What is so special about workers councils, bodies which historically have quickly ceased to be working bodies, and which have been incapable of meeting in continuous session to at least hold subordinate bodies to account, (instead meeting once every few months at best)? What is so special about these organizations, which can be easily controlled by political parties?
They represent direct democratic workers assemblies. What's so special? Special is the fact that workers manage them not Party or some glorious leaders, at least in theory.
which historically have quickly ceased to be working bodies and which have been incapable of meeting in continuous session to at least hold subordinate bodies to account... Would you care to give some historical examples?
Um, the Russian soviets met once every few months at best, each time being just for a few days. The bourgeois cabinet equivalent Sovnarkom, on the other hand, did meet in continuous session. As the civil war progressed, the soviets couldn't match the democratic function of the Paris Commune's working body - the Communal Council - and even became worse than parliamentary talking shops (at least they meet continuously, even if they aren't working bodies).
I got the impression that the higher soviets held plenary sessions composed of delegates from the lower soviets which probably met more often. It would be difficult for the delegates from the lower soviets to be involved in permanent higher soviet meeting -- they'd never be able to be involved in the work of their own soviets. I'd have to refresh my memory about the actual workings of the soviets during the Russian revolution though to be more precise...
