A working company in socialism/communism

[Red_or_Dead]

This is a thread to discuss how would a company function in a socialism and later communism. How would it be organized, how it would be led, ect.

What I believe is that each company in socialism/communism should be organized from the bottom to the top. It should be the ownership of the workers, implying the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This is where, I guess most members will agree with me.

Now, the challenge of making it work.

Ive read and heard about the Yugoslavian model of self -managing socialism (which I believe was a good theoretical concept, but it never really came into practice), where represantatives of the workers were organized into councils, and (theoreticaly) they decided on how the company functioned, how it would evolve, how to distribute profits ect., of course within the frame of the planned economy, and certain basic principals of the socialistic system. I think tho, that in the Yugoslavian model, those represantatives were not voted by the workers themselves, but were appointed by the director of the company, whcih of course resulted in the director being in charge of everything. If that was the case, then that is one thing that I would change, and give the decision about who is going to represent the workers to the workers themselves.


Now, how about other members? Any other theories on how to make it work?

[BobKKKindle$]

I think Marxists have a lot to learn from Anarcho-Syndicalists in this area.

In contrast to the capitalist system of management, which places power in the hands of a small number of managers, we should aim for the democratic organization of all industrial enterprises. Major decisions should be made through a general assembly, consisting of all workers employed in a single enterprise, who would periodically elect delegates (subject to recall for the duration of their term of office, and paid the same wage as a standard worker) to handle less important issues that do not require a full assembly. In order to ensure that workers have sufficient knowledge to make decisions, it will be necessary to diversify work, such that each worker is able to work in various different sections of the enterprise and does not spend the entire working day engaged in the repetition of a single, or small set of tasks. This will also make work a more engaging experience and prevent the alienation deriving from work in a capitalist society.

These delegates (or separate elected officials, depending on the size of the enterprise) are also responsible for communicating with other enterprises in order to ensure that each enterprise receives the raw materials and parts they need to produce their goods, and, in cooperation with consumer councils based on locality, to create a comprehensive plan for the production of goods to meet the needs of consumers. Delegates from each enterprise in a single industry (for example, the production of steel, or the manufacture of cars) may meet together in order to discuss issues of mutual concern, or to reach agreements on the combination of multiple enterprises so as to improve efficiency.

These are, in my view, good guiding principles - above all, we should aim for a system of economic organization which places power in the hands of workers and allows them to make their own decisions, free from the interference of a state planning office. However, it should also be emphasized that it is impossible to predict the exact forms of organization that will exist, as local communities will react to the challenges posed in their own area and will thus form their own, specialized forms of management.

I hope that helps!

[Red_or_Dead]

In contrast to the capitalist system of management, which places power in the hands of a small number of managers, we should aim for the democratic organization of all industrial enterprises. Major decisions should be made through a general assembly, consisting of all workers employed in a single enterprise, who would periodically elect delegates (subject to recall for the duration of their term of office, and paid the same wage as a standard worker) to handle less important issues that do not require a full assembly.

I think that managers would have to stay, with very limited power and wages which wouldnt differ from the wages of the rest of the workers. Managers, imo, are necesary to lead the company properly, and to make it function day by day, something that other workers would not be able to perform as efective, since they will work elsewhere.

I think that worker councils (or general assemblies) should definatly exist as a mean of controlling the management, and prevent it to make decisions that are not in the interest of the entire company.


Then there is of course the matter of state planning, which I believe would be necesary, at least in the period between the revolution and actual communist society.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think that managers would have to stay, with very limited power and wages which wouldnt differ from the wages of the rest of the workers. Managers, imo, are necesary to lead the company properly, and to make it function day by day, something that other workers would not be able to perform as efective, since they will work elsewhere.

I completely disagree. Managerial staff entails hierarchy, and as socialists we aim to abolish hierarchy in every area of life, and that included the workplace. An important role of managerial staff is to maintain discipline in the workplace - to make sure that workers do not waste time and perform their jobs in the most efficient way possible. If workers controlled their enterprises and knew that they were working for their own benefit, and if work were a more engaging activity, then problems of discipline would be less likely to occur, and so managers would no longer serve any purpose. Even if problems did arise, they could still be dealt with the collective assembly (or a separate elected body with a specific mandate to deal with disciplinary matters)

As for the making decisions that relate to how the workplace is organized and the production process, even in enterprises which require a high degree of technical knowledge and coordination between different sectors, I am confident that, with sufficient training, workers would be able to manage their enterprises through a democratic mechanism. There are several case studies which demonstrate the viability of workers self-management (WSM) - the most impressive of which are the Zanon ceramic collective (part of the Fabricas Recuperadas movement in Argentina) and the Barcelona tram system in Anarchist Catalonia (1936-1938)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/spain_feb99.html


At the outbreak of the revolution Barcelona had a population of 1.5 million. The tramways were the mainstay of the transportation system serving Barcelona and the suburbs with 69 routes. Out of the 7,000 workers on the tramways at the time of the Revolution, some 6,500 were members of the CNT.

Because of the street battles the system had been severely damaged and all transport had been brought to a halt. A special commission with delegates from all the key areas of the system (drivers, electric cable operators, rolling stocks, general operatives' etc) was quickly elected. This was charged with estimating the damages and specifying repairs, and getting these done. Five days after fighting had ended the tramway system was fully up and running again with 700 trams on the roll. This was a regarded as a great achievement at the time and was put down to the fact that the new form of organisation instituted by the revolution gave actual practical power to those that knew and operated the system. In the past under private ownership, changes or decisions on stock improvements had to be approved by the owner's management. Invariable the owners were careful not to let work and improvements eat into profits, with the result that a lot of good ideas were either ignored or abandoned. With the profit motive gone and workers in control, problems and needs in the system were more easily identified; as important the resources needed to address problems were also at hand.

The first objective had been to get the Tramway back up and running. But soon other longer-term improvements were made. The system carried over 183 million passengers in 1936 and nearly 233 million in 1937. Fares came down over the period of operation, as did the number of accidents and disruptions to the service. Again much of this has less to do with the atmosphere of revolution and a lot more to do with the rational nature of how workplaces were now organised. Not only were workers more involved and more empowered by the fact that had a direct say in the running of their place of work, but also the were working alongside the very technicians and engineers whose job it was to design and introduce improvements. The new form of democratic organisation allowed for a lot of cross-fertilisation of jobs and idea, whereas in the past any liaison of this sort had been frowned upon (if not outrightly opposed by the employer!)

As I noted above, it would not be feasible to call for a collective discussion every time a decision has to be made, as, in any large enterprise, there are many small decisions that must be made every day. For this reason, it would be desirable to elect a committee to deal with some areas of management. However, this committee would be given no authority to order other people about and would be subject to recall if required, and so would in no way resemble managerial staff.

In the post-revolutionary period, however, it may be necessary to maintain, for a short time, specialized technical staff who possess advanced knowledge. Depending on their pay and conditions in a capitalist society, such staff may support the workers, but if they comprise part of the hostile petty-bourgeoisie, their cooperation will be secured with the threat of force until they are no longer required or new proletarian technicians can take their place.

Remember: The bosses need us, but we don't need them!

[Sleeping Dragon]

If the roof of a normal house was replaced with a plastic greenhouse it could produce enough fruits and vegetables for a family and it would reduce the amount of wood required per house. Any surplus could be stored in cellars to be used by highly skilled cooks for recipes in kitchens. These could be supplemented by larger greenhouses, domed concrete structures for artificial variable control and large metal or concrete structures for housing edible fungi mycelium. If machines gathered straw and grain this could be fed to livestock and decomposed by fungi which would provide edible protein and soil useful in gardening. Cooking equipment for homes and communal kitchens would be needed and so factories for making these would be required and their construction could be domed or conventional. Automation should replace human labor whenever possible and people would need to be provided with time to design these systems. Mathematical analysis, scientific research, building construction and food production would be top priorities if a socialist society is to run smoothly. Large amounts of land would be required to allow animals to graze for the production of milk and meat or for the production of grain or straw in general. It would be best if cities were constructed in a fractal pattern where open areas for grain and straw would separate variously sized clusters of buildings. These could have a mass transit system for long range travel and a system for short range travel. Hierarchy should be completely eliminated in all it's forms and capital owned and managed in common. New capital should also be continuously created and existing capital maintained. Proposals for structures or systems of labor organization would need to be chosen by the people doing the work and how the labor is directed toward social goals needs to be decided democratically by the population affected.

[Red_or_Dead]

I completely disagree. Managerial staff entails hierarchy, and as socialists we aim to abolish hierarchy in every area of life, and that included the workplace. An important role of managerial staff is to maintain discipline in the workplace - to make sure that workers do not waste time and perform their jobs in the most efficient way possible. If workers controlled their enterprises and knew that they were working for their own benefit, and if work were a more engaging activity, then problems of discipline would be less likely to occur, and so managers would no longer serve any purpose. Even if problems did arise, they could still be dealt with the collective assembly (or a separate elected body with a specific mandate to deal with disciplinary matters)


Discipline would probably have to be maintained in every system there is, even communism. Now, it can be a boss firing a worker for giving him a bad look, or it could be a council that votes for firing a worker that comes late every day, doesnt work like he is supposed to, and still gets paid. I prefer the second option, but both have something in common, and that something is hierarchy. Wheter we have a body of people that are elected by the workers themselves to run a company (as obviously someone has to), or it can be a body of people that are appointed by the owner of the company (in a capitalist system), there is always a certain degree of hierarchy. The kind of hierarchy in which the people involved can choose whos where in that hierarchy is obviously better, of course.

In any case, workers should own the means of production and decide on how to run them. In small companies (where not more than 10 or 15 people are employed) it can be done very simply, with the people involved simply making a deal. The above described would be apllied to big companies with a couple of hundred or even a couple of thousand people employed. Im guessing that in the begining of a socialist system organizing the rule of proletarians would be a big challenge, and the bigest reason for that is geting people to participate, since they are used to simply do what they are told. Many of them might not even give a shit, just as long as their situation doesnt get worse. Thats where, imo, the hierarchy should come in, and get people to participate. If the awarenes among the employees is big enough, tho, then hierarchy would no longer be needed. But thats a big if.


The part about the Barceolna tram system is very impressive and could serve as a model. But that is only one case, tho, and with a revolution on a larger scale, we will undoubtedly come across new problems, that arent covered in the Barcelona model.



As I noted above, it would not be feasible to call for a collective discussion every time a decision has to be made, as, in any large enterprise, there are many small decisions that must be made every day. For this reason, it would be desirable to elect a committee to deal with some areas of management. However, this committee would be given no authority to order other people about and would be subject to recall if required, and so would in no way resemble managerial staff.


Depending on the size of the company, of course, but in big companies, there would certainly have to be the kind of organization that you describe.


In the post-revolutionary period, however, it may be necessary to maintain, for a short time, specialized technical staff who possess advanced knowledge. Depending on their pay and conditions in a capitalist society, such staff may support the workers, but if they comprise part of the hostile petty-bourgeoisie, their cooperation will be secured with the threat of force until they are no longer required or new proletarian technicians can take their place.


I think that there will always be a need for specialised technical staff that possesses advanced knowledge. They need not be petty-bourgeoisie, tho. They can be proles like all others, or better yet, they dont need to belong to any class, after all, abolition of all classes is one of the aims.

[jake williams]

Big difference between workers' ownership and the abolition of management. It's entirely possible, even likely that the best way at least some organizations should be run is to have an individual, part time or full time, or group in charge of organizing operations. Might be another worker from the same factory (or whatever). Might be someone with particular organizing skills. But they sure as hell wouldn't get paid more or be called "sir" or any of this nonsense. And if the workers want them gone, they go, because they own the place and its run for the interests of them and the community.

[Red_or_Dead]

Big difference between workers' ownership and the abolition of management. It's entirely possible, even likely that the best way at least some organizations should be run is to have an individual, part time or full time, or group in charge of organizing operations. Might be another worker from the same factory (or whatever). Might be someone with particular organizing skills. But they sure as hell wouldn't get paid more or be called "sir" or any of this nonsense. And if the workers want them gone, they go, because they own the place and its run for the interests of them and the community.


Good point. Organizing skills are certainly important, and should be taken into consideration.