Soviets, factory committees, and communal councils

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if this belongs in History, Politics, or Theory, so I float the proposal below based on historical precedent (http://www.geocities.com/~Johngray/raclef.htm).

Are "unicameral" systems enough for ordinary working folks to exercise political power? While I'm not proposing "checks and balances" by any means, I merely propose different ways of exercising power at the same time.

1) Communal councils: already in place in Venezuela, and regardless of my opinion on Hugo Chavez and historical parallels, this concept is progressive. However, it hasn't been "sovietized" in a "chained" system and, in my proposal, shouldn't be. Non-sovietization gives such councils "local currency" (floating here the possibility of using local currencies to complement or replace the state currency) to deal with local issues.

2) "Chained" soviets and congresses of soviets, ultimately leading to an all-republic Congress of Soviets electing an all-republic Supreme Soviet: basically the same stuff as in the Russian Revolution. Economically speaking, this may or may not correlate to my "revolutionary" stamocap ideas for the hourglass economy (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65105&view=findpost&p=1292295858). Local issues may be addressed by lower soviets in conjunction with communal councils and factory/workplace committees, but by far the primary issues relate to the socialist republic as a whole.

3) Factory/workplace committees: same stuff as in the Russian Revolution, and I'm still unsure of whether they should be "chained" like the soviets (to go further) or not. Perhaps they're smaller than the communal councils set to replace municipal councils. Perhaps these committees manage the various niche enterprises that comprise the bottom of the hourglass economy.

4) NO UNIONS! As said in another thread, they tend to be quite reactionary, and factory/workplace committees do the job better without the bureaucracy. If state-wide issues need addressing, there is the all-republic Congress of Soviets and Supreme Soviet, and maybe an all-republic Congress of factory committees, as well.



Thoughts?

[Leo]

Communal councils: already in place in Venezuela, and regardless of my opinion on Hugo Chavez and historical parallels, this concept is progressive. However, it hasn't been "sovietized" in a "chained" system and, in my proposal, shouldn't be. Non-sovietization gives such councils "local currency" (floating here the possibility of using local currencies to complement or replace the state currency) to deal with local issues.

I don't think what is exercised in Venezuela is really workers councils, it seems rather like an odd experiment of what they call self-management. Self-management is something that is glorified, yet I think it is really pointless for the proletariat as long as the capitalist system remains. Self-management in the capitalist system is management of what is completely alienated, self-exploitation. Also, I don't think that those "communal councils" in Venezuela are independent from the existing bourgeois state. What distinguishes actual workers councils is that they are formed as a result of massive revolutionary class struggle, that they are a place where all workers unite regardless of ideology, union status etc. and lastly that they are the independent organs of the proletariat, in other words that they are bourgeois-free.


"Chained" soviets: same stuff as in the Russian Revolution.

International centralized workers councils sound better but yeah.


Economically speaking, this may or may not correlate to my "revolutionary" stamocap ideas for the hourglass economy.

I think that this is something that is completely against state capitalism, economically.


NO UNIONS! As said in another thread, they tend to be quite reactionary, and factory/workplace committees do the job better without the bureaucracy.

Definitely agreed. What is more, the existence of independent organs of the whole proletariat, like workers councils, would destroy the existing unions so today, those who are fighting for class unity are directly fighting for the destruction of all existing trade unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 10:32 pm

Communal councils: already in place in Venezuela, and regardless of my opinion on Hugo Chavez and historical parallels, this concept is progressive. However, it hasn't been "sovietized" in a "chained" system and, in my proposal, shouldn't be. Non-sovietization gives such councils "local currency" (floating here the possibility of using local currencies to complement or replace the state currency) to deal with local issues.

I don't think what is exercised in Venezuela is really workers councils, it seems rather like an odd experiment of what they call self-management. Self-management is something that is glorified, yet I think it is really pointless for the proletariat as long as the capitalist system remains. Self-management in the capitalist system is management of what is completely alienated, self-exploitation. Also, I don't think that those "communal councils" in Venezuela are independent from the existing bourgeois state. What distinguishes actual workers councils is that they are formed as a result of massive revolutionary class struggle, that they are a place where all workers unite regardless of ideology, union status etc. and lastly that they are the independent organs of the proletariat, in other words that they are bourgeois-free.
LIke I said: regardless of my opinion on the Venezuelan situation, which is more akin to the Guomindang under Sun Yat-sen, even when cooperating extensively with the Soviet government.

[Leo]

Well, we should be calling for a new Shanghai Worker's Uprising in Venezuela then, ending up with the victory of the proletariat this time, rather than praising Chavez' bourgeois self-management program, don't you agree?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 07:36 pm
Well, we should be calling for a new Shanghai Worker's Uprising in Venezuela then, ending up with the victory of the proletariat this time, rather than praising Chavez' bourgeois self-management program, don't you agree?
^^^ I'm still iffy on that (I know he is NOT a socialist). And because my knowledge of Chinese history is still quite limited, did that uprising occur under Sun - or Jiang?

[Leo]

It happened in two years after Sun's death, it was suppressed by the Kuomintang. It is hard to say that Chiang Kai-shek was ruling China at that time as the struggle for power with Wang Jingwei was still going on, but it was suppressed by him. Comintern was allied with the Kuomintang at that time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I just read the wiki article and Wang Jingwei's bio there - it's odd to see him establish some sort of political relations with HITLER of all people.

Anyhow, maybe the factory committees can be "chained" differently. While the soviets congregate in congresses to elect soviets immediately above them (including whole "sub-republic" soviets congregating together in one huge all-republic congress, themselves being small enough and their "sub-republic" regions not being so numerous), the factory committees can perhaps elect congresses directly up to a certain point (an all-republic congress of factory committees would be impractical, being much larger than its soviet counterpart).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Historically speaking, what were the differences between soviets and factory committees, other than the fact that workplaces elected deputies to soviets which consisted of their deputies plus peasants' geography-based deputies and deputies elected by military units?



Because now, having learned of that first difference above, I'm having doubts as to the viability of my own "tricameral" proposal below, which I posted awhile back:


I don't know if this belongs in History, Politics, or Theory, so I float the proposal below based on historical precedent (http://www.geocities.com/~Johngray/raclef.htm).

Are "unicameral" systems enough for ordinary working folks to exercise political power? While I'm not proposing "checks and balances" by any means, I merely propose different ways of exercising power at the same time.

1) Communal councils: already in place in Venezuela, and regardless of my opinion on Hugo Chavez and historical parallels, this concept is progressive. However, it hasn't been "sovietized" in a "chained" system and, in my proposal, shouldn't be. Non-sovietization gives such councils "local currency" (floating here the possibility of using local currencies to complement or replace the state currency) to deal with local issues.

2) "Chained" soviets and congresses of soviets, ultimately leading to an all-republic Congress of Soviets electing an all-republic Supreme Soviet: basically the same stuff as in the Russian Revolution. Economically speaking, this may or may not correlate to my "revolutionary" stamocap ideas for the hourglass economy (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65105&view=findpost&p=1292295858). Local issues may be addressed by lower soviets in conjunction with communal councils and factory/workplace committees, but by far the primary issues relate to the socialist republic as a whole.

3) Factory/workplace committees: same stuff as in the Russian Revolution, and I'm still unsure of whether they should be "chained" like the soviets (to go further) or not. Perhaps they're smaller than the communal councils set to replace municipal councils. Perhaps these committees manage the various niche enterprises that comprise the bottom of the hourglass economy.

4) NO UNIONS! As said in another thread, they tend to be quite reactionary, and factory/workplace committees do the job better without the bureaucracy. If state-wide issues need addressing, there is the all-republic Congress of Soviets and Supreme Soviet, and maybe an all-republic Congress of factory committees, as well.



Thoughts?



Other questions to consider:

1) Should military units' operational areas be considered "workplaces"?
2) How much occupational segmentation is necessary, if there is to be one between civilian workers and wage-earning soldiers?
3) Where will rural constituents fit in, regardless of whether or not their peasant subset (ie, not every rural constituent is a peasant) still exists before the socialist revolution?

[syndicat]

Are you referring to the Russian revolution? Pete Rachlef's essay is a good source of info:

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm

Factory committees were elected at mass assemblies and were intended to be accountable to them. There were also regional soviets of factory committees.

The soviets were geographic bodies that began to take over governmental functions locally. The factory committees were independent of the soviets in places where the soviets were more top-down and not really controlled by the worker delegates. In some locations there were more horizontal soviets and in those situations the factory committees were part of the base of the soviet, as at Kronstadt for example. In that case each ship, military unit, and workplace elected a delegate who was required to work in that base unit. In the big city soviets such as Moscow and St. Petersburg there was no requirement that delegates actually work there and sometimes politicians would campaign to get themselves elected even tho they didn't work there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:43 pm
Are you referring to the Russian revolution? Pete Rachlef's essay is a good source of info:

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm
^^^ Been there and read that site countless times. When I put in "factory committees" on Google, it comes right after the wiki article. How can I miss it? :)

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is a complex question.

I could not envision a model similar to Russia; we do not have the illiterate, underdeveloped, and unadvanced character of the peasantry and proprietor classes, and landless farm workers are more or less wage laborers. Unlike Russia also, we do not have a mobilized body of soldiers that have been deployed by the hundreds of thousands. The factory committees not only elected deputies to the Soviets, but also had democratic control over all decisions effecting health, safety, co-ordination, financing, and working hours. In other words, management over the entire production process. It granted the workers a larger theatre of democratic dialogue, being the bodies that would recall and elect delegates to represent them on a local, municipal, and national level.

I would personally call for a unicameral system based on a sort of Soviet-model, but with the factory committees being the sole authority in electing delegates to lower soviets. Instead of having arbitrary 'districts', boundries would be drawn on the basis of proportional importance. These 'niche' enterprises can be run by direction from local worker's and consumer's associations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:16 pm
It is a complex question.

I could not envision a model similar to Russia; we do not have the illiterate, underdeveloped, and unadvanced character of the peasantry and proprietor classes, and landless farm workers are more or less wage laborers. Unlike Russia also, we do not have a mobilized body of soldiers that have been deployed by the hundreds of thousands. The factory committees not only elected deputies to the Soviets, but also had democratic control over all decisions effecting health, safety, co-ordination, financing, and working hours. In other words, management over the entire production process. It granted the workers a larger theatre of democratic dialogue, being the bodies that would recall and elect delegates to represent them on a local, municipal, and national level.

I would personally call for a unicameral system based on a sort of Soviet-model, but with the factory committees being the sole authority in electing delegates to lower soviets. Instead of having arbitrary 'districts', boundries would be drawn on the basis of proportional importance. These 'niche' enterprises can be run by direction from local worker's and consumer's associations.
^^^ You are right on that first part. I see more and more landless farm workers working in industrial farms, and less and less proper peasants.

As for soldiers, can't their organizations be democratized in the new society? Besides, it's like the workers of today: no organization through which they can effect change.

What do you mean by "drawn on the basis of proportional importance"? Are you proposing that we toss geography out the door under the new system? That would resemble the labour-union environment too much (unions of specific types of workers).

As for niche enterprises, I suppose the consumer has to have a say somewhere (parecon isn't that bad, if it's kept in check).



However, you forgot to comment on communal councils and their special role in outlying urban neighbourhoods and the overall countryside (besides their replacement of mayors and "city councils"). Factory committees aren't appropriate for every geographic area (much less every occupation, hence my term "workplace committees," to take into account service labour).

[syndicat]

if you're asking about today, I'd say that i don't think a liberatory transformation is going to happen without the development of a massive sort of working class movement that is very grassroots controlled, not run by a trade union bureaucracy, and with links to community organizations. We could expect some sort of assembly or congress of delegates from the various base organizations. I'd hope that these would be rooted in assemblies of workers in workplaces and of people in neighborhoods.

I think a dual structure of residential or community organizations and of workplace organizations is needed, because workers aren't just people who work, but are people who live in a community, have concerns in many areas, such as education, health care, child care, housing and so on. And there are those not working as well. Some sort of negotiation would need to take place between workers and the communities and people they serve, as far as coordinating the economy is concerned.

[Janus]

what were the differences between soviets and factory committees, other than the fact that workplaces elected deputies to soviets which consisted of their deputies plus peasants' geography-based deputies and deputies elected by military units?
Soviets and factory committees, what's the diff.? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52009&hl=+factory++committee)