Self-management?

[Jacob Cliff]

I think I read somewhere in one of Lenin's work that applauded the passing of management from workers councils to the State – which was curious to me, because I thought the opposite was the goal of socialism. Would developed socialism feature workers management, or would it be exercised by a central planning committee? If so, how is this any different than a new form of property (this committee having all say, after all)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Management was never done by "workers' councils" in Russia; at best the factory committees participated in management of individual factories (which were in turn subordinated to the chief committees and centres). Lenin was arguing for the substitution of collegial management, where each member of the collegium blamed all the others for every mistake, with responsible one-man management (one manager responsible for the preformance of the enterprise).

Marx was, in my opinion, pretty clear when it came to management:

"The labour of supervision and management is naturally required wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of independent producers. However, it has a double nature.

[...]

Inasmuch as the capitalist's work does not originate in the purely capitalistic process of production, and hence does not cease on its own when capital ceases; inasmuch as it does not confine itself solely to the function of exploiting the labour of others; inasmuch as it therefore originates from the social form of the labour-process, from combination and co-operation of many in pursuance of a common result, it is just as independent of capital as that form itself as soon as it has burst its capitalistic shell. To say that this labour is necessary as capitalistic labour, or as a function of the capitalist, only means that the vulgus is unable to conceive the forms developed in the lap of capitalist production, separate and free from their antithetical capitalist character. "

(Capital.)

Obviously, in socialism there will exist supervisors and managers of various production units, since the labour of several individuals needs to be coordinated for modern production to fuction. Therefore someone will preform the function of the "conductor"; coordinating all of these efforts. In turn, these production units will be subordinated to higher bodies - the chief committee for sugar and the centre for textile production and so on - and ultimately to the entire society. Society will, moreover, probably delegate the task of drawing up the general social plan to some subordinate organ. What of it, though? Even in societies where property exists, the property owners are often not the ones who coordinate the day-to-day operations of their property. But we're not talking about that; there is no ownership in socialism, because rather than being parceled out into little domains which one or several persons have the prerogative to use, abuse and alienate, the means of production will be used by the entire society, according to a general plan.

[Rudolf]

Obviously, in socialism there will exist supervisors and managers of various production units, since the labour of several individuals needs to be coordinated for modern production to fuction. Therefore someone will preform the function of the "conductor"; coordinating all of these efforts.

I really dont' like this argument as i don't think it conforms to the role of management in capitalist society let alone a capital-less one. Coordination and planning are obvious requirements in production but this isn't an inherent task of supervisors or management and instead is often done by the rank and file. I've had jobs that were about coordinating production and there was no way coordination could be carried out by management because of the scale of production. They had to hire loads of people for it.

I'd expect (expect because i've not researched it) the extent to which coordination is accomplished away from the rank and file on the shop floor is purely for the sake of capital accumulation and not the production of use-values as it is remarkably easy to sabotage production if your job is at least in part its coordination. Oh and yes we were sabotaging production, it was ridiculously easy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I really dont' like this argument as i don't think it conforms to the role of management in capitalist society let alone a capital-less one. Coordination and planning are obvious requirements in production but this isn't an inherent task of supervisors or management and instead is often done by the rank and file. I've had jobs that were about coordinating production and there was no way coordination could be carried out by management because of the scale of production. They had to hire loads of people for it.

I'd expect (expect because i've not researched it) the extent to which coordination is accomplished away from the rank and file on the shop floor is purely for the sake of capital accumulation and not the production of use-values as it is remarkably easy to sabotage production if your job is at least in part its coordination. Oh and yes we were sabotaging production, it was ridiculously easy.

I would say that what Marx called "the labour of management and supervision" is broader than the job done by management in capitalist society. It includes also the work of foremen, shift supervisors, and yes, some workers as well. The point is that this work will remain a necessity; both the low-level supervision that you describe and higher-level coordination that is done by senior management and executives today.

As for the second paragraph, that might be true when it comes to coordination on the shop floor, but what happens when the efforts of many production units need to be coordinated? Or when administrative jobs that concern many production units need to be done? Then, obviously there is a need for management that is not on one shop floor.

[Rudolf]

I would say that what Marx called "the labour of management and supervision" is broader than the job done by management in capitalist society. It includes also the work of foremen, shift supervisors, and yes, some workers as well. The point is that this work will remain a necessity; both the low-level supervision that you describe and higher-level coordination that is done by senior management and executives today.

Some of that work will remain a necessity to the extent that that work is not bound to capital yet a hell of a lot of that work would cease to exist.



As for the second paragraph, that might be true when it comes to coordination on the shop floor, but what happens when the efforts of many production units need to be coordinated? Or when administrative jobs that concern many production units need to be done? Then, obviously there is a need for management that is not on one shop floor.

One shop floor or twenty is a bit irrelevant. I didn't do low-level coordination (i can't use supervision as that'd imply i was a supervisor which is a pretty ridiculous notion) for one tiny space that involved a couple of workers. The shop floor in which i did coord- work covered the entire UK and involved many production units. In the case of many production units you just need a few dozen of me :p

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Some of that work will remain a necessity to the extent that that work is not bound to capital yet a hell of a lot of that work would cease to exist.

Yes, of course. Everything related to finance, for example, will go out the window once socialism starts and human society begins to plan in material terms. Still, the necessity of such work remains - just as the amount of necessary physical labour will drop sharply in socialism, but physical labour will remain a necessity.


One shop floor or twenty is a bit irrelevant. I didn't do low-level coordination (i can't use supervision as that'd imply i was a supervisor which is a pretty ridiculous notion) for one tiny space that involved a couple of workers. The shop floor in which i did coord- work covered the entire UK and involved many production units. In the case of many production units you just need a few dozen of me :p

I don't think it's irrelevant, as the assumption many people on RevLeft seem to be making is that workplaces (some go as far as openly saying "enterprises") will be managed by councils formed from the workers of that workplace. This is a model that is impossible to scale up, not without resorting to a market at least. But obviously, in a lot of cases the activities of disparate workplaces need to be coordinated. This requires someone to assume the function that is preformed today by managers and executives.

[Rudolf]

Yes, of course. Everything related to finance, for example, will go out the window once socialism starts and human society begins to plan in material terms. Still, the necessity of such work remains - just as the amount of necessary physical labour will drop sharply in socialism, but physical labour will remain a necessity. What im not sure of is exactly what this work that remains is as so far the only thing explicitly mentioned is coordination.

Reminds me of arguments about the police. There are certain things they do that would still exist such as intervening in interpersonal disputes but the police will cease to exist. Why is this thought not extended towards management?




I don't think it's irrelevant, as the assumption many people on RevLeft seem to be making is that workplaces (some go as far as openly saying "enterprises") will be managed by councils formed from the workers of that workplace. This is a model that is impossible to scale up, not without resorting to a market at least.

The usual answer i imagine is association and federation. That these councils must form an international association taking on an industrial and geographic dimension. I fail to see why you can only think of markets.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What im not sure of is exactly what this work that remains is as so far the only thing explicitly mentioned is coordination.

Reminds me of arguments about the police. There are certain things they do that would still exist such as intervening in interpersonal disputes but the police will cease to exist. Why is this thought not extended towards management?

Because the police do more than intervene in interpersonal disputes. But in fact, if there is some sort of standing body intended to intervene in these situations, then yes, that does sound suspiciously like the police. I don't think such a body will exist in socialism.

Coordination is the chief task of management, at least lower management. There is also the task of maintaining workplace discipline (telling Geoff to go home if he's drunk and doing substandard work), supervising certain other administrative personnel, going over the paperwork and so on.

Then, at the level of former executives in capitalist firms, there is all that, plus things like deciding on R&D, standardisation, quality standards, responding to emergency situations and so on.


The usual answer i imagine is association and federation. That these councils must form an international association taking on an industrial and geographic dimension. I fail to see why you can only think of markets.

Yes, but if the "international association" can overrule them, then the councils (and from the start, we're talking about a pretty narrow, almost syndicalist, view of workers' councils) aren't really the decision-making authorities; if they're autonomous, well, what happens when autonomous entities interact, in the context of production? Exchange and, ultimately the market (the only mechanism that can regulate exchange so that it is compatible - barely - with a modern system of industrial production).

[Guardia Rossa]

what happens when autonomous entities interact, in the context of production? Exchange and, ultimately the market.

How is that works, why do autonomous entities necessarily interact by market rules of "gimme 20, ill give you 10"?
Why in socialism they wouldn't do what people in socialism do, like, the classic "From each accordingly to their ability, to each accordingly to their needs"?

Not defending anything or attacking anything, just curious.

EDIT: Example, the city ABCDE produces shoes. The international organization supervises that there are enough shoes for everyone. The cities (Assuming that the city is the strongest level of the federation of production...) comunicate their need for shoes to the international organization, wich in turn says wich city should send shoes for wich cities. So, ABCDE ends up sending shoes for AYBFS, JRWEJ, GIUSR, YDSAP and STJSR.

With the other things happens the same. What is the failure in this system.

[Comrade #138672]

How is that works, why do autonomous entities necessarily interact by market rules of "gimme 20, ill give you 10"?
Why in socialism they wouldn't do what people in socialism do, like, the classic "From each accordingly to their ability, to each accordingly to their needs"?

Not defending anything or attacking anything, just curious.

EDIT: Example, the city ABCDE produces shoes. The international organization supervises that there are enough shoes for everyone. The cities (Assuming that the city is the strongest level of the federation of production...) comunicate their need for shoes to the international organization, wich in turn says wich city should send shoes for wich cities. So, ABCDE ends up sending shoes for AYBFS, JRWEJ, GIUSR, YDSAP and STJSR.

With the other things happens the same. What is the failure in this system.It could be argued that those cities are not truly autonomous.

But we don't want that anyway.

[cyu]

There is discussion in "business circles" about the difference between leaders and managers. I guess to me, it boils down to this - leaders are able to convince others that doing something is a good idea, while managers are able to ensure the happiness of the people doing it and ensure there are enough people who want to do it. If you can't convince others that something is a good idea, you are not a good leader. If you can't ensure everyone involved is happy and wants to stay involved, you are not a good manager.

Under capitalism, the roles of leader and manager are very fixed. Usually physical force (in the form of corporate security or local police) is used to enforce the fact that this or that person is the leader or manager, and you're not allowed to disagree.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How is that works, why do autonomous entities necessarily interact by market rules of "gimme 20, ill give you 10"?
Why in socialism they wouldn't do what people in socialism do, like, the classic "From each accordingly to their ability, to each accordingly to their needs"?

Not defending anything or attacking anything, just curious.

EDIT: Example, the city ABCDE produces shoes. The international organization supervises that there are enough shoes for everyone. The cities (Assuming that the city is the strongest level of the federation of production...) comunicate their need for shoes to the international organization, wich in turn says wich city should send shoes for wich cities. So, ABCDE ends up sending shoes for AYBFS, JRWEJ, GIUSR, YDSAP and STJSR.

With the other things happens the same. What is the failure in this system.

Goods need to flow between production units (and this flow is much more important than the utilisation of whatever resources are present near production units). The question is what regulates that flow. In socialism, this flow is regulated by a general social plan. But if the various production units are autonomous, then the only possible regulator is the market, that is, exchange between autonomous units. If there is no regulator, then the entire system collapses.

You ask why the production units can't operate on the basis of "from each according to his ability...". Well, first of all we don't know what the relation between the demand and the productive capacity is, a priori. It might be that employing all of the steel mills to their full capacity would result in tonnes of steel no one wants. Or it might turn out that we need to build more steel mills. But for the global, aggregate need to be assessed, that requires that the entire production is planned simultaneously. Otherwise, an autonomous factory (if it is subordinate to an "international organisation" - perhaps it's better to say "global" - then it's not autonomous) in the Carpathians can't assess the need for its products in the Pannonian region, in the North Sea region, in Hebei etc. etc.

[cyu]

These days, we have large scale unemployment, especially among the young. If materialism declines, we can only expect more unemployment. Instead we just get a lot of people with nothing better to do than view Tinder pictures all day (which isn't necessarily a bad thing unless they are only doing it out of sheer boredom). Capitalism conditions people to assume others will work only if they are paid, but I'd say if you merely advertised a need for some activity, along with the necessary food and transport, then there would be enough people in a post-capitalist society who will do it simply out of sheer boredom. With the increasing ways people are directly connected with the internet, communicating such economic needs will become easier and easier (kind of like how Tinder makes communicating *ahem* "other" needs easier than ever previously) - and there will be the influential personality types who will help recruit for these activities because they too are just bored.

[ComradeAllende]

I've always thought that in a socialist society, the division of labor would be more accountable the rank-and-file (where workers elect their supervisors), as opposed to the "merit-based" system in capitalist production. I don't see how having a planned economy with no private property is a great sell for the workers, at least if they still have to take orders from unaccountable bureaucrats and supervisors.

[Emmett Till]

I've always thought that in a socialist society, the division of labor would be more accountable the rank-and-file (where workers elect their supervisors), as opposed to the "merit-based" system in capitalist production. I don't see how having a planned economy with no private property is a great sell for the workers, at least if they still have to take orders from unaccountable bureaucrats and supervisors.

Plant supervisors should definitely be subject to the working class, but should they be elected directly from the shop floor or through a general process of election to all posts in a workers state from top to bottom? Or should they be appointed by those the workers elect to run the state, chosen on the basis of competency not politics?

There needs to be accountability and involvement from the shop floor, but no, in a workers state a factory is owned by the whole working class, not by the particular workers who work in that factory. So electing plant managers in the factory may or may not be a good idea, dependent on various circumstances.

When you get right down to it, most workers like anyone else are not interested in exactly how a factory is run, they are interested in something vastly more important, namely who gets what the factory produces and why, in particular where the social surplus goes, which in a capitalist system turns into profit, rent, interest, dividends, taxes etc.

The reason for socialism is to get rid of hunger, poverty, war, racism, inequality etc. etc., not to have factories run differently.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When you get right down to it, most workers like anyone else are not interested in exactly how a factory is run, they are interested in something vastly more important, namely who gets what the factory produces and why, in particular where the social surplus goes, which in a capitalist system turns into profit, rent, interest, dividends, taxes etc.

And, of course, they are interested in their life outside the plant. I think many on the left love endless meetings, to the extent that they forget that most people don't; in fact most people hate them. In the end, even in the socialist society a person has only so much hours in their day and if we have to call a collegium and obtain a 2/3 vote every time a screw needs to be replaced we won't have time to do anything else.

[Comrade #138672]

And, of course, they are interested in their life outside the plant. I think many on the left love endless meetings, to the extent that they forget that most people don't; in fact most people hate them. In the end, even in the socialist society a person has only so much hours in their day and if we have to call a collegium and obtain a 2/3 vote every time a screw needs to be replaced we won't have time to do anything else.Yes. The point is to elect representatives / delegates in those cases. If they fail to act in our interests, we can get rid of them the very same day if necessary.

[Emmett Till]

And, of course, they are interested in their life outside the plant. I think many on the left love endless meetings, to the extent that they forget that most people don't; in fact most people hate them. In the end, even in the socialist society a person has only so much hours in their day and if we have to call a collegium and obtain a 2/3 vote every time a screw needs to be replaced we won't have time to do anything else.

XXB, I do believe in your neck of the woods they used to have a system where the workers did get to elect the plant managers, didn't they? How did that work out?

[Emmett Till]

Yes. The point is to elect representatives / delegates in those cases. If they fail to act in our interests, we can get rid of them the very same day if necessary.

They had those elected collegia in the first few years in Revolutionary Russia running factories, indeed it was not a matter of choice, as the factory managers and engineers were mostly opponents of the revolution and were sabotaging production whenever they could get away with it.

Didn't work, firstly because working on the factory floor doesn't give you the training and expertise needed to run a factory, secondly because the collegia turned out to be the perfect vehicle for buck passing and dodging responsibility. There's an old saying that the worst way to run anything is by a committee.

So you had Lenin's push for one man management, which helped tremendously. At first the usual setup would be a trained technician as deputy and usually running everything, with the appointed manager usually a skilled worker communist watching the engineer like a hawk.

And the unions, quite powerful in Soviet industry during the 1920s, having lots of control and veto rights and could defend the interests of the workers vs. abusive managers as necessary, and provide the element of direct democracy--at least at first.

Of course, that all went to shit in the 1930s.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

XXB, I do believe in your neck of the woods they used to have a system where the workers did get to elect the plant managers, didn't they? How did that work out?

Ah, unfortunately I'm not aware of any studies on the question (and personally, I wouldn't trust most Croatian historians). So all I have to go by are anecdotal reports - mostly from shipyard and retail workers, and from some family members who were in the SDB. The elections, from what I understand, were about as "free" as those in the Soviet Union, although after the Informbureau hysteria died down the consequences of making the wrong comments weren't as serious. Managers were generally disliked. Many people I've spoken to also found the system to be byzantine - and it was, it was a compromise between two or three proposals.

Of course, much of the negative aspects tend to be clouded when one looks at the period from the perspective of the present, after the counter-revolutionary destruction of the d.w.s. in Yugoslavia and the massive death and impoverishment that went along with it.


They had those elected collegia in the first few years in Revolutionary Russia running factories, indeed it was not a matter of choice, as the factory managers and engineers were mostly opponents of the revolution and were sabotaging production whenever they could get away with it.

My impression (I'm thinking of Silvana Malle's "The Economic Organisation of War Communism" here) was that the collegia often contained the old managers and specialists, as did the tsentry and glavki. Economic sabotage happened, of course. But, again, it was my impression that it was generally fought with nationalisation, as the fabkoms were never intended to be management organs.


Yes. The point is to elect representatives / delegates in those cases. If they fail to act in our interests, we can get rid of them the very same day if necessary.

That's how it will presumably be on the state level. We can't all fit in the chamber of the central soviet, so we send delegates. But I don't think we can mechanically transpose this to the factory level. Managers might be elected, of course. But it's not some kind of necessity - ultimately, the workers of a given factory won't own it. There will be no ownership - control will belong to the entire society.

[Zoop]

Of course management can't be placed in the hands of the state. It has to be directly managed and controlled by the members of that organisation. If not, you've got a state of pseudo-liberty at work. Fuck that, and fuck all those who advocate that and their pseudo-revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ah, yes, we can't have pseudo-revolutions such as the one in the Soviet Union, we need workers' paradises such as Algeria under Ben Bella.

As usual, all rage and no substance.

[Zoop]

As usual, all rage and no substance.

Perfectly describes your post, yes.

[ComradeAllende]

When you get right down to it, most workers like anyone else are not interested in exactly how a factory is run, they are interested in something vastly more important, namely who gets what the factory produces and why, in particular where the social surplus goes, which in a capitalist system turns into profit, rent, interest, dividends, taxes etc.

The reason for socialism is to get rid of hunger, poverty, war, racism, inequality etc. etc., not to have factories run differently.

I would actually argue the opposite; workers care a great deal about how a factory (or office, store, etc.) is run, mainly because it often affects them after-hours. In the modern capitalist system, bosses can track their workers' every movement during the workday and monitor their actions after hours via the Internet. Employers can have stringent speech codes, dress requirements, etc., things that (I at least) think ought to be removed from the manager's reach. I don't think there's a contradiction between democracy in the workplace and a socialist planned economy; I think the former can actually improve the latter, at least in terms of allowing the workers to participate (in some way) with the creation of the general economic plan. Either way, I see the absence of civil liberties in the workplace as a major (political) weakness of the capitalist system, something that socialists should not ignore in their efforts to re-galvanize the working class.

[Emmett Till]

I would actually argue the opposite; workers care a great deal about how a factory (or office, store, etc.) is run, mainly because it often affects them after-hours. In the modern capitalist system, bosses can track their workers' every movement during the workday and monitor their actions after hours via the Internet. Employers can have stringent speech codes, dress requirements, etc., things that (I at least) think ought to be removed from the manager's reach. I don't think there's a contradiction between democracy in the workplace and a socialist planned economy; I think the former can actually improve the latter, at least in terms of allowing the workers to participate (in some way) with the creation of the general economic plan. Either way, I see the absence of civil liberties in the workplace as a major (political) weakness of the capitalist system, something that socialists should not ignore in their efforts to re-galvanize the working class.

They care about how a factory is run insofar as it affects them personally. Do they care about which gadget goes where and which model to use, the kind of thing factory management spends 90% of its time dealing with? Well, to some degree, desiring high quality & professionalism so that they can feel like high grade people, aristocrats of labor. Which most of us do, I remember feeling like that back when I was a labor aristocrat in the printing industry.

But the lower ranks of the working class, the oppressed layers, generally don't give a damn about that kind of thing, they want to pay the rent and feed themselves and their families if they have any and maybe have better lives for their children. And those are usually the most militant and most revolutionary.

Desiring workers control over the actual production process is a labor aristocrat kind of thing. In the USSR, it's amazing how many of the leaders of the factory committee movement ended up as loyal never-purged Stalinist bureaucrats lording over the new recruits from the countryside and helping run the economy.

All that stuff you talk about in the current day factory is brand new and would instantly disappear when unionism revives from its current feeble state. Back in the 19th century, workers by and large did have control over production, bosses let the workers run everything and just collected the profits.

In the printing industry where I used to work there were still remnants of that as late as the 1980s. Management couldn't even fire a worker without the union's permission, according to the contract. And I remember one old codger telling me about a guy he used to work with back in the '50s who physically threw the owner out of the printshop he worked in when the guy dared to walk out on the shop floor.

But none of that meant that this was a hotbed of radicalism, instead the paper I worked at was a hotbed of racism, male chauvinism, and American super-patriotism. But with damn strong trade union consciousness! But hey, we all know what Lenin said about that.

[Comrade #138672]

Didn't work, firstly because working on the factory floor doesn't give you the training and expertise needed to run a factory,How was this objectively determined?


secondly because the collegia turned out to be the perfect vehicle for buck passing and dodging responsibility.I do not see why that is necessarily the case.


There's an old saying that the worst way to run anything is by a committee.Old sayings are rarely convincing. Often they are dead wrong.


So you had Lenin's push for one man management, which helped tremendously. At first the usual setup would be a trained technician as deputy and usually running everything, with the appointed manager usually a skilled worker communist watching the engineer like a hawk.What do you mean by "running everything"? I can see that the most knowledgeable workers get to decide what is most efficient, but ultimately it is up to the workers under what kind of conditions they want to work.


And the unions, quite powerful in Soviet industry during the 1920s, having lots of control and veto rights and could defend the interests of the workers vs. abusive managers as necessary, and provide the element of direct democracy--at least at first.

Of course, that all went to shit in the 1930s.How did this happen, according to you?

[Comrade #138672]

But the lower ranks of the working class, the oppressed layers, generally don't give a damn about that kind of thing, they want to pay the rent and feed themselves and their families if they have any and maybe have better lives for their children. And those are usually the most militant and most revolutionary.Obviously that is the case in a capitalist system where workers have no control over the production process and thus become apathetic towards the production process. As a programmer, I experience apathy at the workplace as well. I do my work, because I have to do, but I am generally apathetic about the fate of the product (even though the managers would like to believe that we are a team devoted to the company). This is entirely different from when I program for myself, when I do have a say in what I do.


Desiring workers control over the actual production process is a labor aristocrat kind of thing. In the USSR, it's amazing how many of the leaders of the factory committee movement ended up as loyal never-purged Stalinist bureaucrats lording over the new recruits from the countryside and helping run the economy.

All that stuff you talk about in the current day factory is brand new and would instantly disappear when unionism revives from its current feeble state. Back in the 19th century, workers by and large did have control over production, bosses let the workers run everything and just collected the profits.

In the printing industry where I used to work there were still remnants of that as late as the 1980s. Management couldn't even fire a worker without the union's permission, according to the contract. And I remember one old codger telling me about a guy he used to work with back in the '50s who physically threw the owner out of the printshop he worked in when the guy dared to walk out on the shop floor.

But none of that meant that this was a hotbed of radicalism, instead the paper I worked at was a hotbed of racism, male chauvinism, and American super-patriotism. But with damn strong trade union consciousness! But hey, we all know what Lenin said about that.So, because trade union consciousness is not sufficient, we should not be in favor of worker's control over the production process?

[Emmett Till]

How was this objectively determined?

Do you know anything about engineering, technology and how things actually work in the workplace at all? Without the kind of technical training you get from getting a degree in engineering, it's extremely hard to run a big factory using modern technology. Of course "on the job" experience and willingness to get your hands dirty is desirable also, and listening to and consulting with those doing the actual work is necessary to avoid disastrous blunders.


I do not see why that is necessarily the case.

Old sayings are rarely convincing. Often they are dead wrong.

Well, here's another old saying which I made up my very own self, so I know it's good.

Praxis makes perfect.

The practical experience of Soviet industry in its first years demonstrated that collegia were a bad idea and one man management was necessary.


What do you mean by "running everything"? I can see that the most knowledgeable workers get to decide what is most efficient, but ultimately it is up to the workers under what kind of conditions they want to work.

What conditions workers work under? That's what unions concern themselves with. The job of running a factory is primarily about producing things, not the conditions under which people produce them, which is a secondary question.


How did this happen, according to you?

Stalinism.

Until the purge of the Bukharin/Tomsky wing of the party, Tomsky being the trade union head, the unions played a major role in Soviet industry, and were the watchdogs over working conditions etc.

Of course they were pretty bureaucratic after the defeat of the Left Opposition, but no more or less so than your average American or English trade union nowadays.

I happen to have done some research on this. In Kharkov, when the Left Opposition, powerful there, was purged in 1927, the left (arguably ultraleft but let's not get into that) wing of the Opposition there, the "Decemists," struggled for control of the local unions, actually took one over for a while, and led strikes. Not exactly the usual picture one gets of what things were like in the '20s in Soviet industry.

[Emmett Till]

Obviously that is the case in a capitalist system where workers have no control over the production process and thus become apathetic towards the production process. As a programmer, I experience apathy at the workplace as well. I do my work, because I have to do, but I am generally apathetic about the fate of the product (even though the managers would like to believe that we are a team devoted to the company). This is entirely different from when I program for myself, when I do have a say in what I do.

So, because trade union consciousness is not sufficient, we should not be in favor of worker's control over the production process?

Workers control is an excellent thing. Supervision, oversight, veto rights. Workers management is an idea that is fine at lower levels of technology, indeed management itself is a modern invention that did not really come about until the 19th century.

Nowadays running things requires technical training. And you as a computer programmer are, in the last analysis, a technically trained manager of the work of others who apply your programs to things they do in the real world. Who has been proletarianized given what a thoroughly advanced and decadent stage of capitalism we are in.

It is true that in a socialist society with no class distinctions there will be no upper and lower levels of a working class, indeed no separate working class at all. So then labor will no longer be alienated but be interesting, and it won't just be the upper levels of a no longer existent working class interested in what they are producing.

[Comrade #138672]

Do you know anything about engineering, technology and how things actually work in the workplace at all?Yes, I do. I also know that nobody knows everything, especially when it does not concern their own specific expertise. For example, I am a programmer, but this does not mean that I know how to maintain servers.


Without the kind of technical training you get from getting a degree in engineering, it's extremely hard to run a big factory using modern technology.Which is also why you usually work with other people.


Of course "on the job" experience and willingness to get your hands dirty is desirable also, and listening to and consulting with those doing the actual work is necessary to avoid disastrous blunders.Of course.


Well, here's another old saying which I made up my very own self, so I know it's good.

Praxis makes perfect.

The practical experience of Soviet industry in its first years demonstrated that collegia were a bad idea and one man management was necessary.But where is the proof? If you can show me that this is indeed the case, then I will be more inclined to accept it.


What conditions workers work under? That's what unions concern themselves with. The job of running a factory is primarily about producing things, not the conditions under which people produce them, which is a secondary question.Is it a secondary question? If workers have no control over the factories, then they might as well be working for a capitalist.

[ComradeAllende]

Fair enough. I can see the limits of workers' self-management in the factories, at least from a broader perspective. But I am very leery of maintaining hierarchical structures of power in the workplace during the transition to socialism (maybe I've been reading too much right-wing libertarian shit lol), if only to avoid the fate of the bureaucratized Stalinist USSR (and more condescending talk from capitalists).

In addition, I highly doubt that the labor movement (in America at least) will recover anytime soon. Most of the leftists you see nowadays are either academics (ivory-tower elites or impoverished adjuncts) or college/college-age students, and they seem to be of a more postmodern/identity politics bent than the "Old Left" or even the "New Left" of the 1960s. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think they're emphasis on "identity privilege" makes them an easy target for reactionaries and "moderates"; they should be focusing on structural issues like housing segregation and wage theft, in my opinion, rather than bigoted fraternities and racist comments on social media.

[Emmett Till]

Yes, I do. I also know that nobody knows everything, especially when it does not concern their own specific expertise. For example, I am a programmer, but this does not mean that I know how to maintain servers.

Which is also why you usually work with other people.

Of course.

But where is the proof? If you can show me that this is indeed the case, then I will be more inclined to accept it.

For proof, the literature on this is extremely extensive, and I don't think you'll find any of the serious studies of early Soviet industry (barring anarchist and syndicalist polemics usually long on rhetoric and short on facts) that would say anything different.

If you want to study this, I'd start with the appropriate volume of E. H. Carr's famous and definitive history of the first decade of the Soviet Union. Offhand, I'd guess vol. 2, I'll check my bookshelf for something more precise and page numbers when I get around to it.


Is it a secondary question? If workers have no control over the factories, then they might as well be working for a capitalist.

Well, that's just not true, if their wages and working conditions are superior even if they are not running the factories themselves, clearly they are better off.

Funny thing, I'm really the last person to argue against workers control, as during the '80s, at first most of my union activity at that newspaper job I had was in defending and trying to help enforce those remnants of workers control that we had.

I'm just aware of its limits and insufficiencies.

[Emmett Till]

Fair enough. I can see the limits of workers' self-management in the factories, at least from a broader perspective. But I am very leery of maintaining hierarchical structures of power in the workplace during the transition to socialism (maybe I've been reading too much right-wing libertarian shit lol), if only to avoid the fate of the bureaucratized Stalinist USSR (and more condescending talk from capitalists).

In addition, I highly doubt that the labor movement (in America at least) will recover anytime soon. Most of the leftists you see nowadays are either academics (ivory-tower elites or impoverished adjuncts) or college/college-age students, and they seem to be of a more postmodern/identity politics bent than the "Old Left" or even the "New Left" of the 1960s. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think they're emphasis on "identity privilege" makes them an easy target for reactionaries and "moderates"; they should be focusing on structural issues like housing segregation and wage theft, in my opinion, rather than bigoted fraternities and racist comments on social media.

Well, guess what, when the revival comes, which is inevitable and in a few spots is already starting to happen, it won't come from lefties but from the workers themselves.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would actually argue the opposite; workers care a great deal about how a factory (or office, store, etc.) is run, mainly because it often affects them after-hours. In the modern capitalist system, bosses can track their workers' every movement during the workday and monitor their actions after hours via the Internet. Employers can have stringent speech codes, dress requirements, etc., things that (I at least) think ought to be removed from the manager's reach.

Sure, if we're talking about things like retail. But obviously there needs to be some kind of dress code in, say, hospitals; you can't have people going around naked for reasons of hygiene. (Whereas I don't think anyone will care if someone on the street is naked; but knowing RL someone will probably tell us these people will be arrested by the Socialist Police for something or other, probably related to thinking of the children.) And if you work in an emergency service, then you will have to be available 24/7 at least part of the time.

Of course, if the manager is acting out of control, every worker will want to put a stop to that. That's what workers' control is for - but workers' control is not a panacea and it's not the point of socialism, but one of the tools we will probably use. What most people would not appreciate is doing the job of the manager. They want an effective manager, not to spend all of their time poring over requisition forms, budgets and so on.



I don't think there's a contradiction between democracy in the workplace and a socialist planned economy; I think the former can actually improve the latter, at least in terms of allowing the workers to participate (in some way) with the creation of the general economic plan. Either way, I see the absence of civil liberties in the workplace as a major (political) weakness of the capitalist system, something that socialists should not ignore in their efforts to re-galvanize the working class.

Of course participation ("democracy" is generally understood as a state form, so not really applicable here) is crucial to a planned economy. But that happens on the level of the entire society, not one factory. Nothing can be planned in one factory.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, that's just not true, if their wages and working conditions are superior even if they are not running the factories themselves, clearly they are better off.No offense, but that sounds just like the capitalist propaganda against socialism. Promising higher wages and better working conditions to keep workers in their place.

[Emmett Till]

No offense, but that sounds just like the capitalist propaganda against socialism. Promising higher wages and better working conditions to keep workers in their place.

Capitalists these days aren't even promising higher wages etc., and back in the day those promises were usually lies. Nowadays the word is that yes of course wages have to go down, otherwise foreign competition will throw you out of work. And the union leaders go right along with that.

With the working class in control of society, whether or not workers in particular factories elect management in their particular factory, promises like that can be kept.

[ComradeAllende]

Capitalists these days aren't even promising higher wages etc., and back in the day those promises were usually lies. Nowadays the word is that yes of course wages have to go down, otherwise foreign competition will throw you out of work. And the union leaders go right along with that.

Nowadays I hear the promise of higher wages, but not as an automatic feature of the capitalist mode of production. It's not so much that wages have to go down (or become "competitive", as the capitalists and their apologists claim), but that you have to "work" for higher wages; in other words, despite labor productivity increasing, workers must "invest" in human capital in order move up or even stay afloat. All this talk of STEM majors and coding is merely a justification for the erosion of the old postwar social contract; now the worker must "justify" his existence via evidence of self-improvement, as opposed to simply clocking in and producing surplus value.

[Emmett Till]

Nowadays I hear the promise of higher wages, but not as an automatic feature of the capitalist mode of production. It's not so much that wages have to go down (or become "competitive", as the capitalists and their apologists claim), but that you have to "work" for higher wages; in other words, despite labor productivity increasing, workers must "invest" in human capital in order move up or even stay afloat. All this talk of STEM majors and coding is merely a justification for the erosion of the old postwar social contract; now the worker must "justify" his existence via evidence of self-improvement, as opposed to simply clocking in and producing surplus value.

These carrots dangled in front of the treadmill are only for the uppermost layers of the American working class. If you're in the second tier at an auto or steel plant, to say nothing of fast food workers or workers at Wal-Mart, the only route upward is to become a supervisor, primarily by snitching on your workmates.

Of course, the myth of upward social mobility is fundamental for American capitalism, even though the reality nowadays is there is *less* upward social mobility than in most other advanced capitalist countries.

But the basic routes are still (a) a college degree, nowadays an advanced degree a BA don't cut it. Increasingly a route cut off by ever climbing tuition rates, and (b) the old classic save your pennies and start your own business and make it big, just like Ben Franklin and Steve Jobs. Also vastly harder than it used to be, but still the true ambition of your average non-ruling-class American, hammered into him, and nowadays her, from an early age.