Posts Tagged ‘the Tsar’

Solidarity Pamphlet on Bolsheviks’ Destruction of Workers’ Control in Russian Revolution

September 24, 2016

bolsheviks-workers-control

Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control/ 1917-1921/ The State and Counter-Revolution (London: Solidarity 1970).

I picked this short book – 89 pages – in one of the secondhand bookshops in Cheltenham. Solidarity were a libertarian Communist group that believed that the workers should operate and manage the means of production. In their statement of beliefs at the back of the book, they state in point 9 ‘We do not accept the view that by itself the working class can only achieve a trade union consciousness.’ (p. 89). This is a direct contradiction of Lenin’s belief, firmly expressed in his 1905 pamphlet, What Is To Be Done?, that the workers could only achieve trade union consciousness, and needed to be led to Socialism by a group of dedicated revolutionaries. The book itself states that it is a work of history, which intends to show how the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution of 1917 by suppressing the movement for workers’ control in the factories and the workers’, soldiers’ and peasants’ soviets.

The Revolution had begun when Russia’s working people rose up against Tsarism and the Kerensky government that replaced it. They formed factory committees which took over the management of the factories to various degrees in industry, and formed the soviets – councils – of working people across Russia, which formed a parallel system of popular government to that of the duma, the Russian parliament. Communist historiography has presented Lenin as fully behind these developments. He passed a decree stating that ‘workers’ control is established in the factories’ and praised the soviets, proclaiming the slogan, ‘All Power to the Workers’ Soviets’. The conventional historical view states that the workers were in fact unable to run industry, and so the government was forced to reintroduce the entrepreneurs, managers and technicians that the workers had previously turfed out of the factory gates in wheelbarrows.

This pamphlet shows that the opposite was true. From initially supporting them as a bulwark against the return of capitalism, and a necessary precondition for the nationalisation of industry, Lenin turned to active dislike and opposition, but was forced to support them for reasons of expediency. Lenin, Trotsky and their faction in the Bolsheviks really wanted Russian industry to be managed by a state bureaucracy, with a single person in command of individual factories and enterprises. Lenin adopted the slogan to present himself and his faction as fully behind the soviet revolution, while doing everything he could behind the scenes to reduce this to a mere slogan. Their practical strategy for destroying the factory committees involved incorporating them into the trade unions. These had always been under political control in Russia, partly through necessity as for most of the time they were illegal. The Bolsheviks in turn transformed these from popular organisations to campaign for better wages and conditions, to instruments of the Bolshevik party to discipline and organise Russian labour, so that it obeyed the state and the managers. It was the trade unions that set wages and determined working conditions. At the same time as they were being absorbed by the unions, the committees were gradually stripped over their powers until they were finally dissolved following the Kronstadt rebellion, which was intended to restore democracy to the Revolution by overthrowing Bolshevik rule. The Bolsheviks were also actively destroying democracy throughout the system of government and industrial management by gradually removing elections and replacing them with political appointments. As part of this, the trade unions could elect their members to the various Bolshevik political organs, but this became subject to the party’s veto. Candidates elected by the unions not approved by Lenin and his faction could be blocked.

This resulted in the construction of the totalitarian, monolithic Soviet state, while industry saw the removal of workers’ power and the return of the very industrialists and entrepreneurs, who had been overthrown. Indeed, after the failure of authoritarian ‘war communism’, with its forced requisitions of food from the peasantry during the Civil War, 1921 saw the limited return of capitalism itself in the establishment of a private sector as part of the New Economic Policy.

Not all of the Bolsheviks were in favour of this policy, and Lenin, Trotsky and their faction faced bitter opposition from a series of groups and individuals within the party, including Preobrazhensky, Osinsky, Bukharin and Alexandra Kollontai, in the ‘Democratic Centralists’ and ‘Left Communists’. Despite their efforts, theirs was a losing battle and in the end they were fighting a series of rearguard actions to preserve the last vestiges of the factory committees and the autonomy of the trade unions.

Outside the party, the Bolsheviks also faced opposition from anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, who also wished to preserve the factory committees from attacks from the party and the trade unions. The booklet discusses the increasing mass arrests of these, and the closure of a range of anarchist newspapers and magazines, such as Burevestnik, Anarkhia and Golos Truda (Workers’ Voice). The final demands of the Left Communists for trade union autonomy and its management of industry was also denounced by Lenin as ‘anarcho-syndicalist deviation’.

Apart from its description of the way the Bolsheviks overturned the founding principles of the revolution, supplanting control and management by the workers themselves, with a system of control and management by the party, its functionaries, and returned capitalist businessmen in the name of the workers, the pamphlet’s also interesting for discussing the various literature produced by the revolutionaries and their plans for instituting practical system of workers’ control. For example, the Exploratory Conference of Factory Committees of Petrograd War Industries, convened on April 2nd, 1917, issued the proclamations that

From the Factory Committee should emanate all instructions concerning internal factory organisation (i.e. instructions concerning such mattes as hours of work, wages, hiring and firing, holidays, etc.) The factory manager to be kept notified…

The whole administrative personnel (management at all levels and technicians) is taken on with the consent of the Factory Committee which has to notify the workers of its decisions at mass meetings of the whole factory or through shop committees…

The Factory committee controls managerial activity in the administrative, economic and technical fields … representatives of the Factory Committee must be provided, for information, with all official documents of the management, production budgets and details of all times entering or leaving the factory … (p.2).

The Kharkov Conference of Factory Committees, held on May 29th that same year, declared that the committees should become

organs of the Revolution… aiming at consolidating its victories. The Factory Committees must take over production, protect it, develop it. They must fix wages, look after hygiene, control the technical quality of products, decree all internal factory regulations and determine solutions all conflicts. (p.4).

The Second Conference of Factory Committees of Petrograd, held at the Smolny Institute from the 7th-12th August, also stipulated that

‘All decrees of Factory Committees’ were compulsory ‘for the factory administration as well as for the workers and employees – until such time as those decrees were abolished by the Committee itself, or by the Central Soviet of Factory Committees’. The pamphlet states that

the committees were to meet regularly during working working hours. Meetings were to be held on days designated by the Committees themselves. Members of the Committees were to receive full pay – from the employers – while on Committee business. Notice to the appropriate administrative personnel was to be deemed sufficient to free a member of the Factory Committee from work so that he might fulfil his obligations to the Committee. In the periods between meetings, selected members of the Factory Committees were to occupy premises, within the factory, at which they could receive information from the workers and employees. Factory administrations were to provide funds ‘for the maintenance of the Committees and the conduct of their affairs’. Factory Committees were to have ‘control over the composition of the administration and the right to dismiss all those who could not guarantee normal relations with the workers or who were incompetent for other reasons’. ‘All administrative factory personnel can only into service with the consent of the Factory Committee, which must declare its (sic!) hirings at a General Meeting of all the factory or through departmental or workshop committees. The ‘internal organisation’ of the factory (working time, wages, holidays, etc.) was also to be determined by the Factory Committees. Factory Committees were to have their own press and were ‘to inform the workers and employees of the enterprise concerning their resolutions by posting an announcement in conspicuous place’. (pp. 8-9).

The Wikipedia entry on Solidarity states that the group was always small, but played a disproportionately large role in the industrial disputes of the 1970s and the campaign for workers’ control and management in industry. The system of complete workers’ control set up during the Russian Revolution is far too extreme to be popular in Britain, at least at present and the foreseeable future. Worker’s involvement in management has still been put back on the agenda, even if in a half-hearted way by Theresa May, no doubt as a calculated deception. The pamphlet itself remains a fascinating description of this optimistic movement in Russian revolutionary history, and its betrayal by the Communist party, and is an important corrective to the standard view that workers’ control was fully supported by them.

Advertisements

Secular Talk: Trump Promises to Destroy the First Amendment

March 2, 2016

Donald Trump’s rage against the media for supposedly portraying him in a negative light has hit a new, very dangerous low. In this piece from Secular Talk, Kyle Kulinski discusses one of the Dimestore Duce’s speeches, in which he attacked journalists and the media as one of the lowest groups of humanity. He singled out in particular the New York Times and the Washington Post. When he got into power, he promised, he would extend the libel laws, so that people could sue them for their alleged lies and win ‘lots of money’.

Kulinski points out that this is Authoritarianism 101. The New York Times and the Washington Post are able to print their articles against Trump, because they’re protected by the First Amendment. You know, that pesky bit in the American Constitution that guarantees the people of America free speech. Trump wants to overturn that, and the protection it gives America, because journalists are saying nasty things about him.

Kulinski points out that there is absolutely no chance of this happening, as it would need a constitutional committee to be convened before there could be any change. But this is an authoritarian attitude. Authoritarianism is when you crack down and attack your enemies, while giving your friends a pat on the back. And you can see what he’s like by looking at how he behaves to his Twitter followers. Anyone who criticises him, he attacks mercilessly, while he praises those who supported him.

Kulinski also states that it’ll have a chilling effect on the media. Nobody, not even those who hate Trump, like to be attacked. So journalists will go softer on him, in order to avoid Trump lashing out at them again. So he’ll get them doing his propaganda for him. He also points out that what the New York Times and Washington Post wrote wasn’t libel. They merely discussed Trump’s failing businesses, like his casinos, using facts. Trump’s attack on free speech and promise to extend the libel laws is a threat, that should worry even his supporters.

Kulinski is absolutely right about this. Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, and our libel laws are extremely strict, so much so that they have been used to crack down on free speech. A while ago an American academic was sued for libel in a British court by a Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfuz, for what she wrote about the way the Sheikh’s charitable foundations had been used to fund al-Qaeda in her book, Funding Terror. She stated that the Sheikh was not involved in these transactions, nor was he even aware of them. And she was factually correct. This availed her nothing. Mahfuz won the case, arguing that while she was correct, it nevertheless harmed his professional reputation.

Private Eye printed a long piece reporting and attacking the judgement for it what it was – an attack that undermined the basis of democracy itself. In response, a number of American judges and states passed legislation officially declaring that British legal judgements and law had no validity in America, in order to protect free speech in their country from this and similar attacks.

And this hasn’t been the only time the libel laws have been used by the rich and corrupt to silence their critics. In the 18th and 19th centuries one of the way the British government sought to suppress those journalists and writers that criticised its corruption was to sue them for ‘seditious libel’. It why the great British journalist, Cobbett, spent several years in America, before returning to Blighty. Even foreign rulers got in on the act. One of the British radical journalists – I think it might even have been Cobbett again – was sued in the 1820s by the Russian Tsar when he described him as a tyrant, who ‘was ridiculous to his people’. Trump’s threat to expand the libel laws is a real danger to the genuinely great American tradition of free speech.

Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, has boastingly called his show, Infowars, ‘1776 Worldwide’. He’s loudly backing Trump. What he fails to realise, is that Trump isn’t one of the Revolutionaries. He’s actually one of the Red Coats.