How would Worker's Self Managament work in Socialism?

[Jacob Cliff]

We all know socialism can only exist with worker control of their industries, but what exactly do they decide? Socialism also is about providing to all via a common plan - economic planning - through centralized or decentralized methods. So how does economic planning work with workplace democracy? Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions? What do they do, exactly?

Because Worker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

[mojo.rhythm]

You would probably have democratic consumer councils who get together at regular intervals (let's say, quarterly or half-yearly) and decide what stuff they want for that next quarter or year. These proposals are forwarded to democratic producer's councils that then begin planning out what raw materials they need, what productive resources they need to mobilize, etc. and then putting plans into action. Some plans will be of a small region-wide basis, and other economic plans may go up to even an almost world-wide level. It all depends on the scarcity of the required resources, opportunity costs, external effects, and so on.

[Blake's Baby]

... Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions? What do they do, exactly?...

I would think so.

Production - how what's made is made - in the hands of the workers, at the point of production. This light engineering works here is making bicycles, it makes 1000 a month because the workers there have decided that's a reasonable level of production. There are 100 people at the factory and in 3 days they've made enough bikes for all the workers.

But how do the workers know how many more they need to make? The workers' delegates also go to the district soviet, were other workers' delegates (who don't work a bicycle factories) request bikes. The workers know that in coming months they'll need 2000 more bikes at least for everyone in the district who needs a bike.

If after that there's no more demand for bikes then perhaps they could re-tool the factory to make something there is a demand for, or, if the demand for bikes keeps up, they keep making bikes.

[Devrim]

With lots of lite hedgehogs running around.

Devrim

[ckaihatsu]

We all know socialism can only exist with worker control of their industries, but what exactly do they decide? Socialism also is about providing to all via a common plan - economic planning - through centralized or decentralized methods. So how does economic planning work with workplace democracy? Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions? What do they do, exactly?

Because Worker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

This is a good point, and I've found that conventional / orthodox theory tends to be lacking on the particulars of how organic mass demand could precipitate liberated labor and its efforts at mass production.

If we approach the question using the vantage point of *scale* it might be valid to say that each worker would ultimately be individually self-determining in terms of their own efforts, and would always have recourse to an individualistic 'veto power' over any kind of labor-participation. In this way we could be sure that the people we're talking about are truly 'free' and 'liberated', and not subject to any kind of coercion, as for their labor-power.

From there, liberated labor *would* have to pre-plan all production, otherwise the market mechanism would spontaneously reappear (since nature abhors a vacuum). Economic decision-making, as for mass production, *would* have to be democratic, otherwise it *wouldn't* be, and so would probably tend towards favoritism and elitism of some sort.

I happen to *object*, though, to any kind of delegated / representative decision-making since it's just *superfluous* in this day and age of digitally-based instantaneous communications.

If people have the adequate time and information to stay up-to-date on the (political) issues of the day, whatever they may be, so as to make good, well-informed decisions regarding the selection or dismissal of their political representatives, then they obviously have enough time and information to simply *forward* their opinions and decisions regarding policy and problem-solving, into an entirely *collective* process.

These days our communications technology greatly facilitates such a bottom-up collective decision-making process, *without* having to depend on any (necessarily substitutionist) political representatives of *any* kind.

The crux of the issue that remains, then, is how would organic mass demand be ascertained, exactly, and how much of an impetus would it be on liberated labor, exactly, since the workers would be self-determining over their own labor, and might not always *want* to be responsive to what people are calling-for in terms of production.

Planning -- on both the 'demand' side and on the 'production' side -- should always seek to *generalize*, so as to cover more area with less effort, but much is conventionally left unaddressed in terms of how mass-population dynamics might be handled equitably, so that there are no gray areas or lack of policy to cover new situations.

(For example, what if there's suddenly a large demand from a major region of the globe for warm furs, for a turn of winter weather that leaves many people abnormally cold in their daily out-and-about activities -- ? Would the available and willing liberated laborers of the world automatically shift their efforts to fulfill this call, or would there be some nuance involved, and how might it be handled for such a situation -- ?) (Etc.)

[tuwix]

We all know socialism can only exist with worker control of their industries, but what exactly do they decide? Socialism also is about providing to all via a common plan - economic planning - through centralized or decentralized methods. So how does economic planning work with workplace democracy? Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions? What do they do, exactly?

Because Worker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

You have touched the main problem of Marxism that is: What is more important? Power of workers over a means of production or power of state? Anarchists have solved this problem, but they are not Marxist.

But the problem could be solved by subsidies. Workers could govern their workplaces by voting very decision, electing a council or a leader to do so, but any authority could offer subsidies to those are willing to accomplish plans.

Of course, we,re discussing a first phase, because in higher phase of socialism/communism all such consideration are irrelevant.

[Righteous Prophet]

First, I think markets can be used on a low-level scale ( for smaller workplaces, delis, etc.) In large production settings, and in sectors that critical for survival ( agriculture, construction, clothing) there needs to be councils as mentioned above. General targets, that are decided democratically) must be met with the specifics such as product design left to the individual workplaces (creativity of the masses). In addition, under capitalism, market studies effectively gauges the needs of the ultra-rich. If we can have councils that use similar analysis of the total population's desires, most of an individual's needs are met. And let's face it: under capitalism most goods are not really "desired", corporate advertising cultivates that desire through a constant barrage of tv ads. J.K. Galbraith even spoke about this.

[Creative Destruction]

You have touched the main problem of Marxism that is: What is more important? Power of workers over a means of production or power of state?

this would be a good article for you to read: http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative...the-state.html

[ckaihatsu]

You have touched the main problem of Marxism that is: What is more important? Power of workers over a means of production or power of state? Anarchists have solved this problem, but they are not Marxist.

But the problem could be solved by subsidies. Workers could govern their workplaces by voting very decision, electing a council or a leader to do so, but any authority could offer subsidies to those are willing to accomplish plans.

'Subsidies' implies a state-regulated, currency- / *market*-type economy, since the subsidies are, by definition, seen as a special exception to the regular functioning and flowing of *currency* transactions.

And we already know that

[W]orker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

I mean to point out that it sounds like there would be a *market*-type economy -- necessarily without planning, by definition -- if the 'subsidies' were not a part of the system.

[A]ny authority could offer subsidies to those are willing to accomplish plans.

So 'subsidies' means some kind of particular compensation for labor, as decided by an authority of some type (presumably based on workplace democracy).

Would this compensation be decided-on in relation to the labor contributed, or would it be decided-on in relation to the 'value' / worth of the compensation-value itself, meaning the range of goods and services that could be obtained with it -- ?

- If the subsidies are in relation to the *labor inputs*, then that effectively *commodifies* labor, since workers will be looking to see the relative *levels* of compensation given for whatever work inputs, over time. People will know what kinds of work are rewarded more than others and that will be a labor *market* of sorts.

- If the subsidies are in relation to the *compensation value* (goods and services exchangeable for it), then that's effectively *market socialism* since the subsidies now function as cash and will circulate at-will, independently of any and all pre-planning.

Of course, we,re discussing a first phase, because in higher phase of socialism/communism all such consideration are irrelevant.

Feel free to distinguish here, and to explain how a 'higher phase' economics might function....

[cyu]

Worker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

I wouldn't say it's the "planning" part that makes something left or right-wing. Even large corporations run by capitalists plan what they will produce.

If property claims have been abolished, and hungry people are always encouraged to take any food they see, then it would be in everyone's interest to make sure there's always enough to go around for everyone.

[ckaihatsu]

I wouldn't say it's the "planning" part that makes something left or right-wing. Even large corporations run by capitalists plan what they will produce.

This is specious reasoning, though -- sure, what you're saying is *empirically* correct, but the planning of a *post*-capitalist society would be altogether different from that which we see today within (capitalist) corporations.

Liberals -- politically to the right of us -- even call for more government *regulation*, which is *political* planning of a sort, while we on the *revolutionary* left call for a worker-based planning over *production itself*, with no intermediaries.

If property claims have been abolished, and hungry people are always encouraged to take any food they see, then it would be in everyone's interest to make sure there's always enough to go around for everyone.

Yup.

[tuwix]

'Subsidies' implies a state-regulated, currency- / *market*-type economy, since the subsidies are, by definition, seen as a special exception to the regular functioning and flowing of *currency* transactions.

When you want to have everything planned, then you receive the SU economy. And it will collapse sooner or later. You have found a way to sure failure. And certainly you will have a huge black market as the SU had...

And I cannot remember that Marx ever recommended that everything has to be planned. He advocated centralization only of some sectors of economy as far as I know...

[ckaihatsu]

When you want to have everything planned, then you receive the SU economy. And it will collapse sooner or later. You have found a way to sure failure. And certainly you will have a huge black market as the SU had...

When you want to have everything planned it means you realize that the current system is outdated and has been for decades, at very least. It means that we shouldn't have to depend on the whims of capital owners and on the happenstances of the anarchic market mechanism, to have a reliably functioning economics, and for mass productivity that matches real demand.

When everything is pre-planned it's called a 'gift economy', because only that which is *wanted* is actually produced, and *in advance*, so there's no speculation and no waste.

Thanks for projecting your anxieties, though -- it always helps for good practice over here.

And I cannot remember that Marx ever recommended that everything has to be planned. He advocated centralization only of some sectors of economy as far as I know...

I certainly don't look to your political counsel and I won't be relying on your recollection of scholarly references, either.

'Centralization' simply means 'common agreement for production over large areas of geography, with a single point of administration for it'.

[tuwix]

^^With no doubts I find better a 'anarchic market mechanism' than the Soviet Union economy that you try to revoke. I would like to remind that the SU economy have collapsed. Your one would collapse too...

And it has nothing to do with any 'anxieties'. I just was living in the economy were everything was tried to be planned and I know how does it look like.

So if you are unable to find any words of Marx advocating a planning of everything in the first phase, then I find your will to plan everything as just irrational and almost religious hatred to a word 'market'.

[ckaihatsu]

^^With no doubts I find better a 'anarchic market mechanism' than the Soviet Union economy that you try to revoke. I would like to remind that the SU economy have collapsed. Your one would collapse too...

"Mine" -- ?? Like I'm the first and only socialist who ever existed -- !

You seem to think that past events are the only possibility for the future. (Go figure.) And, based on this conception, you'd rather sit down and give in to the status quo than even *discuss* possibilities for a better world.

And it has nothing to do with any 'anxieties'. I just was living in the economy were everything was tried to be planned and I know how does it look like.

Well I'm sorry for any adverse personal experiences you may have had, but that doesn't invalidate the aspirations of many *today* to transcend the barbarities of capitalism.

So if you are unable to find any words of Marx advocating a planning of everything in the first phase, then I find your will to plan everything as just irrational and almost religious hatred to a word 'market'.

So, according to your brain, if I can't find a precedent in Marx's writings for what I'm advocating then that automatically makes my politics "irrational" and "[hateful]". Again, I won't even *try* to decipher the process you use to reach your conclusions.

[tuwix]

Well I'm sorry for any adverse personal experiences you may have had, but that doesn't invalidate the aspirations of many *today* to transcend the barbarities of capitalism.

Aspirations to plan everything are not socialist but Stalinist or at least Leninist (they both failed). And they will result the same effect. To offer something like that is just to offer a barbarities of the SU economy. You want to replace some barbarities with others. I do not.

[Blake's Baby]

In order for 'Leninism' (whatever that might be) to 'fail' it must be attempting to do something.

Can you explain what you think 'Leninism' was supposed to accomplish, and then explain what planning has to do with what it was attempting to do?

[Gepetto]

Aspirations to plan everything are not socialist but Stalinist or at least Leninist (they both failed). And they will result the same effect. To offer something like that is just to offer a barbarities of the SU economy. You want to replace some barbarities with others. I do not.

Lol.

Eastern bloc economies were hardly planned. Government just set targets that managers had to meet and that was all.

Also, what's with Polish anarchists and crypto-Proudhonism and closeted anti-communism?

[cyu]

In order for 'Leninism' (whatever that might be) to 'fail' it must be attempting to do something.

That's a great point - although I apologize the rest of this isn't really on-topic. Pro-capitalists often claim that communism "failed" while capitalism "succeeded" - it seems part of the parameters for "success" in capitalism just means the ruling class stays rich and the poor starve - in other words, they've incorporated failure into their definition of success.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, to my mind it wasn't 'communism' that failed because the Soviet Union was capitalist. It was an inefficient form of capitalism that failed (or rather, became a little more 'efficient').

But I'm not really concerned about productivity and the social wage here. It's more to do with what the point of 'Leninism' is supposed to be trying to achieve. A higher standard of living for Russian workers than they had in 1880? A fridge in every home by 1970? World revolution and the overthrow of capitalism by 1925? What, exactly?