What Is Workers Control?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's been awhile since I read Brinton's work on the Bolsheviks and "workers control," but I can't help think that perhaps they indeed thought of "control" in the limited terms within management thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_(management)

Control is one of the managerial functions like planning, organizing, staffing and directing... Control in management means[:]

- Setting performance standards.
- Measurement of actual performance.
- Comparing actual performance with standards.
- Analysing deviations.
- Correcting deviations.

Is "workers control" still useful today? Would something like "workers authority" or some other term be better?

[Revolutionair]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the term 'workers' control', as long as you don't limit the term to its traditional meaning in the management sense.

[syndicat]

"control" has too limited a meaning. it's often used to merely checking or negotiating with management. "workers self-management" is a stronger term because it says workers collectively and democraticly have the power over the decisions in the workplace, not subject to any managerial hierarchy.

[bricolage]

Seeing as DNZ referred to Brinton, in the Solidarity introduction to 'The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control' a clear distinction is made between control and management, clearly in favour of the latter and has been said highlighting the limited nature of the former;

Two possible situations come to mind. In one the working class (the collective producer) takes all the fundamental decisions. It does so directly, through organisms of its own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate (Factory Committees, Workers' Councils, etc.). These bodies, composed of elected and revocable delegates probably federate on a regional and national basis. They decide (allowing the maximum possible autonomy for local units) what to produce, how to produce it. at what cost to produce it, at whose cost to produce it. The other possible situation is one in which these fundamental decisions are taken 'elsewhere'. 'from the outside', i.e. by the State, by the Party, or by some other organism without deep and direct roots in the productive process itself. The 'separation of the producers from the means of production' (the basis of all class society) is maintained. The oppressive effects of this type of arrangement soon manifest themselves. This happens whatever the revolutionary good intentions of the agency in question, and whatever provisions it may (or may not) make for policy decisions to be submitted from time to time for ratification or amendment.

There are words to describe these two states of affairs. To manage is to initiate the decisions oneself. as a sovereign person or collectively, in full knowledge of all the relevant facts. To control is to supervise, inspect or check decisions initiated by others. 'Control' implies a limitation of sovereignty or, at best, a state of duality of power, wherein some people determine the objectives while others see that the appropriate means are used to achieve them. Historically, controversies about workers control have tended to break out precisely in such conditions of economic dual power.

Like all forms of dual power, economic dual power is essentially unstable. It will evolve into a consolidation of bureaucratic power (with the working class exerting less and less of the control). Or it will evolve into workers' management. with the working class taking over all managerial functions. Since 1961, when 'Solidarity' started advocating 'workers' management of production others have begun to call for 'workers' direct control', 'workers' full control', etc. - so many tacit admissions of the inadequacy (or at least ambiguity) of previous formulations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"control" has too limited a meaning. it's often used to merely checking or negotiating with management. "workers self-management" is a stronger term because it says workers collectively and democraticly have the power over the decisions in the workplace, not subject to any managerial hierarchy.

But there have been left-com issues with "self-management," haven't there?

And does "workers authority" necessarily imply a managerial hierarchy?

[ZeroNowhere]

A truly collectivist firm would set it's own principles and distribute waged based on labor given into production + surplus labor. Therefore, in a Anarchist economy the Labor theory of value is proven, not this marginalist bullshit.

You would do well to look into what the labour theory of value is.

[syndicat]

But there have been left-com issues with "self-management," haven't there?

certain marxists misconstrue workers self-management as implying autonomous firms in a market economy, which doesn't logically follow.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Arguably, the issue is deeper - doesn't the putting-into-practice of communism problematize the organization of work itself?
That is, shouldn't getting-shit-done happen not within the alienated sphere of "the workplace" but within the self-organization of "the commune"?
Er ... in other words ... shouldn't existing structures/organization of production be called in to question of in and of themselves? Why the hell do we need capitalism's factories and networks for living communism? Shouldn't our immediate practice shape our coming communities, rather than the imposition of forms that are ... well, honestly, so compatible with existing social organization?
I mean, fuck, have y'all ever seen Parecon type shit in action? Not trying to dis folks' projects in self-management, but it's not the qualitative break that I'm looking for, y'know?

[∞]

You would do well to look into what the labour theory of value is.

What did I say that isn't LTV?

Shit...posted on the wrong thread T_T

[RED DAVE]

This discussion began in a discussion of the current politics and polices of the UCPN(M), the Maoist party in Nepa,l but wandered across the border into China. It can be seen that this question is far from academic as it involves, among other questions who is and who is not a Marxist and who is or is not a valid ally in the fight for socialism.

Cheng [of the CPC] is a market socialist, I am not one, but I view market socialism as having been and still being being a valid tendancy in the socialist movement.

What you are saying is that a system that involves the exploitation of workers by the state, which I would call state capitalism, is a "valid tendency in the socialist movement." I'd love to see what their trade union policy is.

Obviously, otherwise you exclude 95 percent of the historical socialist movement.

Obviously, otherwise you exclude 95 percent of the historical socialist movement.

Yeah, well, up to a certain point of time, the mistakes of Stalinism/Maoism, were understandable. But in this day and age, to call market socialism a valid Marxist position, is dubious.

It's time to understand that any system not based on workers control of industry, bottom to top, is not socialism.

well that is something to try and persuade people of, but there is lots of room for argument on what workers control is.

That's true, but what it's not is anything that existed in the USSR post-1928, China post-1949, Eastern Europe post-1948 or Vietnam post-1975.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

So, what is workers' control and how is it to be implemented ? How will we conclude how much workers' control a given system has ?

[RED DAVE]

So, what is workers' control[?]

Has this little item really escaped you in your Marxist education?

Workers control is that economic condition where the working class controls the economy of a country from the bottom to the top. This means that on every level, from the workplace to the whatever regional, national and international organs are built, the working class is in control.

[A]nd how is it to be implemented?

it will be implemented in the process of revolution. The working class will set up institutions of defense and control during the revolution, they are generally called "councils" or "soviets." There are the basis of workers control. The working class will expand them from the workplace upwards as the revolution spreads to win the world.

How will we conclude how much workers' control a given system has ?

We will see, concretely, who is actually making the actual, day-to-day decisions from the workplace on up.

The lie is given to the USSR and Chinese systems by the fact that workers control barely took place in the USSR, and was displaced by bureaucratic control, and was never established in China.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Has this little item really escaped you in your Marxist education?

Yes, probably because I have been really deprived of the company of Marxists as great as those I find here.

Workers control is that economic condition where the working class controls the economy of a country from the bottom to the top. This means that on every level, from the workplace to the whatever regional, national and international organs are built, the working class is in control.

it will be implemented in the process of revolution. The working class will set up institutions of defense and control during the revolution, they are generally called "councils" or "soviets." There are the basis of workers control. The working class will expand them from the workplace upwards as the revolution spreads to win the world.

We will see, concretely, who is actually making the actual, day-to-day decisions from the workplace on up.

The lie is given to the USSR and Chinese systems by the fact that workers control barely took place in the USSR, and was displaced by bureaucratic control, and was never established in China.

RED DAVE

This is too general. I am looking for a more detailed explanation. What is the structure that allows such workers control from top to bottom ? How exactly is it organized from a single factory to the national level ? What are the resultant social conditions ? How does such a society deal with military offensives by capitalist states ?

[RED DAVE]

I am looking for a more detailed explanation. What is the structure that allows such workers control from top to bottom ? How exactly is it organized from a single factory to the national level ? What are the resultant social conditions ? How does such a society deal with military offensives by capitalist states ?

You are asking what are, essentially, political questions, not theoretical.

The particular structures will be decided by the working class in the process of revolution. I will try to do some research and digest thm, but in four major revolutionary efforts to take control of society and establish socialism, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and in France in '68 (these are not the only occasions , different appraoches were used. I hope others will fill in the details. Likewise, in each case, military defense was handled differently in each case.

You will have noticed, of course, that I am not considering the establishment of the "Peoples Democracy" regimes in Eastern Europe and the "New Democracy" regimes in China and Vietnam. These are not societies in which there was workers control of the economy at the bottom, the top or in the middle. Obviously, this is one of the issues we're going to discuss here.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

You are asking what are, essentially, political questions, not theoretical.

The particular structures will be decided by the working class in the process of revolution. I will try to do some research and digest thm, but in four major revolutionary efforts to take control of society and establish socialism, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and in France in '68 (these are not the only occasions , different appraoches were used. I hope others will fill in the details. Likewise, in each case, military defense was handled differently in each case.

RED DAVE

Well, such a theory remains incomplete without its political aspects. If you explain the complete structure of workers control with respect to the Paris Commune and the Spanish Resistance, then you will also have to point out whether or not these revolutions were defeated so quickly because workers control was implemented that way.

[RED DAVE]

[FONT=Arial]

You are asking what are, essentially, political questions, not theoretical.

The particular structures will be decided by the working class in the process of revolution. I will try to do some research and digest thm, but in four major revolutionary efforts to take control of society and establish socialism, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and in France in '68 (these are not the only occasions , different appraoches were used. I hope others will fill in the details. Likewise, in each case, military defense was handled differently in each case.

You will have noticed, of course, that I am not considering the establishment of the "Peoples Democracy" regimes in Eastern Europe and the "New Democracy" regimes in China and Vietnam. These are not societies in which there was workers control of the economy at the bottom, the top or in the middle. Obviously, this is one of the issues we're going to discuss here.

Well, such a theory remains incomplete without its political aspects. If you explain the complete structure of workers control with respect to the Paris Commune and the Spanish Resistance, then you will also have to point out whether or not these revolutions were defeated so quickly because workers control was implemented that way.

What I think you are saying in a sneaky way is that the bureaucratic aspects of Stalinism/Maoism are responsible for the relatively long-term survival of these regimes. That's a hell of a claim considering the devastation of the working class movements as a result of Stalinism/Maoism leadership.

RED DAVE[/FONT]

[red cat]

[FONT=Arial]What I think you are saying in a sneaky way is that the bureaucratic aspects of Stalinism/Maoism are responsible for the relatively long-term survival of these regimes. That's a hell of a claim considering the devastation of the working class movements as a result of Stalinism/Maoism leadership.

RED DAVE[/FONT]

I am asking straight-forward questions which require straight-forward answers, nothing else.

[penguinfoot]

I am asking straight-forward questions which require straight-forward answers, nothing else.

You're also asking questions which reveal your ignorance of the whole of the Marxist tradition. You're asking people to specify the exact ways in which societies should allow for workers' control and the ways those societies should defend themselves against external aggression when Marx always argued strongly against the idea that it is possible or valuable to draw up accurate blueprints of what future societies will look like, because he believed that the creation of those societies was immanent in the historical process and that alienated individuals living under capitalism could not possibly imagine the range of institutional forms and social arrangements that would come into being through the process of revolution - this is one of the main points behind his critique of the utopian socialists and is why he restricted his vision of the communist society primarily to critical analyses of capitalism.

Learn some Marx, then come back. Unless you'd like to tell us how the base areas in India are a communist society in miniature, which you keep claiming but have never proved.

[Kotze]

You're asking people to specify the exact ways in which societies should allow for workers' control and the ways those societies should defend themselves against external aggression when Marx always argued strongly against the idea that it is possible or valuable to draw up accurate blueprints of what future societies will look like, because he believed that the creation of those societies was immanent in the historical process and that alienated individuals living under capitalism could not possibly imagine the range of institutional forms and social arrangements that would come into being through the process of revolution - this is one of the main points behind his critique of the utopian socialists

True, but in his decision to eschew making blueprints (note the plural) he was more utopian than the utopians, not less.

[penguinfoot]

True, but in his decision to eschew making blueprints (note the plural) he was more utopian than the utopians, not less.

No, he wasn't, because the term utopian as it is used by Marx, in the sense of the definition that can best express what is significant about the various thinkers and theorists that he labels utopian in his various works, means those thinkers who believe that the project of providing detailed descriptions of the future society is a valuable endeavor, and that the provision of these descriptions will in some respects make it easier for mankind to achieve the societies they are intended to capture. From that definition it should be clear that, for Marx at least, it would be absurdly contradictory to describe him as utopian for not providing blueprints of the future society, because providing blueprints is the essence of what utopianism is. In terms of scholarly interpretation of Marx's definition and critique of utopianism I'm following Leopold here, who, as you might know, actually argues that one of the main problems with Marx's account of the utopian socialists is that his belief in historical immanency relies on the unvoiced assumption that there is a developmental plan to the historical process and that an assumption of this kind can be considered part of a Hegelian account in which history is considered to be the unfolding or increasing self-realization of some entity but is not easily reconcilable with Marx's efforts to establish a materialist account of history.