praxis1966
10th April 2003, 01:52
I posted this in another thread, but I decided to re-post here so that more would see it.
On the subject of nationalisation I agree with our long passed theorist Antonio Gramsci and his idea of syndicalism, predicated by the educational theory and constructs of Paolo Friere:
1) Prior to the seizure of power, set up 2 grassroots worker's counsels.
The first would be an administrative body. This would be established for the purposes of acclimating the workers to the idea of self-administration and the structural/functional modus operandi of communism itself. In other words, the new buerocratic structure of the workplace, since after power is wrested from the hegemony of the bourgesie, all elections and industry management would take place in the workplace.
The second would be a Frierist-style pedagogical body in which the workers would (with a member of the Party put in place to lead the discussions). This would be done so that the common experiences of workers living in a capitalist society could be analysed through dialogue. These experiences and limit-situations, which the workers will have observed via praxis, could be objectified and studied through group discussion. Obviously, the purpose here would be contextualising the proletariats common problems created by capitalism and collectively arriving at solutions within the terms of the revolution.
2) After the siezure of power, the first body would be converted into the actual administrative consulates responsible for running the production facilities on a day to day basis. General meetings would also be held when radical changes to these operating procedures would be made. They would also be called for the purposes of electing managers from within the ranks of the workers themselves. These organisations, at the administrative level, would be based on the current geo-political government bodies. The General Manager would be analagous to the current office of mayor. The Consulate Local (e.g. the managing counsel of a particular factory) would be analogous to the offices of city counselmen/selectmen. The Consulate Local would also be responsible for approving or outright nomination of ministerial positions. These ministerial positions would serve as department heads (again, using the factory example; engineering, production, personnel, research and development, information technology, etc.) who would make recommendations to the General Manager who would in turn make proposals to the Consulate Local. Middle management would be elected on an as needed basis by the workers under their immediate supervision. Members of the Consulate Local would be elected by the workers, divided into arbitrarily numbered and created groups, lets just say 1 Consulate representative for every 100 workers.
In the case of workplaces with less than 100 workers, the system would function similarly but would instead be based on the old guild system. For example, in a county or municipality, let's say there are a good many resturaunts with only 20 to 40 employees. These would meet outside of the workplace and band together to form a larger assembly with other workers in the resturaunt industry.
3) Instead of a simple barter system, money could still be used. Profit sharing would be instituted, with EVERY member of a particular industry receiving equal portions of the net profit. This way, you would give incentives for hard work an innovation within a particular field, as well as serving to eliminate the pay gap between workers, management, engineers and IT personnel.
The ultimate goal would still be every person working for the benefit of every other person. This is simply my proposal for the transitional periods tantamount to and following the siezure of power. In my opinion, BTW, the method of power siezure should be determined by the limit-situation of the existing government. The choice to use armed struggle or simple reform legislation to this end should be determined on a case by case basis in each individual nation.
In the immortal words of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcom X): "We are nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with us, but we are definately not nonviolent with those who are violent with us. We will achieve the liberation of our people by any means necessary!"
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:54 am on April 10, 2003)
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:56 am on April 10, 2003)
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:57 am on April 10, 2003)
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:57 am on April 10, 2003)
On the subject of nationalisation I agree with our long passed theorist Antonio Gramsci and his idea of syndicalism, predicated by the educational theory and constructs of Paolo Friere:
1) Prior to the seizure of power, set up 2 grassroots worker's counsels.
The first would be an administrative body. This would be established for the purposes of acclimating the workers to the idea of self-administration and the structural/functional modus operandi of communism itself. In other words, the new buerocratic structure of the workplace, since after power is wrested from the hegemony of the bourgesie, all elections and industry management would take place in the workplace.
The second would be a Frierist-style pedagogical body in which the workers would (with a member of the Party put in place to lead the discussions). This would be done so that the common experiences of workers living in a capitalist society could be analysed through dialogue. These experiences and limit-situations, which the workers will have observed via praxis, could be objectified and studied through group discussion. Obviously, the purpose here would be contextualising the proletariats common problems created by capitalism and collectively arriving at solutions within the terms of the revolution.
2) After the siezure of power, the first body would be converted into the actual administrative consulates responsible for running the production facilities on a day to day basis. General meetings would also be held when radical changes to these operating procedures would be made. They would also be called for the purposes of electing managers from within the ranks of the workers themselves. These organisations, at the administrative level, would be based on the current geo-political government bodies. The General Manager would be analagous to the current office of mayor. The Consulate Local (e.g. the managing counsel of a particular factory) would be analogous to the offices of city counselmen/selectmen. The Consulate Local would also be responsible for approving or outright nomination of ministerial positions. These ministerial positions would serve as department heads (again, using the factory example; engineering, production, personnel, research and development, information technology, etc.) who would make recommendations to the General Manager who would in turn make proposals to the Consulate Local. Middle management would be elected on an as needed basis by the workers under their immediate supervision. Members of the Consulate Local would be elected by the workers, divided into arbitrarily numbered and created groups, lets just say 1 Consulate representative for every 100 workers.
In the case of workplaces with less than 100 workers, the system would function similarly but would instead be based on the old guild system. For example, in a county or municipality, let's say there are a good many resturaunts with only 20 to 40 employees. These would meet outside of the workplace and band together to form a larger assembly with other workers in the resturaunt industry.
3) Instead of a simple barter system, money could still be used. Profit sharing would be instituted, with EVERY member of a particular industry receiving equal portions of the net profit. This way, you would give incentives for hard work an innovation within a particular field, as well as serving to eliminate the pay gap between workers, management, engineers and IT personnel.
The ultimate goal would still be every person working for the benefit of every other person. This is simply my proposal for the transitional periods tantamount to and following the siezure of power. In my opinion, BTW, the method of power siezure should be determined by the limit-situation of the existing government. The choice to use armed struggle or simple reform legislation to this end should be determined on a case by case basis in each individual nation.
In the immortal words of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcom X): "We are nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with us, but we are definately not nonviolent with those who are violent with us. We will achieve the liberation of our people by any means necessary!"
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:54 am on April 10, 2003)
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:56 am on April 10, 2003)
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:57 am on April 10, 2003)
(Edited by praxis1966 at 7:57 am on April 10, 2003)