The role of Workers’ Councils in Socialist Revolution (Birmingham – 2.00pm)
- This topic has 33 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: The role of Workers' Councils in Socialist Revolution (Birmingham – 2.00pm).
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!More on this meeting here including what the introductory speakers argued:http://www.freecommunism.org/introductory-texts-from-the-meeting-the-role-of-workers-councils-in-socialist-revolution/The discussion was also recorded and will be available later.
An interesting read. “Workers began by re-creating councils and these organisations played a key role in driving the revolution forward a 2nd time…During middle of 1917 the Mensheviks and social revolutionaries gained control of the councils and turned them into permanent committees – something which weakened the revolutionary movement from within…” i am not so sure about the historic accuracy of these statements. My readings seem to lead to the conclusion that the political parties set the 1917 soviets up. And goes against Martov's position that they were impromptu organs of democracy. Perhaps we should clarify the difference between the factory committees and the soviets , distinct separate developments and it was the Bolsheviks who endeavoured to integrate these into the nationalised/one man management/trade union structure and remove their independence. His point is moot concerning the reasons why the capitalist class require universal suffrage…in a struggle for political power, there is only a ertain number of capitalist votes and requires the additional strength of the working class, particularly if a rising capitalist class is still struggling against feudalistic relics (in Asia, landlordism) It is a necessary evil that has to be accepted for their own healthy development like bad tasting medicine.The accusation that the SPGB ignores economic struggles is an old one and i would like some empirical evidence for this rather than the customary allegation of it. Certainly our approach to economic struggles is not the same as other groups but no way can it be described as rejection of it. In my view the author has it the wrong way around. Consciousness isn't the creation of the party and we don't say that but rather the party is the creation of the consciousness and sadly we still await the growth (or even arrival) of a mass workers socialist party. I stopped believing the SPGB was it quite a few years ago and i don't think many members believe we are going to be the decisive vehicle to socialist society. We would i think fully endorse his view that :"Economic and political strikes, mass protests and violence* confrontations can be and are part of that experience that raises working class consciousness and make its aware of its capacity to make a socialist revolution. This consciousness emerges because of its whole experience not because political minorities have persuasive skills." And perhaps add others such as environmentalism*sometimes the effect on consciousness is the rejection of violence (and militarisation) of protests as a meanshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-brazil-protests-idUSBRE95K0JU20130621As i said an interesting debate that we should build upon and perhaps have a series of, concentrating on the issues that we are either misunderstood upon or not fully appreciated for its value.
The recording of this meeting is now on the internet here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NH97bFQPz7QWhat was a bit disappointing was that the advocates of "workers' councils" harked back to Russia in 1905 and 1917, which meant that the first part of the meeting was spent discussing this rather than the situation of workers today. In the second half they did emerge from their time warp a bit and recognise that, unlike in St Petersburg in those days, most workers today no longer work in huge factories and industrial complexes. They coped with this by adding "neighbourhood councils" to the original factory-based "workers councils", to take account both of those workers without a job (whether unemployed or retired, etc) and of those working in jobs or workplaces which would have no place in socialism (for the so-called financial services sector). This concession to modern reality rather undermines the original idea of workers councils as work-based workers councils deriving their economic and political clout from the fact that they controlled actual production.The question of how socialist class consconsciousness arose also came up. At one point one of them came close to saying that workers had no need to hear or consider arguments for socialism as this would spontaneously arise from their experience of struggle at work. He later backtracked from this when it was asked why then did they publish a journal and pamphlets and hold meetings and conceded that an organisation putting over the case for socialism was necessary to hasten the growth of socialist (they call it communist) class consciousness.They still insisted, though, that the revolution would start off without explicit majority support for socialism but with workers merely discontented with capitalism and that this would develop in the course of the struggle. This of course is the real basis of their opposition to using the ballot box in the course of their conception of the socialist revolution: they might not win the election. They would in fact vehemently oppose holding an election because of this and is why the ICC (who were not present but posted a comment on libcom accusing us of being counter-revolutionaries for being likely to support one). But staging an anti-capitalist revolution without majority support could lead to a position where the workers councils would end up administering production for the market and the wages system (as the CWO but perhaps not some of the others present openly acknowledge).I don't think that we (there were 6 of us out of a total attendance of 16) convinced them that elections and parliament could and should play a role in the socialist revolution, but we may have convinced them that we are not the pure-and-simple "parliamentary socialists" of their caraciture and that we have always held that workers need to organise both politically and economically to establish socialism.
As noted above there's a debate on LibCom about this, and also one on the ICC Forum -http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/midlands-discussion-forum-workers-councils-or-parliament-27012014http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/theft/9439/midlands-discussion-forum-meeting-15th-feb-2014
Interesting — and revealing –thread on the ICC's forum. Here's their Alf virtually admitting that they are opposed to elections in the course of the socialist revolution as they know they wouldn't win them:
Quote:there is a total opposition between working in parliament and working in the autonomous organs created by the class struggle, and this opposition will reach its zenith during a revolutionary situation when the choice will be starkly posed between keeping the bourgeois state standing, and demolishing it. The last ideological prop of the political power of the ruling class will be 'the democratic vote of all citizens' as opposed to the horrible threat of a bloodthirsty class dictatorship.Why oppose participating in an election, or even holding in it, if you think you are going to win? After all, if you do win, then you can claim that socialism represents "the democratic will of the people", so depriving the pro-capitalists of the "last ideological prop" of being able to claim that they do. That the ICC opposes such an election so vehemently confirms that they stand for a revolution in which only a minority are socialists, a recipe for disaster and from which socialism could not be the outcome.Notable is LBird's valiant efforts to put over a case similar to ours making the simple point that there is in fact no "total opposition" between participating in elections and "working in the autonomous organs created by the class struggle". But I don't think he's going to be able to convince the dogmatic anti-parliamentarists there to abandon their dogma and take a more reasonable approach.
ALB wrote:The question of how socialist class consconsciousness arose also came up. At one point one of them came close to saying that workers had no need to hear or consider arguments for socialism as this would spontaneously arise from their experience of struggle at work. He later backtracked from this when it was asked why then did they publish a journal and pamphlets and hold meetings and conceded that an organisation putting over the case for socialism was necessary to hasten the growth of socialist (they call it communist) class consciousness.[my bold]After many discussions with both Communists and Anarchists on LibCom and the ICC site, it's become clear to me that this is a central, fundamental, philosophical assumption which opponents both of parliamentary/electoral tactics and any political organisation at all have in common.That is, the belief that 'struggle leads to class consciousness'.I disagree with this, and think that 'struggle' alone (ie. any struggle which doesn't have widespread 'class consciousness' directing at it from the start) will lead down a non-Communist/Socialist road. The result of that struggle will not be Communism.If there is no (or very little) revolutionary consciousness and intent, it will go down bourgeois paths, and retain money and markets. If there is a wider (but still a small minority) consciousness, embodied in a 'party of revolutionaries', it will necessarily have to forego democracy, because democracy applied to a majority non-consciousness will lead to, yes, you've guessed it, money and markets. Thus, the result in this scenario will be undemocratic 'party rule' ('experts' who are 'in the know', both of science and society, an elitist technocracy), and we've seen where that leads during the 20th century.No, we must insist that mere 'struggle' (perhaps for higher wages, lower rents, tax increases for the rich, lead by Militant, etc.) will not lead to Communism. That outcome requires a class conscious proletariat, with a particular end in mind (ie. Communism). Struggle without an 'end' in mind will lead to Bernstein's road. After the 'revolutionary event', slow, evolutionary, reformist change, which will gradually remove money and the market…No, it won't. The revolution in workers' minds has to happen before the revolutionary event. That is, revolution is a long learning process, not just the capturing of political power. The event is the radical break, which ends the process, rather than a mere break in power, which initiates the process of developing consciousness.The market and money must be openly known to be the target of our destruction. While most workers still want money to spend as individuals in markets, they want capitalism, not Communism/Socialism. That aim must be the core of Communist propaganda, and workers must become Communists, because they can see that money and markets must be destroyed.They won't learn that in mere 'struggle', especially if the struggle is for 'higher wages'. Desire for higher wages is not class consciousness.
ALB wrote:Notable is LBird's valiant efforts to put over a case similar to ours making the simple point that there is in fact no "total opposition" between participating in elections and "working in the autonomous organs created by the class struggle". But I don't think he's going to be able to convince the dogmatic anti-parliamentarists there to abandon their dogma and take a more reasonable approach.My 'efforts', though, are directed to getting an informed discussion going, rather than simply 'supporting' the SPGB case. I'm still keen to see a proper exchange, rather than the building and destroying of 'straw men'.This is because I'm yet to be convinced, either way. Perhaps my conception of 'acceptable parliamentary action' isn't the same as the SPGB's official one, and perhaps my understanding of the relationship between 'parliamentary delegates' and 'workers' councils' isn't the same, either.As I say, I think many are in my position, of being unsure of 'just what it is' that both sides are saying…
Pity you weren't at the meeting as the points you make against the view that "(mere) struggle leads to class consciousness" is precisely the point we were trying to make.In fact this was the only point at which the discussion became heated. After somebody accused us of accepting Lenin's view in What Is To Be Done? that left to itself the working class is capable of acquiring only a trade union consciousness and that socialist consciousness had therefore to be brought to them from outside the class struggle by "educators", one of our members retorted that it was them who were being Leninist as they assumed that while they were able to reach a socialist consciousness under capitalism the rest of the working class couldn't. (This exchange can be heard towards the end of the recording).In the end, they seemed to accept that this was not our position but didn't seem too keen on our view that hearing "the case for socialism" from other workers was, besides being forced by material circumstances to struggle, an equally essential "experience" in leading workers to a socialist consciousness. It's a matter of the interaction between the two. Having said this, we don't see ourselves as "creating" socialist consciousness, only hastening its emergence (well, that's our rationale for what we do and don't do).We could have been even more philosophical and made more of the point (oft discussed here) that humans can't experience anything except via the mind. But I did discuss this with one of the visitors on the train back, who was a student of philosophy, who said he'd been tempted to make the same point.
I think this cartoon sums up the position our "Left Communists" friends would find themselves in if ever a revolution was attempted on the lines they envisage:
ALB wrote:After somebody accused us of accepting Lenin's view in What Is To Be Done? that left to itself the working class is capable of acquiring only a trade union consciousness and that socialist consciousness had therefore to be brought to them from outside the class struggle by "educators", one of our members retorted that it was them who were being Leninist as they assumed that while they were able to reach a socialist consciousness under capitalism the rest of the working class couldn't.Yes, I'm always being accused, on the ICC site, of being a "pseudo-Leninist educator" (my phrase, I hasten to add, not theirs, but it sums up the 'charge' well), for arguing that the proletariat has to educate itself. That is, the working class has to consciously choose Communism.The next 'charge' (also levelled at the SPGB) is my wanting 'consciousness by individual accretion' (me again). Well, yeah, 'how else?'. They always mention 'mass consciousness', as if 'the mass' isn't individuals thinking for themselves.To sum up, I do believe that Communist propaganda must emerge from, be circulated around, and accepted by, the individuals who constitute the 'mass' of the working class. I'm a worker, and do a bit (far too little, perhaps) to help this development to take place, both on the internet, in pubs, in meetings, in work and in the bloody street with strangers, sometimes!Lenin was wrong. Communism is now in (sections of) the working class; it doesn't need 'help from outside'. That particular 'task from outside' was done in the 19th century, not least by Marx and Engels. The working class has since had the task itself of developing Communist class consciousness. It hasn't achieved this yet, but it has to do this itself, in the future. It might sometimes be the result of 'mass struggle' (in the sense of consciousness spreading quickly to many individuals), but more often the result of face-to-face debate and discussions between individual workers, until a 'critical mass' is achieved. This won't be 100%, but neither will it be 5% organised in a Leninist-style party. It has to be a mass Communist consciousness, prior to 'the big day'.Their argument of the 'material struggle' is related to their Engelsian conception of Marx's views. We've had some debate here about that, so I won't resurrect it now. Suffice to say, I think views of science and views of politics are interrelated.
ALB wrote:We could have been even more philosophical and made more of the point (oft discussed here) that humans can't experience anything except via the mind. But I did discuss this with one of the visitors on the train back, who was a student of philosophy, who said he'd been tempted to make the same point.Not 'via' the mind (that smacks of the origin being 'material reality', as for Engels and Leninists), but 'from' the mind. Humans creatively interact with 'reality', and build their social knowledge of the real.Humans create their knowledge of nature and society. That is why we can create Communism. Those who think that 'material conditions' will build Communism, are waiting for 'the rocks' to speak to us. That's why they've failed to bother trying to propagandise amongst their fellow workers. They don't need to, because, one fine day, the rocks will speak and workers will hear. Luckily, the Leninists can already hear these whispers (they have that sort of consciousness), and so can assure the rest of the class what is coming.Personally, I'm not surprised that workers haven't been taken in by this nonsense. I'm not anymore. To my shame, I once was, when I first tried to reject capitalism and went searching for 'Communists'. Whilst the first 'Communists' that workers, starting to ask questions, meet are Leninists/Trotskyists/Maoists, then the bourgeoisie have nothing to fear (from the proletariat, anyway; complete and utter collapse of human society, from social and environmental issues, is another fear entirely).
A workers’ movement that fights for economic gains, yes! A socialist party that fight for the emancipation of the working class, even better!
ALB wrote:The recording of this meeting is now on the internet here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NH97bFQPz7QWhat was a bit disappointing was that the advocates of "workers' councils" harked back to Russia in 1905 and 1917, which meant that the first part of the meeting was spent discussing this rather than the situation of workers today. In the second half they did emerge from their time warp a bit and recognise that, unlike in St Petersburg in those days, most workers today no longer work in huge factories and industrial complexes.I suspect you're right on the numbers world wide but it would be interesting to know how many workers work in a workplace over a certain number. If we look at the so-called developing world there are some of the biggest factories that have ever existed. There are more workers in one workplace in China for instance than there ever were in Russia. Also, I think you're a bit dismissive of historical experience. The SPGB certainly take their lessons from history why would not a discussion primarily about councils not look towards their histoical emergence in Russia.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.