Militarization of Labor - Yes or No?

[D-A-C]

Hey everyone.

I am just wondering where everyone stands on Trotsky's idea of the militarization of labor?

For those who are unaware of this idea, it can be found in Chapter 8 of Trotsky's work Terrorism and Communism which is readily available online (I can't post links yet).

Basically I like the idea.

I was watching a great youtube video series by Richard Wolff giving a guide to Marxian Economics and he was describing the way in which labour is measured and assigned under Capitalism in video two of the series I think.

It seems to me that with the centralization that must inevitably occur under a Socialist Planned Economy that it is only natural that workers should be assigned jobs and areas or Fronts to work on when specific needs arise.

The militarization of labor just seems to be to be a logic step for any socialist centrally planned economy.


What are your opinions of the idea?

[DDR]

What are your opinions of the idea?

That it is bloody awful.

[D-A-C]

That it is bloody awful.

Well I'm convinced.

Let it hearby be said that Trotsky forever being stricken from Party records and his name only be uttered when followed by a series of boo's and hisses.

Its great when Left-Wing debate produces concrete results.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think you've got to be very clear by what is meant by 'militarisation' of labour. Marx called for an 'army' of labour and I agree that if we organise effectively and maintain revolutionary discipline then we can achieve great things. What I don't want this to mean is wearing grey uniforms and being directed how high to jump by some bureaucrat. The army of labour should seek to destroy the relations of capitalism and create the relations of socialism, not become a more effective capitalism.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Here is the relevant chapter:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...rcomm/ch08.htm

Note the date.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I admit that I haven't read the chapter in Trotsky's book concerning militarizing work and workers, and I should add that I am a great admirer of Trotsky, but, as a [retired] worker and the son of two working-class parents, I have to say that I agree with the first poster, who described "militarization of labor," (i.e., of workers), as a dreadful notion. "Militarization of labor" is such a bad idea and so appalling, that one is almost tempted to turn to – was it Hal Draper? – the brief work on Two Souls of Socialism.

Again, I haven't watched any of Prof. Wolff's videos, but rhetoric like "the centralization that must inevitably occur under a Socialist Planned Economy" is certainly gonna turn off most working people that I have met in my life. We have massive centralization of the power over workers now, under capitalism, the rule of the bosses and owners, and we're gonna get more centralization of power over working people under "socialism" ? What an absolute crock! How then would "socialism" be progressive? How would that kind of "socialism" be an improvement over capitalism, in which workers get pushed around already? Sign me up for the WSA, now, please!

In 1920, I think it was, Lenin opposed Trotsky on this point, and a good thing, too. We really have to make a distinction between a society run by workers, which is Lenin's definition of socialism, and a dictatorship over the working class, by well-intentioned, aspiring bureaucrats, and every class-conscious worker has to oppose the latter, in his own interests. We, the vast majority, should run things, not a bureaucracy fond of militarizing the lives of those who create the wealth society needs.

[G4b3n]

Today, it is simply not a realistic notion. I would also argue that it would degenerate socialist culture in general and alienate workers from their sense of humanity, a job that capitalism already does quite well. Take a look at Spain in 1936, the worker's didn't rise up with labor armies, they simply seized the means of production and told the bourgeoisie "listen, things are going to change, love it or hate it".

[Popular Front of Judea]

The "centralization" comes from the first poster. (And possibly Althusser who was quite the Stalinist.) I do believe you'll like Wolfe's stuff. Here he is on the Detroit bankruptcy: http://rdwolff.com/content/detroits-...talist-failure

I am less eager to let Lenin off the hook. Although Trotsky's labor armies was a step too far, Lenin was quite the fan of Taylorization. See: speed-up

Hal Draper it was indeed. His work remains a must read.

I admit that I haven't read the chapter in Trotsky's book concerning militarizing work and workers, and I should add that I am a great admirer of Trotsky, but, as a [retired] worker and the son of two working-class parents, I have to say that I agree with the first poster, who described "militarization of labor," (i.e., of workers), as a dreadful notion. "Militarization of labor" is such a bad idea and so appalling, that one is almost tempted to turn to – was it Hal Draper? – the brief work on Two Souls of Socialism.

Again, I haven't watched any of Prof. Wolff's videos, but rhetoric like "the centralization that must inevitably occur under a Socialist Planned Economy" is certainly gonna turn off most working people that I have met in my life. We have massive centralization of the power over workers now, under capitalism, the rule of the bosses and owners, and we're gonna get more centralization of power over working people under "socialism" ? What an absolute crock! How then would "socialism" be progressive? How would that kind of "socialism" be an improvement over capitalism, in which workers get pushed around already? Sign me up for the WSA, now, please!

In 1920, I think it was, Lenin opposed Trotsky on this point, and a good thing, too. We really have to make a distinction between a society run by workers, which is Lenin's definition of socialism, and a dictatorship over the working class, by well-intentioned, aspiring bureaucrats, and every class-conscious worker has to oppose the latter, in his own interests. We, the vast majority, should run things, not a bureaucracy fond of militarizing the lives of those who create the wealth society needs.

[DDR]

Today, it is simply not a realistic notion. I would also argue that it would degenerate socialist culture in general and alienate workers from their sense of humanity, a job that capitalism already does quite well. Take a look at Spain in 1936, the worker's didn't rise up with labor armies, they simply seized the means of production and told the bourgeoisie "listen, things are going to change, love it or hate it".

And in these days it also was an unrealistic notion, only if you want half of the country watching over the other half (you know, what everybody has accoused to the "stalinist")

Also, in spain in the 1936, the workers didn't seize the means of production except for the agrarian colectivizations in Aragon by the CNT-FAI. The unions (UGT & CNT) and left wings parties (PSOE, PCE and FAI) gave weapons to their militants in the first days of the coup, making the coup unseccesful in Madrid and Barna.

[Comrade Jacob]

Well, I am no Trot.

[subcp]

That isn't what Marx meant by 'reserve army of labor'.

Should we all invest our pensions in the company that makes factory suicide nets to prepare for this "Socialist Planned Economy"?

Why would a communist support the worst aspects of capitalism, their magnification, and generalization across the working-class? Why isn't the content of proletarian revolution communism? Is there some massive shortage of productive capacity that would require such a tyrannical organization of social life?

[D-A-C]

Hi, with regard to the debate about the Militarization of Labor, could I ask that comrades view a video on youtube by David Harvey entiteld The End of Capitalism? - David Harvey (Penn Humanities Forum) and specifically the debate which arises at about the 58.30 mark of the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYzKsiev43Q


To summarise:

Harvey talks about how an anti-capitalist economic system has to be one based on worker self management, and that Marx talks about having associated labourers in charge of their own productive forces.

But he then asks, under such a system, how do you control and co-ordinate the many seperate worker entities/bodies, and ensure that when, for example, a car manufacturer needs a certain amount of steel or rubber in a certain amount of time, that this process takes place?

Under Capitalism, it is the market that ensures that the steel and rubber arrives at a specific time, and at a specific date.

Harvey goes on to explain how a a certain amount of central planning actually exists in large multi-national corporations like Wal-Mart and that we would be well to study their methods for the distribution and shipping of goods and services. He also goes on to explain that the most successful palnned economy was that of The United States of American in WW2.



My point, seperate from Harvey's, but based on his discussion is that; under an economic system envisaged by Marx that is comrpised of localised associations of workers who directly control their means of production ... isn't the militarization of labour a viable solution as to how we ensure that x amount of steel or y amount of rubber arives at destination z at the correct time.

Isn't the idea of having various labour 'Fronts' inspiring? The increased production of steel, the increased production of cars, the labour shortage in the production of rubber corrected by transfering a labour unit to help solve the problem etc etc.

In other words, isn't the militarization of labour a viable alternative to solving the problems of ensuring that goods are produced and shipped on time and in the correct quantities under an economic system that involves the workers having direct control of their localised means of production?

Doesn't there have to be some part of the system that monitors if we need any more cars at x destination at all, or if a surplus can be transferred to destination y were there is a shortage? Then the workers are mobilised and can fill the gap in the production process?

Another example could be that of doctors. If an area has an adequate supply of medical personal and another area has a severe shortage, shouldn't a number of medical professionals be 'reassigned' to meet the needs of a depleted area?

Isn't part of the problem with Capitalism how it relies on the market to successfully assign and distribute the number of , farmers, bakers, steel workers, doctors, nurses, teachers etc to meet the demands of a given area? Isn't another problem the wastage under capitalism? How products are made to have short lifespans, how food is dumped in mass quantities etc.

In other words, doesn't a centrally planned economy, even one which allows for workers to directly own and control their local means of production, require some form of the militariation of labour to ensure that orders are carried successfully and in a timely fashion? That there is minimal wastage, that there aren't too many farmers and not enough doctors etc.

There is no 'repression' involved as far as I can see. The mobilization of the Pittsburgh Steel Workers to meet the needs of the Munich Car Factory's demands isn't repressive, it is a necessary step to ensure the continual production process from both places. Then once Munich has fulfilled it quota the Steel Workers can be reassigned elsewhere. Then in times of low demand they can work at reduced hours or to stockpile supplies for a later date, at no penalty or worry about a depletion to the value of their 'goods' or that they will be fired. They can simply be resassigned to other forms of employment if what they were originally working on is no longer needed.


Anyway, as always, I'm trying to debate the issue, so if anyone is somehow offended by my position I apologise. I'm just trying to sort out my own views on various subjects, so in fact, I welcome opposing ideas, and also would like to hear from those who would support the type of idea I'm putting forward.

Thanks.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Cannot believe so many of you subscribe to the ideas of a supposed Socialist who said shit like the following:

The very principle of compulsory labor service is for the Communist quite unquestionable. “He who works not, neither shall he eat.” And as all must eat, all are obliged to work. Compulsory labor service is sketched in our Constitution and in our Labor Code. But hitherto it has always remained a mere principle. Its application has always had an accidental, impartial, episodic character. Only now, when along the whole line we have reached the question of the economic re-birth of the country, have problems of compulsory labor service arisen before us in the most concrete way possible. The only solution of economic difficulties that is correct from the point of view both of principle and of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labor power – an almost inexhaustible reservoir – and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilization, and utilization.