Dem.
In any real situation, such a situation of "total" workers control would never be achieved. Either the bourgeoisie would step in at a far earlier point, or if the workers' organisations were in fact so strong that they were capable of imposing their will on the situation in this way, the proletariat would have seized power before this stage was reached. Nevertheless examination of the situation of workers control in a 'pure' and complete sense indicates completely why any attempt at workers control will inevitably be crushed if the state machine remains in the hands of the capitalists.
Against isolated groups of workers, or indeed against whole trade unions, the state always has infinitely greater force and resources at its disposal than do the workers. The whole force of the police, the organisation made possible through the government departments, the control of the press and television, the immense financial resources, and in the lasi resort the army, means that an all out contest between even large groups of workers and the state will always be won by the state. The struggle for workers' control is therefore only possible if it is seen as part of a struggle for a workers' government which can challenge the power of the state on a nation wide basis. The failure to understand this has led in the past to many tragic defeats for the working class. For example in Spain in 1936, and Bolivia after the seizure of factories in 1953. acute class struggle Nevertheless it is possible to put forward demands relating to workers control which can even be partially achieved in situations of acute class struggle. In particular in Italy this has been carried out to a high degree. For example, at the tyre firm of Pirelli complete regulation over the speed of work was established. Every time the management tried to speed up the production line, the workers just slowed it down again. However whether such types of struggle are revolutionary or reformist depends not on what in particular is achieved, but whether the struggle is presented as being one which is an end in itself, or whether it is presented as merely the maximum that can be wrested from capitalism given the existing relation of forces. In practice, as we have seen, this means whether the struggle is presented as one against the management, or one against the effects of the production relations of capitalist society.
Where this distinction becomes abolustely crucial is in dealing with the question of workers management (i.e. a transition from the workers merely regulating the effects of capitalist production to workers actually initiating decisions). As we have noted, socialists are completely opposed to workers management under capitalism. However, in periods of acute class struggle, and particularly in revolutionary and pre-revolutionary situations, the workers will in fact inevitably be forced to undertake functions of management if the crises last for any period of time. This was clearly visible in the May 1968 events in France.
At the Rhone-Poulenc factory at Vitry, the strikers established direct relations of exchange with the farmers and sought to extend this to other firms. Similar events occurred in Paris where the CLEOP (student worker-peasant liaison committee) organised food convoys supplied by agricultural cooperatives and distributed the food directly to the factories. At Citroen factories in Paris lorries were requisitioned for the purpose of supplying strikers. At Brest workers produced walkie-talkie radios for the strikers instead of their normal products. The question of course then arises as to at what point it is legitimate to be in favour of the workers actually initiating changes in production. The answer is that this is correct only when the social relations of capitalist production have in practice been destroyed. In general this can only be achieved after the destruction of the bourgeois state machine, although in certain circumstances, as we noted, it can occur before this has happened. As however capitalism is an economic system based on generalised commodity relations, this means the production relations of that society are not confined to those 'within the individual factory, and even less are reducible to the authority relations within the individual units of production, but include the relations between the individual units of production as well.
It is clear therefore that if we want to talk about workers' control or management, in its true sense, i.e. as referring to the relations of production and not to the authority relations, this can only be done in the context of organisations which span the various units of production and which unite together representatives of many factories. There are two classical forms of this-the workers government, and Soviets. The idea of a workers government is extremely simple. It is simply a government that gives control of industry to the working class. Because a government obviously exists for an entire state, the question of workers'control in its real sense of a regulation existing between as well as within factories is at once solved by the existence of such a government. The idea of Soviets also allows the question to be solved but so to speak 'from the base' instead of from the top.
soviets The very word Soviet is of course associated with the Russian revolution and therefore has come to sound exceedingly romantic and mysterious, However its basic idea is very simple. A Soviet is simply an organisation which draws together workers from many different factories, housing estates, etc. in an area. It is therefore different from a factory committee in that a factory committee is confined to one place of production only. In fact organisations very much like Soviets spring up in any really big strike led by the rank and file, and have existed even in Britain. For example in the 1911 railway strike, the leaders of the unions concerned refused to support the men. Immediately in Liverpool a Joint Strike Committee was established. This virtually took over the entire organisation of the city, and not even essential services were carried out without the authorisation of the Committee.
The development of such organisations can be seen clearly in the May 1968 events in France. Thus at Nantes the entire town was quite clearly in the hands of the strike committee. Drivers patrolled all roads leading into the town and entry was controlled by the workers organisations. Only food lorries and vehicles sanctioned by the Central Strike Committee organising workers from many factories were allowed through. Attempts by police to break up this system were smashed. Food supplies were organised into the city, and the strike committee even issued its own currency. And although Nantes was one of the high points of workers' control/management in 1968 similar types of situations developed in many other places.
present perspectives At the present time, unfortunately. capitalist production relations are still very much with us. The way in which the question of workers' control comes up at present is in terms of individual factories which are extremely militant and well organised, and in the formation of policy for left factions inside unions. Under these circumstances it must be brought out clearly that under the capitalist system, the workers must take no responsibility whatsoever for the running of firms or factories. The best way in which this essential point can be brought out in practice is by formulating the demands for the protection of the workers' interests in the form of vetos, in other words the right to say no to any management decisions which harm the interests of the workers, without at the same time the working class taking any actual responsibility for the running of the factory or company. The workers of FIAT in Italy for example, put forward these ideas in the form of five demands: 1. The right of veto over movements of workers within the plant. 2. All questions of shift working and overtime to be subject to veto by the elected representatives of the workers until decided upon by a mass meeting of 3. All questions of bonuses and work categories to be subject to veto by the elected representatives of the workers until decided upon by a mass meeting of workers. 4. Workers' essemblies to have complete control with regard to all questions affecting the danger of working. This to include not merely safety regulations, the payment of danger money, etc. but also the speed of work. 5. All questions referring to the introduction of new plant to be subject to veto until brought before a mass meeting. This meeting then to decide whether the introduction of the new equipment is in the interests of the workers or not, and if they decide it is not, to have the right to veto its introduction.
These comprise a really excellent series of demands. Because they are put in terms of vetos, they do not involve the workers taking the slightest responsibility for the running of the plant, yet at the same time they would defend the interests of the working class. There are also of course other demands of the same form which would be added to the list drawn up by the FIAT workers. For example: The right to veto job loss and the right for workers to veto the contents of the capitalist press are equally important demands, but the demands raised at FIAT are an excellent starting point.
workers vetos Demands for workers vetos can of course be achieved only in a situation where the relation of forces in society is decisively favourable to the working class; in short, where the employers fear the consequences of not granting these demands to the workers even more than they do the consequences, financial and political, of granting them, or at least allowing them to be carried out. This relation of forces can of course exist in exceptional circumstances even within an individual factory. Obviously as revolutionaries gain a bigger base in the working class and as the crisis of capitalism deepens, there are going to be factories or even industries where the majority of workers will put forward demands for workers' control. If these factories are of key importance and the workers are exceptionally well organised, then the management may even be forced to grant some of these demands. In this situation for a period of time, normally of course very short, the workers would have achieved some of these demands, but would still be working under capitalism. In these circumstances these demands would be entirely appropriate as they would make clear that the workers were taking no responsibility whatsoever for the running of firms within capitalism. In general however these types of demands can only be achieved in a revolutionary or near revolutionary situation. At present they form the basis of slogans of left factions within unions, or of individual unions. It is these types of demands at the present time that should form the basis for a campaign for workers' control.
-J. Marshall
----- pull-quotes -----
tins, however, most schemes for workers control are from a confusion of the role of management with the