Soviets And Factory Committees

[nickdlc]

I was reading Bolsheviks and Workers Control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) by Maurice Brinton and he emphasises the role of Factory Committees in the russian revolution to a point where they seemed more important than soviets. Infact Lenin wanted to change the slogan of "All Power to the Soviets" to "All Power to the Factory Committees" but Maurice doesn't seem to mention the difference between these two organs of workers power so I am left wondering what is the difference between Soviets and Factory Committees?

btw pages on wikipedia don't help too much either.

[nickdlc]

I found out the difference! Soviets were first originally set up to organize general strikes against the bosses but it's function soon changed to general proletarian representation. These organs of workers power soon became very disorganized because of the large number of delgates sent to represent an increasing number of workers and soldiers. For workers and soldiers the soviet merely became a sort of forum where workers could air out grievences because decision making increasingly became a top down structure with the introduction of an executive comittee whose job it was to organize the soviets. As soviets became less and less representative of workers power a new form of organization came to existence -- the factory comittee.

The increasing instability in russia made workers and peasants more radical, something employers hated so they locked out their workers, just left the factory all together, and even tried to sabotage the machinery so workers couldn't use it. In this situation workers set up factory committee's to keep production going but also to make the workplace democratic in some cases factory comitee's were a sort of dual power trying to gain concessions from bosses who had not given up a "their" property. Since russia had no history of large trade union activity these factory committees were the only way in which workers could make thier voices heard, and they were much more radical than the bureaucratic union.

The reactionary provisional government knew factory committee's were a threat and tried to undermine them anyway they could by trying eradicate them or make the role of factory committe's powerless so that bosses could do what they wanted. This tactic didn't work because there was no real way to enforce these measures since soldiers had sided with soviets not the provisional government.

The factory committee's faced a problem. Since no workplace can be self sufficient factory committee's needed to link up with one another to plan on how to obtain raw material's for the production of goods. At first factory committee's competed with other factory committee's sending the price of raw material to very high prices. This changed as wokers saw the need to link in solidary especially because the provisional government was constantly trying to put the power of factories back into the hands of the bosses. Workers turned to the unions for help on how to co-ordinate production between different factories. Also the bolshevik party was increasingly gaining favour in factory committee's as they seemed to side with the workers i.e. production controlled by factory committees and political power to be controlled by soviets.

The factory committees were soon hit with a blow (imo) when they decided to create a central soviet of factory committee's mostly made up of bolsheviks to co-ordinate production since nothing fruitful had come from trying to get help from unions. This central soviet of factory committee's would make decisions that were binding on all factory comitee's i.e. factory comittee's would be turned from a bottom up organization to a top down organization.

I will stop here but will draw some parallels to discussions we've had in the theory section of revleft over how a communist economy should be run. In the name of co-ordination and because of war the workers in the factory comitee's made a fatal blunder in not destroying the central soviet of factory comittee's which was undermining their power but they did this because they thought it was a temporary measure and power would be given back when the bolshevik party came to power. This never happened of course and we should learn that if workers want to create create communism it can only be done by the working class (in conjunction with the peasantry in this case) itself.

btw I'm probably wrong about alot historical facts, probably havent made myself clear, or if my analysis of soviets and factory comittee's is just totally wrong if you can give me reading material or point out where i've made mistakes in the analysis or just plain old deabate, that would be great!!!!

[Severian]

The difference is a lot simpler, I'd suggest: factory committees are organizations in a single factory (as the name suggests), and soviets represent workers in a large number of different factories or other places..

The more local form of organization will sometimes more rapidly reflect changes in workers' thinking. For the same reason that local government is sometimes said to be "closer to the people."

But there are obvious limits on what can be done with small-scale organizations.

[nickdlc]

The difference is a lot simpler, I'd suggest: factory committees are organizations in a single factory (as the name suggests), and soviets represent workers in a large number of different factories or other places.. Not quite, why would Lenin what to change the slogan if they were different branches of the same thing? From what iv'e read factory comittee's were a reaction to the increasing futility of soviets which merely became a forum for workers and soldiers to air their greivences, all important decisions were made by an executive council.


But there are obvious limits on what can be done with small-scale organizations. Different factory comittee's tried to link up but ultimetly failed with the introduction of the central soviet of factory committee's, a top down central committee that made all decisions that were binding on all factory committee's. From this iv'e gathered that the failure of the revolution was partly the fact that workers couldn't think of a way to create a real socialist economy (and i hope im wrong on this assertion!!).

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:22 AM
Not quite, why would Lenin what to change the slogan if they were different branches of the same thing?
Because as I said, the more local organisations more rapidly reflected changes in workers' thinking. Consider the implications of that for a moment.

For example, the Soviet at that time were Menshevik and SR dominated; the factory committees became Bolshevik-led earlier. As did some of the district Soviets (covering parts of Petrograd.)

After the July Days it was obvious that you couldn't fight to give power to the Mensheviks and SRs since they didn't want power, and actively resisted efforts to give them power.

The Soviets also tended to become inactive and empty during this period, for similar reasons. Eventually there were new elections to the Soviets and their executive committees, however.

I recommend Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution. I wish I could think of a good overview that was shorter, but I can't.

Reading some more history might help you on some other factual questions; e.g. I don't think the factory committees were not set up after the Soviets for the most part. In Petrograd, at least, they seem to have arisen rapidly after February. It's just that they became more prominent in the fall as the Menshevik and SR-led Soviets lagged behind.


Different factory comittee's tried to link up but ultimetly failed with the introduction of the central soviet of factory committee's, a top down central committee that made all decisions that were binding on all factory committee's.

Look, if you're going to say that about the creation of a central coordinating body of the factory committees, how else are they going to link up? The less local body is usually going to be less immediately controlled by the workers. That's a challenge to be overcome, not to be avoided.

If you're going to say all the larger-area organizations are bad, and pull back to just local initiative - someone else will provide the central coordination. Reformists, for example. And they'll have a tremendous advantage over the scattered, uncoordinated local organizations of the revolutionary-minded workers.

That's why so many revolutionary attempts have been sidelined and defeated. The difference in Russia - the reason we're discussing it, rather than one of many other examples - was the existence of the Bolshevik Party, built in advance, and capable of aiding the coordination and linking up of local revolutionary initiative.


From this iv'e gathered that the failure of the revolution was partly the fact that workers couldn't think of a way to create a real socialist economy (and i hope I'm wrong on this assertion!!).

I think you are mistaken. I think that's an idealist interpretation.

The reason for the eventual degeneration of the revolution was primarily the objective conditions, including the defeat of revolutions in the West. Everyone knew, and predicted in advance, that revolutions in more advanced countries were necessary to the construction of a "real socialist economy", as you put it, in Russia.

In those conditions, there was no way to "create a real socialist economy"; under other conditions, it's far more likely that somebody would have thought of a way. And it's unlikely that anyone will draw up an accurate blueprint in advance for how that will happen. Only the mass creativity unleashed by a revolution can do that.

It's also an error to speak of "the failure of the revolution." Again, the reason we're discussing Russia, rather than one of many other examples, is that in Russia the revolution succeeded in large measures.

It didn't bring in utopia in one fell swoop, no. This is not a great surprise - history has rarely worked that way. For example, most of the great bourgeois revolutions were followed by partial or total counterrevolutions, too.

But it advanced the world class struggle in a million ways.

People who lose sight of this, and regard the Russian Revolution as solely an example of what not to do, are in most cases, IMO, rejecting revolution itself. They are avoiding, rather than trying to overcome, the challenge of how to keep revolutions from degenerating.

Which is, I suppose, the one way to make 100% sure that no revolution will ever degenerate again: prevent them from happening.

[nickdlc]

I recommend Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution Thanks for the recomendation i will read it after bolsheviks and workers control.


Look, if you're going to say that about the creation of a central coordinating body of the factory committees, how else are they going to link up? Im not opposed to linking up of factory comittee's, what i am opposed to is to giving all powers to a central comittee that will make all decisions on behalf of workers and making a mockery of "workers control" which is what happened in this case. Any autonomy was taken away from factory comittee's when it was decided decisions made by the central soviet of factory comitee's could overturn factories comittees decisions.


[the] Bolshevik Party, built in advance, and capable of aiding the coordination and linking up of local revolutionary initiative What happened was the complete opposite, these central comittee's smothered all revolutionary initiative by taking decision making out of workers hands. I mean something along these lines had to of happened or else at what point did the revolution die? Nationalisation i.e. descion power in the hands of the state and therefore seperation of the means of production out of workers hands did not start with stalin!

[rebelworker]

One important difference between these two bodies, and how my vision of communism/revolution should play out is that the Factory committees is that they are made up entierly of workers. The major flaw of the soviets(and why I support the federalisation of local committees) is that they tend to atract intellectuals, politicains and beurocrats. This is one of the main reasons why I feel there is an inherent flaw with the Bolshevik model(taken up by trotskyist groups today), the soviets lost their popular character and became an aparatus for party controll.

It is made up no longer of workers, but a new class that claims to represent them.

This is why Brinton points out the conflict between the body set up by workers through the factory committees to coordinate their production and push forward workers power (The All Russian Council of Factory Committees), and the soviets/Bolshevik party which favored the more Beurocratic soviets as an arm of state/party controll.

Though I wouldnt discourage you completely from reading Trotsky's version of events, I would warn you that the man is a well documented liar in dealing with political enemies (in particular his attacks and betrayal on the revolutionry peasants army in the Ukrain). So take everything with a grain of salt. Remember he is writing to justifythe behavior of him and his comrades in striving to maintain Bolshevik party controll, not nessearaily telling things as they were.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:45 PM
Im not opposed to linking up of factory comittee's, what i am opposed to is to giving all powers to a central comittee that will make all decisions on behalf of workers and making a mockery of "workers control" which is what happened in this case.
I suspect any central coordinating body will be accused of that by some people.

Also, when it comes to administering the economy, local decision-making necessarily leads to market relations between independent collectives.

So the question is how to have central decisions made democratically.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:26 PM
One important difference between these two bodies, and how my vision of communism/revolution should play out is that the Factory committees is that they are made up entierly of workers.
Yeah, George Meany and Lech Walesa were workers, too. Exclusively proletarian composition does not guarantee anything.

And the insistence on it tends to imply that workers are incapable of assuming a leadership role in competition with middle-class people. If that's true, then an exclusively proletarian organisation will always lose the broader leadership competition to middle-class organisations anyway. Again, this approach avoids rather than takes on the necessary challenges on the road to workers' democracy - just moves the problem outside the organisation rather than solving it.


Though I wouldnt discourage you completely from reading Trotsky's version of events, I would warn you that the man is a well documented liar in dealing with political enemies (in particular his attacks and betrayal on the revolutionry peasants army in the Ukrain).

You're free to disagree with Trotsky's actions and the opinions in his writing, but to call him a liar is simply a lie. He never concealed the attacks on Makhno's army in the Ukraine, for example.

(Also, to say Trotsky betrayed the Makhnovtsi is like accusing him of betraying the tsar. You can't betray what you never swore allegiance to. And how ironic that the supposed proletarian purist describes a kulak army, led by a man who never concealed his hostility to the urban workers, as "revolutionary.")

More on topic, the facts in Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution are all footnoted and nobody's ever successfully disputed them. If you read any of the serious bourgeois historians - especially specialists writing about particular aspects of the Russian Revolution - they all have to deal with Trotsky's History. They often dispute his opinions, but I've never seen one accuse him of lying about the facts.

[rebelworker]

Your point about about working class and middle class competition is interesting, my point was that workers control should be dealt with by workers. The middle class would have their role to play in the descisions aswell but on different levels.

For example, obviously teachers are going to have slightly more say in matters of education than lets say, steelworkers, not that steelworkers shouldnt have a say in the education of their children, or themselves as I hope higher education will be near universal after a revolution, but the day to day running of the school would abviously be the task of the teachers and any parents who would participate in the day to day running of the school.

Community councils are a parralel body that I would see as nesseary, alongside the factory committees, for the democratic and socialistic running of post revoltuionary society. This is where i see issues of distribution of goods and consuption being discussed. These bodies would ofcourse include the workers of all stripes who lived in any given neighborhood, this may be a mix fo steelworkers and teachers, but importnatly they would all be tied to the same geographical area.

This would allow for a good deal of "cross polination" and help to eliminate any competition or chauvinism that may arise in isolated factory(or workplace) committees.

I dont have a problem with intelectuals and the middle class making desicisions on issues that affect them, but I do have a problem of setting up a body "above" others that will give rise to a new ruling class.

This is what the Bolshevik party did (as was inherint in thier vision of revoltuion) and it was a predicatable fsailure leading to the erection of a totalitarian state outside the controll of the working class.

As for Trotsky and the Makhnovists, he lied extensivly in his attacks on them in the press, and the lies are still carried on as fact by many today. Anti semitism, Nationalist Banditry, sexual assault, all are the Makhno that Russians still picture today.

The fact is the red army did betray the Ukranian revoltionaries. Makhno himself had a sit down with lenein in 1917, a few years later he was forced to flee for fear of death. While the White forces were still a serrious threat in the Ukrain and the Bolsheviks needed the anarchist they cooperated, as soon as the Makhnovists had fought back the Reactionaries enough ( and the red army had gained enough strengh) the Makhnovists were ruthlessly attacked.

For you accusations about Makhnos dislike of the urban proles, I would love to hear ore details about this (that I will consider with a grain of Salt, I have just spent months be bunking other similar accusations so excuse me if I dont take evrything trots say about him too srriously). I dont hold Mahkno up as some infallable god like, oh i dont know, Lenin or Trotsky. As a peasant he may have had prejudices, just like the urban eliet like trotsky and lenin hated the peasants as a bunch of backward morons (or like many middle class activists look down on rural poor in north america, something I see every day in the so called left).

1917 was a time of ignorance on all sides, prejudice was widespread, even Karl marx would have been thrown out of most leftist groups today for his language about blacks and jews.

The point is the Bolshevik party tired to lead the revoltuion itslef, and this left most of the working class and all the peasant revoltuonaries out of the deciion making process.
A mistake we cannot afford to allow to happen again.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

As for Trotsky and the Makhnovists, he lied extensivly in his attacks on them in the press, and the lies are still carried on as fact by many today.

Do you have any spesific examples?

thanks

[Morpheus]

Allegations of anti-semitism
Allegations of white collaboration
Allegations that they were all kulaks

[Severian]

Hm...Makhno himself acknowledged that his troops sometimes committed anti-Semitic violence, while blaming it on Red Army troops who'd gone over to him. So that's not a lie.

(Heck, if anyone believes in a Ukrainian peasant uprising without anti-Semitism, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

(And hmmm.....do you have a link to specifically what Trotsky said about this? I can't find anything.)


Allegations of white collaboration
Trotsky in fact wrote:
Undoubtedly, Makhno did render de facto help to Wrangel, as also to the Polish gentry, in so far as he fought the Red Army at the same time as they did. But there was no formal alliance between them. All the documents about a formal alliance were forged by Wrangel.
off an anarchist site, even! (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/trotsky/makhwran.htm)
Here also Trotsky goes out of his way to say Makhno may be personally honest, and doesn't want to ally with the counterrevolution, but nonetheless his actions are harmful (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/trotsky/others.htm)


Allegations that they were all kulaks
In reality, Trotsky wrote:
There are peasants of all categories in Makhno’s forces: "kurkuls", middle peasants and poor peasants. So long as the countryside still kept its unity under the leadership of the kulaks, Makhno’s forces moved freely from one place to another, meeting sympathy and support.
Again off the anarchist site! (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/trotsky/meaning.htm)

Heck, the U.S. army is mostly workers - that doesn't change the reality that it's a bourgeois army.

Similarly, Makhno's army contained peasants of various classes: the kulak's interests inevitably predominated. As Trotsky explains in that last link.

So, who's lying? Not Trotsky.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:46 AM
And the insistence on it tends to imply that workers are incapable of assuming a leadership role in competition with middle-class people. If that's true, then an exclusively proletarian organisation will always lose the broader leadership competition to middle-class organisations anyway. Again, this approach avoids rather than takes on the necessary challenges on the road to workers' democracy - just moves the problem outside the organisation rather than solving it.

Found a new strawman, I see. Good for you, Severian! That ratty old thing you were beating on before was in need of replacement.

All things being equal, working people could assume a leadership role "in competition with middle-class people" (I'll have to leave the class content of this formulation aside for now). But things are not equal. Historical experience has shown that in organizations composed of both workers and "middle-class people", the latter use the skills they have acquired due to their class background to intimidate and marginalize working-class "competitors", and, over time, to establish a class-based division of labor in the organization.

The point of an exclusively proletarian organization, especially in this period, is to train and educate working people to be able to take part in that "broader leadership competition" armed with the theoretical grounding and political confidence needed to take on those "competitors" from the exploiting and oppressing classes. This is also an initial first step toward preparing the working class to be the ruling class in the transition from class to classless society.

On the other hand, your argument essentially boils down to a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" prescription for workers -- and is just as reactionary.

Miles

[More Fire for the People]

And the insistence on it tends to imply that workers are incapable of assuming a leadership role in competition with middle-class people.
And exactly who are these 'middle-class' persons you speak of? Engineers? I was under the impression that engineers were proletarian. Scientists? Well they sometimes straddle the line of petty-bourgeois and proletarian but I'm not sure who you are talking about.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 03:01 PM

And the insistence on it tends to imply that workers are incapable of assuming a leadership role in competition with middle-class people.
And exactly who are these 'middle-class' persons you speak of? Engineers? I was under the impression that engineers were proletarian. Scientists? Well they sometimes straddle the line of petty-bourgeois and proletarian but I'm not sure who you are talking about.
Possibly Miles would agree with you (the secret to how his organization can claim to be all workers is that it defines everyone who lives on a wage or salary as proletarian. (http://www.iwpa-aigt.org/principles.html#Note) When it's convenient.)

But most people wouldn't. Certainly engineers have been considered separate, apart, above, and downright snooty everywhere I've worked. Unwilling to even leave their air conditioned offices and come down on the floor to look at something, no matter how much trouble that creates for us peons.

The "middle classes" includes not only the traditional petty bourgeoisie of small employers. It also includes many well-heeled salaried professionals. These people have more to sell than their labor-power - they have a monopolistic position in the labor market represented by their piece of sheepskin.) For the most part, they've prospered at the same time that working people have lost ground during the last 3 decades (roughly). Even the liberals and radicals among them tend to justify their privilege by sneering at those formally uneducated and therefore presumed stupid.

[Severian]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jul 14 2006, 03:56 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jul 14 2006, 03:56 AM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 03:46 AM
And the insistence on it tends to imply that workers are incapable of assuming a leadership role in competition with middle-class people. If that's true, then an exclusively proletarian organisation will always lose the broader leadership competition to middle-class organisations anyway. Again, this approach avoids rather than takes on the necessary challenges on the road to workers' democracy - just moves the problem outside the organisation rather than solving it.

Found a new strawman, I see.
....
Historical experience has shown that in organizations composed of both workers and "middle-class people", the latter use the skills they have acquired due to their class background to intimidate and marginalize working-class "competitors", and, over time, to establish a class-based division of labor in the organization. [/b]
Pointing out the logical implications of an idea is not setting up a straw man.

If the problem you describe was inevitable....it would be inevitable between organizations, not just within them.

In fact, it does operate between organizations to a degree. For example, one reason the Mensheviks and SRs had a head start over the Bolsheviks after the February Revolution - they had more articulate agitators, due to the different class composition of their membership and leadership.

And it does operate within organizations to a degree. But the history of the Bolshevik Party, among other things, shows it can be overcome - both within a party and between them.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:44 PM
And it does operate within organizations to a degree. But the history of the Bolshevik Party, among other things, shows it can be overcome - both within a party and between them.
And if this was Russia in 1917 -- or Germany in 1848 -- you might have a point. But this is not Russia in 1917 -- nor Germany in 1848. This is today. A century of development of class relationships have taken place. This is not the same time or place as when and where the Bolsheviks operated. To think -- and to act -- as such is to be what Marx described as a "True Socialist".

Miles