EusebioScrib
27th June 2006, 01:26
The following is a passage from the book The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control by Soldarity (UK) published by Black & Red. Pg. i-ii
The confusion about workers' control (at least in Britain) is partly terminological. In the British movement (and to a lesser extent in the English language) a clear-cut distinction is seldom made between 'control' and 'management', functions which may occasionally overlap but are usually quite distinct. In French, Spanish or Russia political literature two seperate terms ('controle' and 'gestion', 'control' and 'gerencia', 'kontrolia' and 'upravleniye') refer respecticely to partial or total domination of the producers over the productive process. A moment's reflection will make it obvious why one must make this distinction
Two possible situations come to mind. In one the working class (the collective producer) takes all the fundamental decisions. It does so directly through organisms of its own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate. These bodies, composed of elected and revocable delegates probably federate on a regional and national basis. They decide what to produce, how to produce it, at what cost to produce it, at whose cost to produce it. The other possible situation is one in which these fundamental decisions are taken "elsewhere", fromt he 'outside', i.e. by the State, by the Party, or by some other organism without deep and direct roots in the produtive process itself. The "serparatin of the producers from the means of production" (the basis of all class society) is maintained. The oppressive effects of this type of arragement soon manifest themelves. This happens whatever the revolutionary good intentions of hte agency in question, and whatever provisions it may (or may not) make for policy decisions to be submitted from time to time for ratificaiton or amendment
There are words to describe these two states of affairs. To manage is to initiate the decisions oneself, as a sovereign person or collectivity, in full knowledge of all teh relevant facts. To control is to supervise, inspect or check decisions initiatied by others. 'Control' implies a limitation of sovereignty or, at best, a state of duality of power, wherin some people determine the objectives while others see that teh appropriate means are used to achieve them. Historically, controversies about workers' control have tended to break out precisely in such conditions of economic dual power
My question is: Is the word choice distinction between "management" and "control" correct? It seems to me that we should imply management as the second situation, not as the first.
Management to me has always meant to "supervise." Managers don't make the decisions, they are told by the owner to do this or that, and they merely carry the will out.
Thoughts on this distinction?
The confusion about workers' control (at least in Britain) is partly terminological. In the British movement (and to a lesser extent in the English language) a clear-cut distinction is seldom made between 'control' and 'management', functions which may occasionally overlap but are usually quite distinct. In French, Spanish or Russia political literature two seperate terms ('controle' and 'gestion', 'control' and 'gerencia', 'kontrolia' and 'upravleniye') refer respecticely to partial or total domination of the producers over the productive process. A moment's reflection will make it obvious why one must make this distinction
Two possible situations come to mind. In one the working class (the collective producer) takes all the fundamental decisions. It does so directly through organisms of its own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate. These bodies, composed of elected and revocable delegates probably federate on a regional and national basis. They decide what to produce, how to produce it, at what cost to produce it, at whose cost to produce it. The other possible situation is one in which these fundamental decisions are taken "elsewhere", fromt he 'outside', i.e. by the State, by the Party, or by some other organism without deep and direct roots in the produtive process itself. The "serparatin of the producers from the means of production" (the basis of all class society) is maintained. The oppressive effects of this type of arragement soon manifest themelves. This happens whatever the revolutionary good intentions of hte agency in question, and whatever provisions it may (or may not) make for policy decisions to be submitted from time to time for ratificaiton or amendment
There are words to describe these two states of affairs. To manage is to initiate the decisions oneself, as a sovereign person or collectivity, in full knowledge of all teh relevant facts. To control is to supervise, inspect or check decisions initiatied by others. 'Control' implies a limitation of sovereignty or, at best, a state of duality of power, wherin some people determine the objectives while others see that teh appropriate means are used to achieve them. Historically, controversies about workers' control have tended to break out precisely in such conditions of economic dual power
My question is: Is the word choice distinction between "management" and "control" correct? It seems to me that we should imply management as the second situation, not as the first.
Management to me has always meant to "supervise." Managers don't make the decisions, they are told by the owner to do this or that, and they merely carry the will out.
Thoughts on this distinction?