worker-managed factory production and USSR

[Black Sheep]

I was talking with a leninist,and said that when,at Kruschev's leadership, the factory workers where allowed to self-manage the production levels the economy started to pave away from socialist production mode, and that is the main reason of USSR's reformist turn and collapse.

Is this true?

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, no, the reason for the USSR's collapse is the consolidation of the counterrevolution in the late 1930s. Workers were already deprived of self-management in 1928, and the workers' state was smashed when what remained of the proletarian opposition (the Trotskyist left opposition) was destroyed.

Let me get this straight, though - this supposed Leninist argued that the USSR collapsed because workers were given some self-management back, and they used it to promote counterrevolution?

[Black Sheep]

He said that by offering self management to the workers, he weakened central planning of economy.

like 'society needs this much of your factory's products, so that's what you will produce'

[Yehuda Stern]

Self-management can be centralized, as it was in the early days of the USSR. If Khrushchev indeed gave self-management of the type you're talking about, I don't know - either way, that's certainly not what caused the USSR's collapse.

[Black Sheep]

Self-management can be centralized
That is an oxymoron.Isn't it?

[Q]

That is an oxymoron.Isn't it?

Not at all. Have a read into the idea of soviets (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That is an oxymoron.Isn't it?

If the workers decide they want centralized production for x products, it could be beneficial. Keep in mind these higher echelons are supposed to be kept in control by democracy.

[Valeofruin]

Well, no, the reason for the USSR's collapse is the consolidation of the counterrevolution in the late 1930s. Workers were already deprived of self-management in 1928, and the workers' state was smashed when what remained of the proletarian opposition (the Trotskyist left opposition) was destroyed.

Let me get this straight, though - this supposed Leninist argued that the USSR collapsed because workers were given some self-management back, and they used it to promote counterrevolution?

*sigh* This is just not true.

The facts prove otherwise, in Stalins union workers had power. The economy boomed, and the war was won. It took Stalin a mere 5 years to accomplish was Trotsky proposed be done in 25 years. The working class was simply stronger, and more productive under the Leninist line of Stalin, then the flawed weak minded, almost council communist views of opportunist Kruschev.

The only attempt at counter revolution in the soviet union was the one dreamed up by your reactionary hero Leon Trotsky.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Trotsky/Stalin debate doesn't address the original concern: that is, what made the Soviet Union stagnate. Let's talk about the actual economic model instead of "counterrevolutionaries" and all that jazz, because telling someone that X is counterrevolutionary does nothing. It could mean simply publishing articles that favor a different socialist model; it could mean purposely ruining the economy for personal profit.

[Charles Xavier]

Listen as cool as the sound of worker-ran-worker-owned factories sound, it is petty-bourgeioisie in essence, A factory that makes high priced good selling commodities will allow the workers to make a lot more money than factories workers making a necessary but low cost commodity, though I am not saying the workers shouldn't have a say in managements, of course they should and they must, but the profits should be social not private. Such a system where the profits are private would be hardly different than capitalism.

The Soviet Economy by far wasn't bad. People had a vast increase in the standard of living under socialism. What happened with socialism is that opportunism took over society, instead of meeting quotas at every factory what happened was a barter system between the factories, when a factory wasn't productive enough they would make favors in order to get the resources from factories which exceeded their quotas. And this wasn't out of corruption but lack of proper oversight.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wa wa wa wa? Nobody was talking about socialist markets.

[Yehuda Stern]

The facts prove otherwise, in Stalins union workers had power. The economy boomed, and the war was won. It took Stalin a mere 5 years to accomplish was Trotsky proposed be done in 25 years. The working class was simply stronger, and more productive under the Leninist line of Stalin, then the flawed weak minded, almost council communist views of opportunist Kruschev.

The only thing the facts prove is that the Stalinist model was a retrograde state capitalist model, which by the end of its life was revealed even by its rulers to be inefficient, decayed, and whose supposed gains were all illusions created by distorting figures and fumbling with numbers. These are the facts, if you decided to bring them up. The Trotskyists tried to fight this counterrevolution, but were annihilated by the coward reactionary Stalin.

[Sprinkles]

I was talking with a leninist,and said that when,at Kruschev's leadership, the factory workers where allowed to self-manage the production levels the economy started to pave away from socialist production mode, and that is the main reason of USSR's reformist turn and collapse.


Not really.

Khrushchev tried to mirror Yugoslavia's success at workers’ self-management at the factory level. Khrushchev his proposals on industrial reorganization and decentralization were aimed to overcome the inefficient tendency of each of the centralized ministries to hoard all of their supplies for their own, since they only wanted to meet their own planned quotas.

But his reforms only transferred the problem with the quotas from the centralized ministries to the factories themselves. Which (although I don't agree with what GeorgiDimitrovII names as the cause) effectively meant:



... instead of meeting quotas at every factory what happened was a barter system between the factories, when a factory wasn't productive enough they would make favors in order to get the resources from factories which exceeded their quotas.


A planned economy simply needs input from either it's consumers or producers and the planned quotas that were forced from above under Stalin were never really effective at substituting this need. The later re-introduction of the profit motive was just another attempt to improve the output and efficiency of the Soviet economy.

None of this is directly related to the collapse of the USSR though.

[Sprinkles]

The facts prove otherwise, in Stalins union workers had power. The economy boomed, and the war was won. It took Stalin a mere 5 years to accomplish was Trotsky proposed be done in 25 years. The working class was simply stronger, and more productive under the Leninist line of Stalin...


Correction, under Stalinism trade unions as the extension of the party had power, but the working class was completely subjugated under it's management. This literally meant that the working class was defeated and working class control was non-existent.

And for a socialist the production of large amounts of industrial goods is not a qualification for a good economy, unless you consider the Third Reich's war economy good as well.

The best way to determine whether an economy is socialist, is how much it benefits the working class, not how much surplus value can be brutally extracted from them.

The confusion may stem from the fact that the former is a socialist point of view while the latter is a capitalist point of view. Whatever propagandist nonsense you can spout on the principles of socialist emulation, Stakhanovism is inherently anti-working class.

The conscious choice on the part of the Stalinist bureaucracy who were willing to brutally exploit and sacrifice the working class on behalf of it's greater goal of rapid industrialization is not socialist. Saying that Trotsky preferred to spread this out over 25 years instead of 5 years is hardly an insult to the man's legacy.



...then the flawed weak minded, almost council communist views of opportunist Kruschev.

The only attempt at counter revolution in the soviet union was the one dreamed up by your reactionary hero Leon Trotsky.


You might want to read up on what council communism actually is.
And in the future leave out the weak ad hominems all together.

[Charles Xavier]

Not really.

Khrushchev tried to mirror Yugoslavia's success at workers’ self-management at the factory level. Khrushchev his proposals on industrial reorganization and decentralization were aimed to overcome the inefficient tendency of each of the centralized ministries to hoard all of their supplies for their own, since they only wanted to meet their own planned quotas.

But his reforms only transferred the problem with the quotas from the centralized ministries to the factories themselves. Which (although I don't agree with what GeorgiDimitrovII names as the cause) effectively meant:



A planned economy simply needs input from either it's consumers or producers and the planned quotas that were forced from above under Stalin were never really effective at substituting this need. The later re-introduction of the profit motive was just another attempt to improve the output and efficiency of the Soviet economy.

None of this is directly related to the collapse of the USSR though.

I didn't think we were discussing the collapse of the USSR, I can tell you that it wasn't due to economic fundamentals though.

[Sprinkles]

I didn't think we were discussing the collapse of the USSR, I can tell you that it wasn't due to economic fundamentals though.


?



...and that is the main reason of USSR's reformist turn and collapse.




...just another attempt to improve the output and efficiency of the Soviet economy.

None of this is directly related to the collapse of the USSR though.


:D

I forgot to note that Krushchev his "workers’ self-management at the factory level" actually means "management of the workers by the factory managers."

I'm not putting forward the view that it was actual workers’ self-management, just that this is how Krushchev referred to it.

If you look at the history of workers' self-management in the USSR, it's a lot more complicated than this single issue under Krushchev. Since it also involves the much earlier appropriation of the Soviets, the disbanding of the Factory Committees in favor of the Trade Unions as well as the absorption of the Trade Unions into the Party bureaucracy. I'd recommend "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control - The State and Counter-Revolution" by Maurice Brinton as it deals with the subject extensively and in detail.

http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group