Thoughts on Workers Opposition in USSR and other thoughts

  1. Asoka89
    Asoka89
    Okay, just a short question.

    A group within the Russian Communist Party that struggled to achieve workers rights and trade union control over industry – by 1922, the Communist Party had condemned their ideas and forced the group to disburse.
    The Workers Opposition began to form in 1919, as a result of the policies of War Communism, which had set a precedence for the domination of the Communist Party over local party affiliates and trade unions. Near the end of the Civil War, the Workers Opposition began agitating against the control of the party, seeking to restore more power to local party affiliates and trade unions.
    A sharp controversy, of which accusations of factionalism abound, began over this issue beginning at the Ninth All-Russia Conference of the Communist Party in September, 1920. While all sides recognized the growing Soviet bureaucracy, all sides claimed to offer the only path that would defeat this bureaucracy.
    Trotsky with the support of Bukharin, supported transforming trade unions into government organs, and in this way giving unions some control over industrial administration. Lenin and the right wing of the party, including Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, and Stalin, stated that unions should not be a part of industrial administration, but that it was the role of the party to teach unionized workers how to administer the whole national economy. They explained that with workers control, the needs of the community and the rest of society could not be controlled; that factories were the property of the community as a whole, and not only the workers who worked in them. Lenin explained: "Why have a Party, if industrial management is to be appointed by the trade unions, 9/10 of whose members are nonparty workers?" (Collected Works, V. 32, Page 50)
    The Workers' Opposition represented the left wing of the party, composed almost exclusively of unionized workers, and was led by A.G. Shlyapnikov, S.P. Medvedev, and later Alexandre Kollontai. The group demanded that industrial administration be made the responsibility of unions, which would not only mean that workers of a particular factory would have control over that factory, but also that unions would control the national economy as a whole. Kollontai explained that only workers could decide what was best for workers – that it was not for party bureaucrats to decide what was needed for the whole society, but it was for workers themselves, the producers of the wealth of society. The Workers Opposition had substantial support among the members of the Communist Party, however the major leaders of the party refused its platform.
    Furthermore they wanted all [non]proletarians out of the CP. Who do you think is right, how do we reconcile the need for worker control over their economy and the fact that they may neglect the needs of the wider-mass of society. How much democratic control should workers have over their workplace in the first stages of a socialist republic?



    Another point: What do you think of http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/644/

    It's pretty revisionist, but I think it is quite a realistic vision for a country like the United States, and a large part of Marxism is looking at the environment and adapting our apporaches and tactics and I think the CPUSA is one of the groups in America that is at least trying to be relevant and make a difference. [Also of some interest of Jacob might be DSAUSA's new Talking Union blog that tries to maintain/reconnect the progressive/socialist-union connection that you speak of so often]
  2. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    ^^^ All workers OUT of the party? Don't you mean "non-workers"?

    A social-proletocratic party by definition is (preferrably) a workers-only party.

    How much democratic control should workers have over their workplace in the first stages of a socialist republic?
    If you read my "multi-economy" remarks, directly democratic control in first stages of proletocracy is limited somewhat to three areas:

    1) Private-capitalist firms operating under cooperative and/or participatory-economics (parecon) principles;
    2) The "socialist" firms operating strictly under labour-time; and
    3) The "communist" firms operating directly under "gift" economics (ask Ben Seattle for more on this, but he doesn't know my labour-time stuff yet ).

    The state-capitalist "economy" within the multi-economy will HAVE to be initially top-down, and any form of democracy that emerges initially will have to be "representative," at best (sorry Trots, but a "democratically planned" Soviet economy would have had too many decision inputs to be filtered by Gosplan for proper decision-making, as bureaucratic as "Comrade" Stalin was).

    On the other hand, I could be wrong, but that would depend mostly on the information-communication technology at that time (allowing for faster processing of decision inputs from ordinary workers) and the enthusiasm of the workers for a more active managing role over the economy (while realizing there will still be "coordinators"/technocrats around to lean on).