ffaken from 'Czechoslovak Life! ~ October 1968/#
Much has been said about the deformation of socialism. It would be more exact to talk about the introduction of a kind of state collectivism, some thing quite different from what Marx and Lenin had in mind. This system put and end to capitalist ownership, it is true, but it replaced capitalist monopolies with a state monopoly in which a central bureaucracy, represented by the Party and state apparatus, appropriated disproportionate authority and dispoes of what was common property in a monopolistic way. This apparatus, with its hierarchy of bosses, pushed into the background ail the features of democratic participation in management by the workers which had been introduced into the new Czechoslovak society by the revolutionary labour movement,
It was not chance that immediately after the war workers' committees were formed in factories and plants not unsimilar to the workers' council in Yugoslavia, but these were abolished by administrative measures in 1948. ‘This was @ step backwards. The subsequent bureaucratic system of management by directive which advertised, and still advertises itself as supersocialist, end dismisses all other methods as revisionism and a return to capitalism, in reality preserved an important aspect of capitalist society: the worker did not feel himself a co-owner of his factory but a manipulated wage-earner facing the all-powerful bosses of the apparatus.
In the political ferment of the last few months our still limping process of economic reform has been relegated to the background and workers' councils are being formed in a spontaneous, hapazard way, although economic reform and the creation of workers' councils occupy an important place in the Action Programme of the Communist Party. Without thorough-going economic reform which would break the monopoly of state. ownership and decentralised decision making regarding the disposition of surplus value, and without the introduction at the same time of worker participation in management, bureaucratic centralism could rapidly revive and put an end to the newly gained freedom. The bearer of liberal bourgeois democracy was the active factory owner, businessman, farmer, while the working man was from the very beginning excluded from the game. The socialist entrepreneur, whether an industrial enterprise or a farm co-operative, must be created by the combination of economic reform plus the introduction of workers' councils.
Although the economic reforms have been agreed upon, opinions on worker participation differ. Three basic objections have been raised:
1. If you put the factories into the hands of the collectively elected
body of workers they will drink up the plant. They will distribute . a e * °* ° a . s * * « * . ® e e a J s es , ° . . ? a ae * ° a * ° ° ° * a * s + This extract was published in the Monthly Digest of the Institute for . Yorkers' Control. December 1968, 91, Gordeni th Strect, Nottingham.
the profits in the form of wages and nothing will be left for invest-
ment. Proponents of this argument: are unable to explain how it is
that the farm co-operative have not "drunk up" their jointly owned
property. Why should experienced industrial workers be worse man-
agers? Especially when the state can use tax policy to influence
the division of income, as it has in Yugoslavia where the taxes on
wage funds are very high.
2. Wetve had enough amateurs in management! The workers! councils will .
mean a continuation and intensification of this dilettantism. Esp-
ecially if they have a say in appointing and firing directors. We
are for independent managers! .
This is a fundamental question. The belief that workers will choose
poorer specialists than did the centralised bureaucracy has no found-
ation, however, because whoever carries the risk is interested in
having a good captain. We have a recent example in the Dukia. mine
in Ostrava where the workers threw out the old director and chose a
real expert instead. Of course, the council must not interfere in
. the manager's work any more than a share-holders! board does. The
function of the council is to decide together with the management,
on the basis of expert advice, what is to be done with the surplus
value, the profits which the enterprise keeps after detucting the
share paid to the state. Indeed it is their future that is involved
And in addition, it is important for socialist managers to receive
their powers from below and not from themselves as a privileged
ruling group.
3. The third objection is not directed at the idea of workers partic-
ipation but simply wants to postpone it so that the workers will *
not have to assume veponsibility for unprofitable enterprises whose
future is doubtful. But when will the economy be completely con-
solidated? On the contrary, it seems to me that if workers, tech-
nicians, and office personnel are to learn to think in economic
terms - and they will never learn under the old system - they must
bear part of the risk involved indoing business.
f have tried to outline breifly the problems around workers participation in management. In my opinion democratic socialism is unthinkable without recognition of this in principle, and anyone who rejects it is unable to transcend the limitations of state capitalism.
{th WORKERS' CONTROL CONFERENCE PLANNED FOR MARCH 1969 5 The Institute for Workers' Control has just announced preliminary plans for the conference to be held at Sheffield, during the last week-end of March 1969. Among the speakers will be Hugh Scanlon, Ernie Roberts, both of A.E.F., and Lawrence Daly, who was recently elected General Secretary of the Mine~ workers. Full details can be obtained from the Institute for Workers' Control, 91, Goldsmith Street, Nottingham.