💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › p-turner-towards-workers-control.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:30:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Towards Workers’ Control
Author: P. Turner
Date: 1971
Language: en
Topics: workers’ control, anarchist analysis 
Source: Freedom Pamphlet number 7
Notes: Scanned from reprint in Contemporary anarchism edited by Terry M. Perlin (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1979) page 221 ff

P. Turner

Towards Workers’ Control

“Anarchists must recognize the usefulness and the importance of the

workers’ movement, must favor its development, and make it one of the

levers for their actions, doing all they can so that it, in conjunction

with all existing progressive force, will culminate in a social

revolution which leads to the suppression of classes and to complete

freedom, equality, peace and solidarity among all human beings. But it

would be a great and fatal illusion to believe, as many do, that the

workers’ movement can and must on its own, by its very nature, lead to

such a revolution. On the contrary, all movements founded on material

and immediate interests (and a mass working-class movement cannot be

founded on anything else), if the ferment, the drive and the unremitting

efforts of men of ideas struggling and making sacrifices for an ideal

future are lacking, tend to adapt themselves to circumstances, foster a

conservative spirit, and the fear of change in those who manage to

improve conditions, and often end up by creating new privileged classes

and serving to support and consolidate the system which one would want

to destroy.” [1]

The above was written by Malatesta in October 1927 and refers to the

situation existing in Italy at that time. However its description and

analysis are applicable to this country in present-day circumstances.

It is certainly true that the present role of trade unions has created a

privileged class of bureaucrats whose functions are to serve and

consolidate the present economic system. Any change in this system will

have to have the support of those who are at present organized within

these unions. It is not a case of changing the leadership of the trade

unions to one of men who believe in revolutionary action, but rather one

of changing the outlook of the members.

At certain periods in the history of the trade union movement, some

unions have adopted a revolutionary approach to their problems. In

Britain during the years 1910 through 1922, railwaymen, miners and

engineers formally adopted resolutions which either demanded a share in

the control of their industry or the complete take-over under workers’

control. These periods may be the exception rather than the rule but

they nevertheless indicate the desire of workers, in certain situations,

for revolutionary change.

Nationalization, No Answer

Many of the dreams for workers’ control, like those put forward in the

“Miners’ Next Step” [2] for the taking over and running of the industry,

have ended in disillusionment under nationalization. Instead of giving

the control of an industry to the workers who are employed in it,

nationalization has made these industries larger, more rigid and more

remote. Far from investing the ownership with the community, it has

strengthened the State. Nationalization is a political concept which has

given the State industrial power and this, coupled with social and

political power, gives the State enormous authority over all aspects of

our lives. The idea that nationalization was a step towards eventual

workers’ control has proved not only wrong but disastrous. Those

industries that have been nationalized have also been those in decline

and the resulting program has meant that huge numbers of workers were

made redendant. Rather than giving workers more control, nationalization

has made management more remote, more powerful and therefore more able

to resist the demands made on them by the workers.

Man’s desire for control over his own life runs very deep among his

basic instincts. Nobody will admit that he or she enjoys being pushed

around. Certain freedoms have been won and not given and these are more

or less taken for granted. We have the freedom to change our political

masters, we can express and generally propagate our ideas, but in

present-day society industrial power is the most important thing. We

spend nearly one-third of our lives at work creating wealth and power

for a minority of employers and the State. During this time we have

little or no say in the way the work is to be organized and carried out.

We are hardly ever consulted or given any responsibility over the jobs

we perform. When there is no work we are sacked and when there is an

abundance we are expected to give up our leisure and work overtime. In

return we receive a wage packet to enable us to procure the necessities

to feed, clothe and shelter us and our families.

Little or No Say

The paradox is that those who actually produce the goods, distribute

them and provide the necessary social services for the community have

little or no say on how this is done, while those who cream off the

wealth from the productive work have control over the work processes.

Productive workers are the most important section of the community. Many

workers perform useful jobs, such as bus conductors, but without the

drivers and the mechanics to service the vehicles, the bus service would

be non-existent. The position is that some of the most important workers

who perform vital jobs are amongst the lowest paid in the country.

As producers and distributors of goods, workers are obviously in a

strong position, but the average worker does not appreciate this. Most

men are quite content with their present position as receivers of

orders, but many also have a desire to gain some control over matters

which affect them at work. Trade unions are organizations of such a

collective desire for control and regulation of conditions, but some

mistake this job organization for workers’ control. “Workers’ control

exists wherever trade union practice, shop stewards’ sanctions and

collective power constrain employers.” (Participation and Control--Ken

Coates and Tony Topham.) No one would deny that this control at job

level is a desirable thing but it is not workers’ control. However such

job organization has achieved a high degree of control which fosters

responsibility and initiative.

Reg Wright describing a form of job organization which operated in

Coventry writes, “The gang system sets men’s minds free from many

worries and enables them to concentrate completely on the job. It

provides a natural frame of security, it gives confidence, shares money

equally, uses all degrees of skill without distinction and enables jobs

to be allocated to the man or woman best suited to them, the allocation

frequently being made by the workers themselves. Change of jobs to avoid

monotony is an easy matter. The ‘gaffer’ is abolished and foremen are

now technicians called in to advise, or to act in a breakdown or other

emergency.” [3] Such a system of control in a mass product conveyor belt

factory is obviously advantageous to workers, but it nevertheless

remains a work method which only alleviates the inhuman and humdrum

drudgery of modern car factories. The gang system ended when Standards

found themselves in financial trouble and were absorbed into the lorry

empire of Leylands.

Control of the Unions?

Workers’ control is a ‘term being used today to describe so many

different situations and Ken Coates and Tony Topham would no doubt apply

it to the gang system. But this was not workers’ control but only a very

good way of making a tedious job worthwile. Some other advocates of

workers’ control stress that control of the unions as a first step is

imperative. One such group or rather a potential political party is the

International Socialists. Their aims have varied over the years from

“public ownership under full workers’ control” [4] to “workers”

power-democratic collective control of the working class over industry

and society through a state of workers’ councils and workers’ control of

production. [5] Both the prominence of “public ownership” and, later, “a

state of workers councils” does presuppose some form of state or state

machinery. This acceptance of the state is also linked with the idea of

a political party. One of their editorials stated: “The urgent need is

to develop a credible socialist alternative to the Tories and Labour.

The International Socialists are committed to building such an

alternative party.” Their final advice was to “Keep the Tories Out. Vote

Labour and prepare to Fight.” [6]

This advice is basically the same as that proffered by the other

fifty-six varieties of Trotskyist groups. It calls for support for a

party which, if it were in power, would in fact become a new ruling

class and would create new privileges for itself and subject the workers

to the same basic alienation which is an integral part of capitalist

production. Any form of State control of industry must inevitably mean

that decisions which affect workers will be made by others who are not

directly affected.

Russian Example

Malatesta, writing of the State, said that “should it survive, it would

continually tend to reconstruct, under one form or another, a privileged

and oppressing class.” [7] There have been many examples to bear this

out. Just such a situation arose at Kronstadt, fifty years ago, as well

as during the preceding revolution of 1917. Emma Goldman had the

following to say about these important events:

“The process of alienating the Russian masses from the Revolution had

begun almost immediately after Lenin and his Party had ascended to

power. Crass discrimination in rations and housing, suppression of every

political right, continued persecution and arrests early became the

order of the day. True, the purges undertaken at that time did not

include party members, although Communists also helped to fill the

prisons and concentration camps. A case in point is the first Labour

Opposition whose rank and file were quickly eliminated and their

leaders, Shlapnikov sent to the Caucasus for ‘a rest’ and Alexandra

Kollontay placed under house arrest. But all the other political

opponents, among them Mensheviki, Social Revolutionists, Anarchists,

many of the Liberal intelligentsia and workers as well as peasants, were

given short shrift in the cellars of the Cheka, or exiled to slow death

in the distant parts of Russia or Siberia. In other words, Stalin has

not originated the theory or methods that have crushed the Russian

Revolution or forged new chains for the Russian people.

“I admit, the dictatorship under Stalin’s rule has become monstrous.

That does not, however, lessen the guilt of Leon Trotsky as one of the

actors in the revolutionary drama of which Kronstadt was one of the

bloodiest scenes.” [8]

A Worse Subjection

Certainly the Communist totalitarian state has provided a lesson and has

proved the anarchist case against the capture of state power for

revolutionary aims. This has given workers new and more powerful

industrial masters. The Communist state has taken over more and more

functions of society together with economic power. This means that the

State not only controls the economy by various means such as outlawing

strikes but because it has become the political and economic master, it

condemns workers to a worse subjection than its counterparts in the West

by the very fact that the means to improve conditions of work are denied

by law. The State in Communist countries has become all powerful and

embracing. It decides on the distribution of raw materials, the type and

distribution of goods, investments and the appointments of managers of

factories. In a “workers’ state” all is decided upon from above.

The Communist Party makes no pretense of allowing workers’ control. Bert

Ramelson, Industrial Organizer for the Communist Party, had this to say:

“While management have the responsibility to ensure safety and provide

welfare, training and educational facilities, their enforcement and

supervision is done by workers’ elected representatives and committees.

Thus, because of the absence of a fundamental clash of interest between

workers and management in a socialist state there is a tremendous

expansion of industrial democracy. Nevertheless it would be wrong to

assume that all differences between management and workers disappear or

that ‘workers’ control’ or ‘self management’ exists or is theoretically

possible, that is if by these phrases, is meant control over all aspects

of production, e.g. including what to produce, pricing, investment, etc.

“Management, even under socialism, will tend to show greater concern for

output and unit costs and, at times, this could very well encroach on

the workers’ rights and interests. That is why trade unions are

essential in socialist society and why basically their major function

remains the same as in a capitalist society--the safeguarding of the

workers’ interests and upholding them against all comers--including

management and state.” [9]

Anarchists would claim that a fundamental clash of interests still

remains in a Communist state for a worker’s position remains virtually

the same, as Bert Ramelson has admitted in the sentence emphasised. He

lays great stress on the role of trade unions to defend workers’

interests and yet it is these same organizations which are thoroughly

integrated into the state machine. They are no longer independent and

free organizations but a part of the totalitarian system and because of

this Soviet workers are worse off than their Western counterparts.

Revolts by workers in Communist states reinforce the anarchists’

contention that a fundamental difference divides the workers and the

state. The official trade unions have not taken the workers’ side in

these conflicts and in such situations the workers have created their

own organizations against the system that has ruled and dominated them.

Hungary, Poland and France

In revolutionary situations organizations of workers’ and peasants’

councils, representing the interests and aspirations of the working

class have emerged. Such occurrences are not peculiar to the distant

past for Hungary, Poland and France have been recent examples. In all

these countries the power of the state and the government was

overwhelmed by the opposition of the people. Workers’ and peasants’

councils were organized and the official trade unions and the party

officials were ignored. The committees formed at the places of work were

linked with similar committees in other factories, while these in turn

were linked with other industries on both a district and national basis.

This sort of organization, federated throughout the country, has often

grown up very quickly, while the production of essential goods and the

distribution of foodstuffs has continued.

During the Hungarian uprising in 1956 the Observer (25.11.56) commented:

“A fantastic aspect of the situation is that although the general strike

is in being and there is no centrally organized industry, the workers

are nevertheless taking it upon themselves to keep essential services

going for purposes which they themselves determine and support. Workers’

councils in industrial districts have undertaken the distribution of

essential goods and food to the population, in order to keep them alive.

The coal miners are making daily allocations of just sufficient coal to

keep the power stations going and supply the hospitals in Budapest and

other large towns. Railwaymen organize trains to go to approved

destinations for approved purposes. It is self-help in a setting of

Anarchy.”

The opposition to the Hungarian Communist State and the Soviet invaders

was not just a negative one of strike action but took a revolutionary

initiative in creating a basis for a new free society. There are many

examples of this where workers and peasants find that the hold of the

state over society has loosened. There is an almost natural inclination

to seize this initiative and take over the means of production. For

those who work on the land this is made easier by the fact that all the

necessary requirements are at hand and workers have only to continue

planting and harvesting after the landowners or bureaucrats have fled.

Industry, on the other hand, has to rely on raw materials and factories

to enable these to be turned into the finished product. When the State’s

power is weakened it has just had to accept the situation but when the

authorities feel strong enough they legalize the situation. The State

did this in Russia in 1917 and Spain in 1936. This legislation did not

make workers’ control and also succeeded in preventing any in existence

from developing and spreading.

Where the factories and work places have been taken over, the workers

have shown initiative and continued to produce, improvising to offset

the lack of parts and materials. They have shown that they can run and

control industry, even during the most difficult times. The failure to

maintain this control and to consolidate the social revolution has not

been a failure of an idea but rather because of the overall strength of

opposition from those who eventually came to power and took over the

state.

Ripe for Workers’ Control

In this country, workers’ control is once again being discussed. It has

been described as an idea “looking for a movement,” [10] and “an idea on

the wing.” [11] That idea is vitally needed today when workers

throughout industrial societies are facing inflation and increasing

unemployment. The time was never so ripe for looking beyond the sterile

reforms of the social democrats, turning away from political action and

the equally useless support for one trade union leader or another.

An increasing number of strikes reflect that workers are no longer

satisfied to be just wage slaves. Many strikes are protests against the

alien conditions under which a worker performs his job for he is

considered to be just a mere cog in an enlarging wheel. The strikes are

taking on a non-monetary nature as workers are seeking a larger say in

their conditions and greater control of their work places. Just such a

movement for workers’ control grew up in this country between 1910 and

1922. [12] This movement was particularly strong among engineers and

committees were formed in Sheffield, on the Clyde and in London. It not

only had an industrial base but also extended to other matters affecting

the working class. Although the committees were part of the engineer’s

union, they worked and organized on an unofficial basis. They not only

sought greater control over their conditions at work but they also

advocated the overthrow of the capitalist wage system. They declared

their faith in revolution and workers’ control of production and

distribution.

A movement like this, built on the shop floor, is needed today and can

grow from the organizations of shop stewards which exist throughout

industry. The increasing number of stewards is a sign of the desire to

organize and control some aspect of work conditions. It is a revolt

against being continually told what to do by those in authority. It

expresses a determination not to be dictated to about the way a job

should be done and the conditions under which it should be performed.

Organizations at this level are the main weapon in the struggle against

the employers for it is the unofficial strike that is hurting and

damaging them the most. The trade unions have a far too big stake in the

present system of capitalist exploitation for their leaders to ever want

to overthrow it. This can and will be done by the active participation

of the working class.

Chances Today

What are the chances of such a movement developing out of the existing

shop stewards’ organizations? Unfortunately many stewards are members of

political parties and see industrial action taking second place to

political action and the capture of the State. Indeed it was this change

of attitude after the First World War and the Bolshevik seizure of power

that led shop stewards away from industrial action and workers’ control

and along the political path.

However there are certain parallels between the second decade of this

century and today that give the idea of workers’ control a chance of

getting off the ground. The emphasis is moving away from the political

representatives in Parliament towards industrial action. Workers are

realizing that they can only defend the conditions by their own efforts.

Wage increases over and above the rates set by national union agreements

are gained by unofficial action and the center of activity for trade

union affairs is fast becoming the place of work. In recent years the

number of stoppages reported has risen from 1,220 in 1961 to 2,350 in

1968 with further increases in the last two years. They include

industries where unions have not called out members on official strike

since 1926 and unions like the National Union of Railwaymen who have

only had one official strike of one day, on October 3, 1962, since that

year.

Obviously this shift towards direct action has meant an increased number

of shop stewards. They are the direct representatives of the men on the

shop floor, delegated to carry out a job of work. They can be and are

recalled if they do not fulfill that function. The Donovan Report

estimated that there were 175,000 shop stewards in Britain and from the

increasing number of strikes, it appears that more of them are taking an

active and positive part.

There has also been a general disillusionment with all political parties

who profess to support the aspirations of the working class. They

particularly felt the effects of the Wilson Government’s incomes policy

on their living standards. We are now reaching a similar situation where

increased wages are being swallowed up by higher retail prices and

rents. At present there seems to be no end to inflation and the

outlawing of unofficial strikes, together with the cuts in social

services, will further depress living standards. The increase in the

number of unemployed could cause further disillusionment with political

parties and governments in general who have failed to solve the present

economic recession.

We are still being told that the strike weapon is outmoded. Trade union

leaders like Jack Peel of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and

Textile Workers, have attacked strike action for political ends. He said

that the battle against the Industrial Relations Bill “will be won by

using our heads and getting public opinion behind us, winning the next

election and repealing the Act.” Despite these leaders, workers are

turning to industrial action rather than relying on the politicians of

the Labour Party or seeking out the aid of other political parties.

Because of this the workers will become more aware of their strength and

look beyond the present-day struggles towards workers’ control.

Control, from the Bottom Upwards

In common with the rest of society, industry is at present organized

from the top down. Workers’ control is a revolutionary principle which

would give workers the responsibility for the organization and control

of their industries from the bottom upwards. In the past they have

proved their ability to take such a step and make a success of it and

that they do not need the State, the employers and governments. When

these forces are weak workers naturally turn to workers’ control. It is

a desire for responsibility and control over their lives.

Obviously such a revolutionary desire for change would be opposed by the

authorities and the government would take action on behalf of the

employers to protect their ruling position in society. This would mean

the use of troops and the full force of the State being turned against a

revolutionary movement for workers’ control, for such a movement would

mean an end to the power of the employers and their profits and

privileges. It would mean an end to the Wage system. The production of

goods and the growing of food for needs would be the way of life, with

the decisions regarding this being taken by people at their place of

work or in their communities.

The capitalist society treats people as mere units of production. It

creates shortages and wastage, pollutes our earth and makes wars.

Anarchists want an end to this insane society. Instead we want workers

to have dignity at work with industry being run and controlled by the

people at their work places for the benefit and welfare of the

community.

NOTES

[1] Malatesta, Life and Ideas, by V. Richards, pp. 113–114.

[2] “Miners’ Next Step.” A pamphlet written by the South Wales miners in

1912.

[3] Anarchy 2, “Workers’ Control,” p.50.

[4] Labour Worker, June, 1967.

[5] Socialist Worker, June 13, 1970.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Anarchy, by Errico Malatesta, p. 22. Freedom Press.

[8] Trotsky Protests Too Much, by Emma Goldman, p. 3.

[9] The Debate on Workers’ Control, pp.I4- 1 5. Institute for Workers’

Control.

[10] Anarchy 2, ‘Workers’ Control’, April, 1961.

[11] Anarchy 80, ‘Workers’ Control’, October, 1967.

[12] See The Shop Stewards Movement and Workers’ Control 1910–1922, by

Branko Pribicevic.