The fight for workers control

Scan page 11

THE CALi lor workers* control of production is now echoing throughout the ranks of Poland's new labour movement soldamost. Yet tew, it ans, of the leaders of Solidarnose recognise the implications of that demand or its potential power.

Ever since the development of the agitation of the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership ai the beginning of the century, the call for workers' control has represented a political challenge to the existing controllers of industry Context That challenge is equally powerful whether the controllers be capitalists and bankers (as in Britain) or whether control is in the hands of a bureaucratised Stalinist state (as in Poland).

In either case fighting for workers' control is part of the fight to make the working class conscious of its own strength and its ability to take industry into its own hands.

And it is part of the struggle to convince not simply the most militant minority but also far broader layers of workers that their problems cannot be resolved within the existing social and economic framework.

It is for this reason that the siogan of "workers' control" has also been so chronically misused and misrepresented by leaders and tendencies who in practice oppose revolutionary politics, and wish merely to reform the conditions of the working class within the context of capitalism.

Thus in the recent past the British Communist Party for instance has described the various schemes of "worker participation" in industry as forms of "workers' control"-whereas in reality they offer only a structure for more comprehensive collaboration between shop stewards and management against the demands of the workers on the shopfloor.

Argued It is the very essence of workers' control, on the other hand, that the organised power of workers on the shop floor be pitted against, and be made to predominate over the power and authority of management and the owners of industry.

"Workers control through factory councils is conceivable only on the basis of sharp class struggle, not collaboration." (Trotsky).

As Lenin argued in July 1917:

"What we do suggest is workers' control which should develop into complete regulation of production and distribution by the workers, into nationwide organisation, etc... Is commercial secrecy to be left intact? Yes or no? Are the workers to be enabled to exercise control? Yes or no? ... Not regulation of and control over workers by the capitalist versd... (Collected Works.

pD 4i 451.

Elitist

The Bolsheviks used the agitation for workers' control of production as a centrai part of their mobilisation of the working class in the period up to and following the October 1917 revolution. Indeed important sections of industry were only a ponds or 1918 control. Lenin was arguing as late as April 1918 that:

"Until workers control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be. impossible to pass from the first step, from workers' control, to the second step towards socialism, to pass on to workers' regulation of production." {Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp.254-5).

Such arguments shot down completely those who argue that the Bolshevik leaders had a haughty or elitist attitude in the carrying through of the Russian Revolution; everything was done to mobilise, organise and raise the consciousness of the Russian workers to their tasks in the new Soviet workers' state.

Such concerns were of course jettisoned by the bureaucratic leaders who emerged under the leadership of Joseph Stalin to exploit the difficulties of the isolated revolution and consolidate their grip on the State apparatus in the mid 1920s.

But the lessons of these early struggles by the Bolshevik movement live on in the struggle of Trotsky and the Left Opposition, and in the programmatic positions which laid the basis for the Trotskyist Fourth International.

Trotsky in the pamphlet Workers Control of Producton, tor instance, spelled out in crystal-clear terms the dynamics of the struggle for control:

"What regime corresponds to workers' control of production? It is obvious that power is not yet in the hands of the workers. Otherwise we would have not workers' control of production, but the control of production by the workers' state, as an introduction to the regime of state production on the foundation of nationalisation. What we are talking about is workers' control under the capitalist regime, under the power of the bourgeoisie. However, a bourgeoisie that feels it is firmly in the saddle will never tolerate dual power in de. its enterprises. Workers' contro:, . consequently, can be carried out only under conditions• -of an abrupt change in the relationship of forces unfavourable to the bourgeoisie and its state.

Control can be imposed only by force upon the bourgeoisie, by a proletariat on the road to the moment of taking power from them and then also the ownership of the means of produc tion.

Thus the regime of workers' control, a provisional, transitional regime by its very essence, can correspond only to the period of the convulsing of the bourgeois state. The proletarian revolution in the fullest sense of the word.

If the bourgeois is already no longer the master, that is not entirely the master, in his factory, then it follows that he is also not completely the master in his state. This means that the regime of dual power in the factories corresponds to the regime of dual power in the state." (The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany, Pathfinder, p. 78).

Veto

Such conclusions are equally valid in the context of a militant workers' movement struggling against the dictatorial rule of a ruling Stalinist bureaucracy.

The Solidarnosc movement has seen workers on the shopfloor successfully organising not only to compel their management to implement reforms in working conditions, but even to force the removal of managers. This kind of action has in many cases developed still further into successful struggles to oust city police chiefs and state administrators, and to veto price increases proposed by central government.

The rise of "dual power" in Polish workplaces-mushrooming outwards from the strike committees set up in the occupied Gdansk shipyards and Baltic ports last year-has thus flowed directly over into a situation of "dual power" in the state.

Unlike the rulers of capitalist states, however, Poland's bureaucratic rulers depend for their power and privilege not upon ownership of the means of production, but upon their monopoly hold on the levers of control over the nationalised economy.

For them the emergence of workers control brings the immediate threat of the extinction of their position.

Yet the leaders of Solidarnosc, seeking in the main simply to press for a package of social and economic sible.

The struggle for demands to develop systematic workers' control in Poland is therefore lop-sided and incomplete.

As Trotsky pointed out in the context of the fight tor political revolution in the Soviet Union, a key element in this struggle should be the demand for:

"A. revision of the planned economy from top to bottom in the interests of producers and consumers! Factory. committees should be returned the right to control production. A democratically organised consumers' cooperative should control the quality and price of products."

(Transitional Programme)

Such changes in the administration of the economy require for their implementation a fight to open up the books of the State-run industries, of the state banks, and of the financial dealings with imperialist governments, firms and bankers, to inspection by elected representatives of Polish workers.

The information uncovered would reveal the corruption, the incompetence, waste and gross inefficiency of the Stalinist bureaucrats in thirty years of dictatorial rule.

It would demonstrate to those Polish workers who currently lack any understanding of the issues, the extent lo which the Western banks have been allowed by the bureaucrats to cream profits from the Polish economy through a proliferation of loans and debts.

Already in Poland an ad-hoc grouping. calling itself the Siec (Network) has drawn together representatives from 18 key workplaces in order to campaign for self-management. The Siec relies heavily on the involvement of technicians and engineers who are walled off from any hope of promotion or influence in their industries by the rigid bureaucratic control at the top.

Such experts are vital in the development of the necessary proposals to "revise the planned economy". Trotsky in the Transitional Programme stresses the need for factory committees to involve "specialists sincerely devoted to the people, accountants, statisticians, engineers, scientists, etc." in the project of formulating a workers' plan.

"The working out of even the most elementary economic plan-from the point of view of the exploited, not the exploiters-is impossible without workers' control, that is without the penetration of the workers' eye into all open and concealed springs of the (capitalist) economy. Committees representing individual business enterprises should meet at conference to choose corresponding committees of trusts, whole branches of industry, economic regions and finally of national industry as a whole. Thus workers' control becomes a school for planned economy. On the basis of the experience of control the proletariat will prepare itself for direct management of nationalised industry when the hour for that eventuality strikes."

(Transitional Programme)

No such conscious development . has as yet taken place: indeed Walesa and the majority "moderate" leaders of Solidarnose have steered well clear of any such fundamental challenge to the power of the bureaucracy.

A fight to extend workers' control in this way is one contribution a Trotskyist party could make in the current struggle.

At the same time by taking militant action to press such demands as the release of political prisoners, the removal of hated local managers and state bureaucrats, and an end to state censorship, the Polish workers have embarked upon a political challenge to the Stalinist regime, without fully organising themselves for the task in a system of local and regional workers' councils.

Solidarnosc's development as a trade union-cumsocial movement of Polish workers has massively increased its membershipbut to a certain extent diluted the potential power John Listi continues his series on of the initial strike committees in Gdansk as decision-making bodies of delegates from a wide range of workplaces.

Such workers' councils must be built to focus and extend .. the necessary to the Stalinist rulers.

And, by the same token, steps are needed to defend workers in struggle against the growing threat of violent repression from the forces of the state. Factory committees and local workers' councils must organise their own self-defence groups and centralise these in the formation of a workers' militia to defend the working class districts against Stalinist police/military violence.

Upsurge Workers control therefore, as a system of dual power in the factory and in the state, already forms the starting point for the next period of revolutionary struggle in Poland.

But the failure of the new leadership thrown forward by the upsurge of the Polish workers to grasp the possibilities and dangers implicit in this situation underlines the necessity for a conscious Marxist leadership.

Next week's concluding article wil look at this question in the context of an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of Solidarnosc.

Scan page 12

Socialist Organiser, Thursday 19 November 1981 Page 12 Workers and students take on the police during the May 1968 French General Strike which almost toppled the government of De Gaulle. I THINK it was a very serious omission that Socialist Organiser 61 last week had no article on the outcome of the trial of Dr Arthur.

Though the case centred around the consultant being charged first with murder then a lesser charge of attempted murd er, if he had been found guilty this would have had profound implications for the right of women to make a fundamental choice about their lives and their children's.

This trial was the first of its kind: yet another attempt by the state to further oppress women. The attack up till now has centred more on curtailing abortion rights. But this case comes at a time when women are being encouraged to see their role in terms of working in the home, caring and maintaining the family, often having little option with the government's attacks on nursery facilities and the high rate of unemployment.

Tragedy Much of the trial centred around fine legal distinctions, and the choice which is open to doctors in such cases whether to actively intervene with medical care, or withhold medical intervention without which a baby would not survive (as in the case of baby Alexandra who was also suffering from Down's Syndrome, where the courts intervened to order such an operation against the wishes of the parents.

But as was taken up in a Panorama programme, different doctors have different ideas about this, and what treatment if any should be given once it has been decided that the baby should be allowed to die. This seemed to be the crux of the case against Dr Arthur: that by giving drug, in his opinion to alleviate suffering, he had caused the death of the baby. This should be a matter between the parents and the doctor: and surely no-one would underestimate the tragedy of having to face this situation.

Prosecution

Because women have to cope with most of the burden of living with a handicapped child - in a Writeback society which doesn't provide much in the way of long-term of even short-term facilities to help either the child or to relieve the pressures of coping - the decision must be theirs.

A lot of the media coverage was. very biased in presenting handicaps. as 'slight abnormalities' where children as they grow older are able to play some part in society. But Panorama did go some way to redress the balance, showing the other end of the scale: institutions lof which there are very few) which care for handicapped people who are unable to respond to any stimulus, may be blind, doubly incontinent, etc.

We find ourselves in the position now that many new born babies can be kept Writeback to Socialist Organiser 28, Middle Lane London N8 alive due to the developments of medical technology; but doctors and parents have had to make some sort of decision about the quality of life, taking into account the inadequaçies of back-up care.

Organisations like Life only make it harder for women faced with this sort of dilemma, as doctors will be reluctant to become involved in carrying out their wishes if they are liable to prosecution.

It is a great relief to many that the outcome of this trial was not guilty and 30 other cases have been dropped by the DPP. But there are still many women whose doctors do not allow them any choice, and a society that does very little to help but builds a myth around a woman's fulfilment in the home and caring for others less fortunate.

If Socialist Organiser is serious about the struggle for ending women's oppression in the home and åt work, and drawing women into this fight, then the paper must take up these sorts of issues immediately they arise. Until women are given the opportunity of seeing the possibilities of what life could be like if there were equality in their roles in life, and fighting for it, then they will be confined to the role which society dictates.

KATH MUNBY, Oxford.

----- pull-quotes -----

reforms, see overthrowing the bureaucracy as impos-

the Polish revolution

•_etters• Implications of the 'Downs Syndrome' case