) gives a concrete proposal for a different setup (one which doesn't rely on elections and can scale up to run billions of people democratically).

I don't have the time to read 20-odd pages of stuff but this is through direct democracy, sortition and federalism yeah?

[boomerang]

Thanks everyone!

I realize the soviets in Russia were geographic. But were delegates elected ONLY from workplaces? Or were they also elected from communities (outside the workplace)?



The anarcho-syndicalists have already given this thought. You organise geographically as well as industrially. ... There are after all important battles to be fought outside the workplace. Whereas the council's industrial formation must expropriate factories its geographic formation must expropriate dwellings. So in this way we can formulate it instead of one being developed from the other both develop from the concrete struggles....

This is the kind of thing I had in mind: delegates elected both from workplaces and from neighborhood assemblies or committees. I was wondering if this has been done in Russia or in other revolutions?

[boomerang]

the layered setup of the council republic (a local council electing a regional council, a regional council electing a statewide council, and so on) is actually less representative than an ordinary bourgeois parliament (Machover discusses why and gives mathematical proof supporting this claim).

So, the question of democracy is not settled by simply stating "workers councils!". It remains an open question. Bouricius gives a concrete proposal for a different setup (one which doesn't rely on elections and can scale up to run billions of people democratically).

P.S. I forgot to say in my last comment: Thanks for sharing this info! I'm not sure if/when I'll have time to read it, but like Rudolf I also guess it's a system where we'd choose delegates through random draw? And also those delegates would be mandated and recallable?

[Q]

P.S. I forgot to say in my last comment: Thanks for sharing this info! I'm not sure if/when I'll have time to read it, but like Rudolf I also guess it's a system where we'd choose delegates through random draw? And also those delegates would be mandated and recallable?
It depends on the proposal. Bouricius' proposal makes use of a multi-tier system, each having a specific function. Only in one of the tiers do we get a selection by random draw. What I find interesting in his proposal is how it manages to cope with several clashing goals. As for recallability: Given the short term of the drawn people (days, maybe as long as a week), this is a non-issue in Bouricius' proposal. Also, given the distributed responsibilities, it is actually completely superfluous.

It is only 16 pages of text, so it wouldn't take up too much of your time. If you have a dull hour or so, it should be finished. Of course Bouricius isn't the end of the discussion and I'm sure other proposals put more emphasis on the lottery element. I remain open for suggestions. The point of my previous post was simply to make the point that workers councils are not the panacea it is often thought of on the far left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So, the question of democracy is not settled by simply stating "workers councils!". It remains an open question. Bouricius (http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=jpd) gives a concrete proposal for a different setup (one which doesn't rely on elections and can scale up to run billions of people democratically). But of course, there are no blueprints and we have much to figure out. I would argue though that this is a live question for the workers movement today and communists need to think about it and make concrete proposals.

Comrade, on a side note I think that specific proposal puts too much stock on checks and balances. There are way more impediments to effective policymaking and legislation in that proposal than in the traditional bicameral chamber setup.


Thirdly and most profoundly, the layered setup of the council republic (a local council electing a regional council, a regional council electing a statewide council, and so on) is actually less representative than an ordinary bourgeois parliament (Machover (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51148/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Machover,%20M_Machove r_Collective_%20Decision_Making_Machover_Collectiv e_%20Decision_Making.pdf) discusses why and gives mathematical proof supporting this claim).

Demarchic curve-ball question: What about a demarchic system that features a similarly layered setup? That is, those randomly selected to higher bodies were first randomly selected to lower bodies and qualified for higher random selection from there? Does Machover's mathematical proof of diluted voting power apply to that, as well?

[Devrim]

Why does it matter if it excludes part of the working class?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I just want to stress that I'm not being facile above as it may come across that way. The communist ideal is not universal democracy, but the abolition of wage labour and the law of value in order to build a world human community. What does it matter if some people don't get to vote on it.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Why does it matter if it excludes part of the working class?

Devrim

The problem is not an ethical one, but a strategic one. Today the precariat compromises a significant portion of the working class - they will have to be mobilized for any political project which hopes to have a semblance of a chance in getting power.

As you know, democracy is not an abstract ideal but a consequence of existing coordinates of class struggle. Traditional and previous approaches to conscious class struggle of the Communist movement, council fetishism included, have no place today.

[boomerang]

Also there will more likely be very high unemployment in the lead up to a revolution, like the way it's been in Greece and Spain with 25 or 30 percent official unemployment and higher if counting discouraged workers.

And why does the "ethical" issue of democracy as an "ideal" not matter? Maybe you'd feel differently if you found yourself on the outside / excluded.

[boomerang]

LOL... just realized my post just above this one could be misinterpreted. Obviously I don't think any revolution has broken out in Greece or Spain, just using them as an example of very high unemployment.

If we look at the historic pattern, revolutions are more likely during times of crisis, so it's likely we'll see very high levels of unemployment.

Not to mention the workers in useless industries that will become unemployed during a revolutionary period.

[blake 3:17]

The best thing I've read on it has been Ernest Mandel's Dictatorship of of the Proletariat and Socialist Democracy:
Building a classless socialist society also involves a gigantic process of remoulding all aspects of social life. It involves constant change in the relations of production, in the mode of distribution, in the labour process, in the forms of administration of the economy and society, and in the customs, habits, and ways of thinking of the great majority of people. It involves the fundamental reconstruction of all living conditions: reconstruction of cities, complete revolution in the education system, restoration and protection of the ecological equilibrium, technological innovations to conserve scarce natural resources, etc.

Previously the highest acquisitions of culture have been the property of the ruling class, with special prerogatives and privileges accruing to the intelligentsia. Members of this special grouping function as transmitters and developers of science, art, and the professions for the ruling class.

That intelligentsia will gradually disappear as the masses progressively appropriate for themselves the full cultural heritage of the past and begin to create the culture of the classless society. In this way the distinction between “manual” and “intellectual” labour will disappear, each individual being able to develop their own capacities and talents.

All these endeavours, for which humanity possesses no blueprints, will give rise to momentous ideological and political debates and struggles. Different platforms on these issues will play a very important role. Any restriction of these debates and movements, under the pretext that this or that platform “objectively” reflects bourgeois or petty-bourgeois pressure and interests and “if logically carried out to the end”, could “lead to the restoration of capitalism”, can only hinder the emergence of a consensus around the most effective solutions from the point of view of building socialism, i.e. from the point of view of the overall class interests of the proletariat, as opposed to sectoral interest.

It should be pointed out that important struggles will continue throughout the process of building a classless society, struggles that concern social evils that are rooted in class society but will not disappear immediately with the elimination of capitalist exploitation or wage labour. The oppression of women, the oppression of national and racial minorities, the oppression and alienation of youth, and discrimination against homosexuals are archetypes of such problems that are not reducible to “the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie” unless one challenges their Marxist and materialist definition, as various Maoist and ultra-left currents do.

Political freedom under socialist democracy therefore also implies freedom of organisation and action for independent women’s liberation, national liberation, and youth movements, i.e. movements broader than the working class in the scientific sense of the word.

The revolutionary party will be able to win political leadership in these movements and to ideologically defeat various reactionary ideological currents not through administrative or repressive measures but, on the contrary, only by promoting the broadest possible mass democracy and by uncompromisingly upholding the right of all tendencies to defend their opinions and platforms before society as a whole.

Furthermore it should be recognised that the specific form of the workers’ state implies a unique dialectical combination of centralisation and decentralisation. The withering away of the state, to be initiated from the inception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, expresses itself through a process of gradual devolution of the right of administration in broad sectors of social activity (health system, educational system, postal-railway-telecommunications systems, etc.) internationally, nationally, regionally, and locally (communes) to organs of self-management. The central congress of workers’ councils, i.e. the proletariat as a class, will only decide, by majority vote, what share of society’s overall material and human resources should be allocated to each of these sectors. This implies forms of debate and political struggle that cannot be reduced to simplistic and mechanical “class struggle criteria”.

Finally, in the building of a classless society, the participation of millions of people not only in a more or less passive way through their votes, but also in the actual administration of various levels, cannot be reduced to a workerist concept of considering only workers “at the point of production” or in the factories as such. Lenin said that in a workers’ state, the vast majority of the population would participate directly in the exercise of “state functions.” This means that the soviets on which the dictatorship of the proletariat will be based are not only factory councils, but bodies of self-organisation of the masses in many spheres of social life, including factories, commercial units, hospitals, schools, transport and telecommunication centres, and neighbourhoods (territorial units). This is indispensable in order to integrate into the conscious and active proletariat it’s most dispersed and often poorest and most oppressed layers, such as women, oppressed nationalities, youth, workers in small shops, old-age pensioners, etc. It is also indispensable to cementing the alliance between the working-class and the toiling petty bourgeoisie. This alliance is decisive in winning and holding state power and in reducing the social costs both of a victorious revolution and of the building of socialism.

One of the institutional guarantees of the development of socialist democracy is the establishment of correct relations between the organs of this democracy and the apparatuses of the state administration, at all levels and in all fields: political, cultural, educational, military, etc. Socialist democracy is impossible if the purview of these apparatuses is not strictly delineated, if their powers are not reduced to a strict and indispensable minimum and if they are not thoroughly subordinated to the organs of socialist democracy (the councils). The councils should have full sovereignty over the strategic and tactical decisions in their purview. The administrative apparatuses should be responsible for the implementation of these decisions and nothing more.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1985/dictprole/1985.htm

This was an important breakthrough by learning the lessons of the actual existing socialisms.

[blake 3:17]

The best thing I've read on it has been Ernest Mandel's Dictatorship of of the Proletariat and Socialist Democracy:
Building a classless socialist society also involves a gigantic process of remoulding all aspects of social life. It involves constant change in the relations of production, in the mode of distribution, in the labour process, in the forms of administration of the economy and society, and in the customs, habits, and ways of thinking of the great majority of people. It involves the fundamental reconstruction of all living conditions: reconstruction of cities, complete revolution in the education system, restoration and protection of the ecological equilibrium, technological innovations to conserve scarce natural resources, etc.

Previously the highest acquisitions of culture have been the property of the ruling class, with special prerogatives and privileges accruing to the intelligentsia. Members of this special grouping function as transmitters and developers of science, art, and the professions for the ruling class.

That intelligentsia will gradually disappear as the masses progressively appropriate for themselves the full cultural heritage of the past and begin to create the culture of the classless society. In this way the distinction between “manual” and “intellectual” labour will disappear, each individual being able to develop their own capacities and talents.

All these endeavours, for which humanity possesses no blueprints, will give rise to momentous ideological and political debates and struggles. Different platforms on these issues will play a very important role. Any restriction of these debates and movements, under the pretext that this or that platform “objectively” reflects bourgeois or petty-bourgeois pressure and interests and “if logically carried out to the end”, could “lead to the restoration of capitalism”, can only hinder the emergence of a consensus around the most effective solutions from the point of view of building socialism, i.e. from the point of view of the overall class interests of the proletariat, as opposed to sectoral interest.

It should be pointed out that important struggles will continue throughout the process of building a classless society, struggles that concern social evils that are rooted in class society but will not disappear immediately with the elimination of capitalist exploitation or wage labour. The oppression of women, the oppression of national and racial minorities, the oppression and alienation of youth, and discrimination against homosexuals are archetypes of such problems that are not reducible to “the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie” unless one challenges their Marxist and materialist definition, as various Maoist and ultra-left currents do.

Political freedom under socialist democracy therefore also implies freedom of organisation and action for independent women’s liberation, national liberation, and youth movements, i.e. movements broader than the working class in the scientific sense of the word.

The revolutionary party will be able to win political leadership in these movements and to ideologically defeat various reactionary ideological currents not through administrative or repressive measures but, on the contrary, only by promoting the broadest possible mass democracy and by uncompromisingly upholding the right of all tendencies to defend their opinions and platforms before society as a whole.

Furthermore it should be recognised that the specific form of the workers’ state implies a unique dialectical combination of centralisation and decentralisation. The withering away of the state, to be initiated from the inception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, expresses itself through a process of gradual devolution of the right of administration in broad sectors of social activity (health system, educational system, postal-railway-telecommunications systems, etc.) internationally, nationally, regionally, and locally (communes) to organs of self-management. The central congress of workers’ councils, i.e. the proletariat as a class, will only decide, by majority vote, what share of society’s overall material and human resources should be allocated to each of these sectors. This implies forms of debate and political struggle that cannot be reduced to simplistic and mechanical “class struggle criteria”.

Finally, in the building of a classless society, the participation of millions of people not only in a more or less passive way through their votes, but also in the actual administration of various levels, cannot be reduced to a workerist concept of considering only workers “at the point of production” or in the factories as such. Lenin said that in a workers’ state, the vast majority of the population would participate directly in the exercise of “state functions.” This means that the soviets on which the dictatorship of the proletariat will be based are not only factory councils, but bodies of self-organisation of the masses in many spheres of social life, including factories, commercial units, hospitals, schools, transport and telecommunication centres, and neighbourhoods (territorial units). This is indispensable in order to integrate into the conscious and active proletariat it’s most dispersed and often poorest and most oppressed layers, such as women, oppressed nationalities, youth, workers in small shops, old-age pensioners, etc. It is also indispensable to cementing the alliance between the working-class and the toiling petty bourgeoisie. This alliance is decisive in winning and holding state power and in reducing the social costs both of a victorious revolution and of the building of socialism.

One of the institutional guarantees of the development of socialist democracy is the establishment of correct relations between the organs of this democracy and the apparatuses of the state administration, at all levels and in all fields: political, cultural, educational, military, etc. Socialist democracy is impossible if the purview of these apparatuses is not strictly delineated, if their powers are not reduced to a strict and indispensable minimum and if they are not thoroughly subordinated to the organs of socialist democracy (the councils). The councils should have full sovereignty over the strategic and tactical decisions in their purview. The administrative apparatuses should be responsible for the implementation of these decisions and nothing more.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1985/dictprole/1985.htm

This was an important breakthrough by learning the lessons of the actual existing socialisms.

[Devrim]

And why does the "ethical" issue of democracy as an "ideal" not matter? Maybe you'd feel differently if you found yourself on the outside / excluded.

No, it wouldn't matter to me at all. I'd be quite happy if I didn't have to go to meetings. I've never really liked them.

I think that the ICC's position on this is actually quite interesting. They think that during the transitional period a sort of semi-state will exist made up by involving people in the democratic control of their lives. However, they believ that the dictatorship of the proletariat is exercised by the workers' councils.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

There does seem to be an underlying issue of ethics in Q's insistence on a democracy. Democracy seems to be a principle, an end in itself, and therefore everything that doesn't conform to this principle of democracy is bad and should be corrected. But why is it relevant that a revolutionary dictatorship isn't optimally representative, or that 'voting' isn't optimally democratic, or, for that matter, that the 50+ seat rule in Greek liberal democracy is "undemocratic"? What matters is the content, form is secondary. In a grassroots system of workers' councils based on multiple layers the distance between the lowest levels and the highest organs is larger than in a parliamentary democracy: who cares? If it asserts the dominance of the revolutionary working class and consolidates social power and hegemony, it is sufficient.

[boomerang]

I think that the ICC's position on this is actually quite interesting. They think that during the transitional period a sort of semi-state will exist made up by involving people in the democratic control of their lives. However, they believ that the dictatorship of the proletariat is exercised by the workers' councils.
Devrim

Cool, I would love to read this, Devrim. :) Do you have either the link or the title of the article?

@ blake 3:17
That's some good stuff there. Thanks for sharing it!

[Q]

There does seem to be an underlying issue of ethics in Q's insistence on a democracy. Democracy seems to be a principle, an end in itself, and therefore everything that doesn't conform to this principle of democracy is bad and should be corrected. But why is it relevant that a revolutionary dictatorship isn't optimally representative, or that 'voting' isn't optimally democratic, or, for that matter, that the 50+ seat rule in Greek liberal democracy is "undemocratic"? What matters is the content, form is secondary. In a grassroots system of workers' councils based on multiple layers the distance between the lowest levels and the highest organs is larger than in a parliamentary democracy: who cares? If it asserts the dominance of the revolutionary working class and consolidates social power and hegemony, it is sufficient.
Good point. Democracy is not an end in itself in my view. It is however the best means by which our class can claim power as a class. If you don't have a center view on democracy, then I do ask the counter question how exactly the proletariat will consolidate its hegemony? Minoritarian views can be tactically valid, even necessary at times. But surely, we should aim for a majoritarian politics. If we insist on the adagium that the revolutionary emancipation of the working class can only be the act of its own doing, then how else can we achieve this if not by having a class that is politically fit to rule, a class that is educated, a class that acts like a collective?

Democracy, genuine democracy, is at the very core of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If we agree on that basis, then everything else can be discussed as tactics. So yes, we can have representative elections, we can have layers of councils or 50 seat top-ups. The question that should be raised here is how it will benefit our class.

[Devrim]

[SIZE=3]Cool, I would love to read this, Devrim. :) Do you have either the link or the title of the article?

I think it's in here: http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition

Devrim

[blake 3:17]

No, it wouldn't matter to me at all. I'd be quite happy if I didn't have to go to meetings. I've never really liked them.

And that's one of the basic problems of direct democracies -- most people hate meetings and I'm very suspicious of people who like them. A huge problem of the Left (in a very broad sense) is that it is dominated by people who like to go to meetings or love to go to meetings. The biggest bladder and the people with nowhere else to go end up making all the final decisions. I'm sure that's the case with many other organizations, but it creates a culture of dullness...

[cyu]

This thread got me thinking... Is RevLeft a workers' council? People from around the world show up here. We discuss politics. We discuss economics. We discuss various issue local to different parts of the world. Maybe nothing is ever actually decided, but we still return to the other parts of our lives with something (or do we?)

Maybe someone in your town doesn't visit RevLeft. Maybe they visit reddit or some other website instead. Maybe they discuss politics and economics, and maybe they don't. They return to their situation, possibly with new ideas from their online discussions, possibly not, and decide for themselves whether to act on those ideas or not.

[Pancakes Rühle]

The entire working class, and if there are 40 million, all 40 million will govern in a DOTP. This is Marx 101.

[Decolonize The Left]

And that's one of the basic problems of direct democracies -- most people hate meetings and I'm very suspicious of people who like them. A huge problem of the Left (in a very broad sense) is that it is dominated by people who like to go to meetings or love to go to meetings. The biggest bladder and the people with nowhere else to go end up making all the final decisions. I'm sure that's the case with many other organizations, but it creates a culture of dullness...

Indeed, however, I should think that this (the fact that most people hate meetings) is largely due to the conditions that we find ourselves in as working people. Meetings are framed within the context of political/economic organization as a minority faction; change is hard to see unfold; global hegemonic structures seem to grow with each year. Meetings, it would appear, seem meaningless.

I would posit that as none of us have lived through a revolutionary scenario, we have no idea what this fundamental change in conditions would do to our minds and spirit. Meetings may very well seem less meaningless then; in fact, they may seem as the very essence of meaning.

[boomerang]

I think that the ICC's position on this is actually quite interesting. They think that during the transitional period a sort of semi-state will exist made up by involving people in the democratic control of their lives. However, they believ that the dictatorship of the proletariat is exercised by the workers' councils.

@ Devrim

Hey, I read the ICC pamphlet (link in post #20 for those interested)


It says there will be a dual organizational structure. On the one hand, the workers councils. On the other hand, the “territorial soviets” which include not just the working class but all the non-exploiting classes. (But capitalists and the old political class are excluded.)

There are still questions…

1. What is the division between what the workers councils are in charge of and what the territorial soviets are in charge of? (It says the workers councils are in charge of the economic program. Are the territorial councils allowed to be self-governing in all other areas? If not, what exactly do the territorial soviets have control over?)

2. The pamphlet says that the workers councils have a monopoly of armed force. However, I found a couple old threads on the libcom forums where members of the ICC seemed to be saying that there would be a militia that included revolutionaries of all non-exploiting classes to fight a civil war against the bourgeois counterrevolution, but that the workers councils would also maintain their own militia to protect working class interests. So I’m confused – which of the two is the ICC position?

[fear of a red planet]

It's spurious nonsense to argue against democracy on the basis that most people don't like meetings.

First of all - people are more likely to participate in a meeting if it is directly related to them (IE about a spate of neighbourhood burglaries, allocation of food stores etc).

Secondly - that's what representative democracy is for - I want to elect someone I know and trust, or at least someone people I respect will vouch for to make decisions on my behalf. As long as there is some recall mechanism and short terms (and maybe term limits as well) then that's fine with me.

You could have a system of referenda for issues reps felt should be put out, and reps could use consultative ballots as well if required.

Sortition is great for some limited duties but I wouldn't be comfortable with a sorted body having executive power.

As regards workers councils. They are a great idea and enterprises should be controlled by democratically elected representative workers councils if medium or large sized, and by all staff if small.

However geographic areas should be over seen by neighbourhood/town/city/district whatever councils and assemblies which are elected by all residents over a certain age - it's not appropriate for workers councils to do that.

Mass meetings may be appropriate as rallies to get support during times of struggle but at all other times we should stick to responsible majoritarian democratic rule.

[Devrim]

Boomerang, you'd have to ask them. I'm not a member.

Devrim