Does socialism have to involve workplace democracy?

Noam Chomsky and Georges Sorel (and probably a few more) claim that the basic idea of socialism is all about workers controlling the means of production through democracy at the workplace. Sorel attacked the parliamentary left, accusing them of wanting a "organic nation" - and claimed that the hardline conservatives wanted the same. Instead, he wanted a gigantic strike that turned into some sort of anarchy-syndicalism built up by those same syndicates/union that creates the strike that crashes capitalism, giving it its final death-blow. (I have never really understood how anarchy-syndicalism is supposed to be organized) In a radio-interview I once heard, Chomsky attacks Lenin on the same ground, claiming that the Soviet union was not socialist, because everything was centrally planned (But I think he is missing out, that Lenin at least, had some policies that leaned towards local-democracy, both inside and outside the workplaces)

Im uncertain about how much weight one should put on this issue, but at least it is a good way to separate national-socialists of various kinds (strasserists, nazies, fascists, and so on) from socialists.

What do you think? Can there be socialism without any workplace-democracy or worker-controll over the means of production? Can pure top-down planning be socialist?

In my opinion, work-place democracy is a neat excuse to set up a high-tech control-room, like Allende did with Cybersyn. I believe that Production-goals and quality-checks has to be set by a central government, with or without computer-aid. There has to be a ministry of production whose leader is elected by parliament or congress, but there can still be room for workers-democracy on smaller issues related to the factory, workshop or farm in question. (When and how to produce, within the time-lines and quality-parameters given for the product)

I do not reject the idea of central planning without workers-democracy either (Even if Chomsky gets angry and Sorel starts spinning in his grave), but I think it will be very important to have democratic control within such a system, as there will be a lot more power centralized on the top-level then it is under liberal capitalist or authoritarian/conservative capitalist rule. The possibly of massive failures is bigger with pure central planning, and more brains think better than one.

Socialism is workplace democracy. Without it there is no socialism.

I believe in democracy, but not democracy confined to the workplace. I question your post Red Aegis. Is an economy of numerous competing worker-managed companies socialism? I believe it is not. Therefore, in addition to your statement I present this:

Socialism is public ownership. Without it there is no Socialism.

Confusion wrote:Im uncertain about how much weight one should put on this issue, but at least it is a good way to separate national-socialists of various kinds (strasserists, nazies, fascists, and so on) from socialists.

Isn't Strasserism all about a more worker orientated Nazism or something?

What do you think? Can there be socialism without any workplace-democracy or worker-controll over the means of production? Can pure top-down planning be socialist?

While there is no fixed definition of socialism (hence the endless arguments about who is and isn't a socialist), it is generally agreed upon by people who do know something of the topic that socialism refers to the communal ownership of the means of production. The fact that the said state may be a "workers' state" doesn't mean that state ownership and control of the means of production equates to workers' ownership and control of them. The "need" for central planning doesn't justify taking away the most basic form of democracy that workers have, as workers who are ready for socialism shouldn't need babysitting.

As others have already pointed out, "socialism" is a rather broad term which has been employed by individuals promoting very different systems throughout history. If you were to read The Communist Manifesto, for example, you'd find that Karl Marx critiqued several utopian forms socialism (e.g., feudal socialism, petit-bourgeois socialism, and German socialism), and many other Marxian and non-Marxist socialist models have been theorized since then.

In other words, the answer to your question depends entirely on how one chooses to define socialism. Personally, I identify with the segment of the socialist tradition which considers workers' self-management to be a crucial component of socialism.

Confusion wrote:But I think he is missing out, that Lenin at least, had some policies that leaned towards local-democracy, both inside and outside the workplaces

Can you expand on this? As far as I'm aware, Lenin was responsible for dismantling every independent soviet in Russia, most notably the Kronstadt Soviet. When specifically confronted about the issue of workers' self-management, Lenin once responded,

"A producer's congress! What precisely does that mean? It is difficult to find words to describe this folly. I keep asking myself, can they be joking? Can one really take these people seriously? While production is always necessary, democracy is not. Democracy of production engenders a series of radically false ideas."
Lenin quoted in Michael Albert's Stop the Killing Train: Radical Visions for Radical Change, p. 109.

It therefore shouldn't come as a surprise that the theory of edinonachalie (single-person management) was Lenin's brainchild.

Godfaesten wrote:Is an economy of numerous competing worker-managed companies socialism? I believe it is not. Therefore, in addition to your statement I present this:

Socialism is public ownership. Without it there is no Socialism.

An economy primarily consisting of privately owned, competing worker cooperatives could be considered a form of market socialism or mutualism. However, such a system likely wouldn't materialize because public ownership of capital is vital to ensuring the stability of the market socialism model. So, in a sense, you're correct that socialism cannot exist absent public ownership.

Celtiberian wrote: Can you expand on this? As far as I'm aware, Lenin was responsible for dismantling every independent soviet in Russia, most notably the Kronstadt Soviet.

I know that many of the workers-soviets popped up by them selves, without Lenin or his government engineering their creation, but I am also under the impression, that the bolsheviks organized them into a system that connected them to the supreme soviet in Moscow, and that Lenin spoke favorable of the Soviets. I am also aware that he restricted this system towards the end of his life, but I have no idea why, or to which extent.

This is awfully blurry on my part, I know.

DSN wrote: Isn't Strasserism all about a more worker orientated Nazism or something?

I have always avoided Strasserism completely, seeing it as a dishonest way of being a nazi without being a nazi. My mind falls asleep when hearing about a "national" "socialism". I find it too blurry. Fascist thinking is more interesting, as it doesn't pretend to be socialist, but has a form of accurate sharpness to it. Did those Strausser-brothers ever mention workplace-democracy, local democracy, or anything like that? I have not yet come across such ideas in it, but then again, I have never been openminded about it. I was surprised to see that Celtiberian used to be a Strasserist, when I just now found a debate on it at this forum

I think Celtiberian answers the question a bit down on this thread:
http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t302-strasserism

It seems I have not done my homework here, dragging in Strasserism without knowing it well enough. If Im right in my assumption that Strasserism does not involve workers-democracy, then lucky me. If not I must be arrested

Godfaesten wrote:I believe in democracy, but not democracy confined to the workplace. I question your post Red Aegis. Is an economy of numerous competing worker-managed companies socialism? I believe it is not. Therefore, in addition to your statement I present this:

Socialism is public ownership. Without it there is no Socialism.

I do not think that I could actually define socialism simply as workplace democracy, but it is true that without it the people would not actually control the means of production. What workplace democracy consists of is another question. Also, what did I say that indicated a long-term support for a type of co-operative based capitalism? I think that such a system would be a step towards socialism, maybe even a sort of low - very low - phase, but I can only view such a thing as a stepping stone.

This is all tangential to the OP, and the answer to that question is yes.

Red Aegis wrote:I do not think that I could actually define socialism simply as workplace democracy, but it is true that without it the people would not actually control the means of production. What workplace democracy consists of is another question. Also, what did I say that indicated a long-term support for a type of co-operative based capitalism? I think that such a system would be a step towards socialism, maybe even a sort of low - very low - phase, but I can only view such a thing as a stepping stone.

This is all tangential to the OP, and the answer to that question is yes.

Well, from that point of view, I agree. Some form of workplace democracy is a good thing in my opinion. Just I have always been under the impression that socialism is also about operating the means of production for the good of the workers. Socialism confined only to workplace democracy (which would be, as Celt pointed out, similar to market socialism or mutualism) would not ensure that the means of production would be used in such a way.

Confusion wrote:the impression, that the bolsheviks organized them into a system that connected them to the supreme soviet in Moscow

In so doing, the soviets were transformed into impotent appendages of the state; ceremonial relics of what they had been.

and that Lenin spoke favorable of the Soviets.

That's the tragic irony of it all. When Lenin wrote "All Power to the Soviets!" in 1917, he was either being disingenuous or he subsequently changed his opinion regarding their potential to assist in constructing socialism. (In his book The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, Maurice Brinton chronicles and analyzes the history of workers' self-management in Russia from 1917-1921, and the extent to which the Bolsheviks obstructed, and eventually prevented, its development.)

Did those Strausser-brothers ever mention workplace-democracy, local democracy, or anything like that?

The Strasserist political program, insofar as industry is concerned, can be summarized as traditional capitalist enterprises continuing to be managed by their owners (in conjunction with a committee representing the firm's workers), but with formal ownership being restructured. Capital would technically be owned by the state, and profits would be apportioned to the labor, executive management, and the state on a 10%, 49%, and 31% basis, respectively. Otto was vague about the manner by which new executive managers—his "functional aristocracy"—would be selected following the former capitalists' retirement, but I don't recall him claiming that the working class would choose them. His program remained largely unchanged since the NSDAP's Hanover Conference of 1925, which F. L. Carsten described as follows:

"A programme drafted in the autumn of 1925 envisaged that the large estates were to be divided into peasant farms, 30-120 acres; these were to be granted to peasants in the form of a hereditary lease by the Reich government; the estate owners were to be allowed to retain 600 acres, also in the form of a hereditary lease; any alienation, sale or mortgaging of these properties was to be prohibited. The Reich government was to acquire shares to the value of thirty per cent in large industrial undertakings, and the employees another ten per cent; a further nine to eleven per cent was to be vested in public authorities, but the administration and leadership were to remain entirely private. Small enterprises, employing fewer than twenty workers, were to be grouped in compulsory guilds. It was also envisaged that the employees were to receive their wages 'to a large extent in kind.' The clauses about the compulsory guilds and payments in kind show how hopelessly utopian this economic programme was, and how far removed from true socialism."
Carsten, Francis Ludwig. The Rise of Fascism, p. 124 (emphasis added).

Thus, we find that Strasserism didn't support workplace democracy as most socialist advocates of the theory (myself included) do. In fact, the managerial structure Strasser proposed wasn't any more participatory than the contemporary German Mitbestimmung (co-determination) policy is.

I was surprised to see that Celtiberian used to be a Strasserist, when I just now found a debate on it at this forum

In retrospect, so am I. I attribute it to my insufficient understanding of economics and philosophy at the time.

Thanks for the input! I am learning much from you!

It sounds like a form of corporativism that differs slightly from the model the Italians ended up with.

After the social democrats took over Europe, they have been in charge of the third-way, and they have done many of those things that the third-wayers of the 1920s and 1930s wanted.

Now with the war on Libya, they have even followed the Strasserist dream of an all-European imperial-campaign into Africa. I am not very pleased with that.

Confusion wrote:Thanks for the input!

No problem, comrade.

It sounds like a form of corporativism that differs slightly from the model the Italians ended up with.

Indeed. Strasserism is simply a slightly more decentralized form of corporativism, which additionally advocates for most capital to be formally owned by the state. However, it would be inaccurate to claim that Fascist Italy ever truly practiced corporativism to a meaningful extent.

"In theory, the corporations were supposed to regulate economic relations between employers and employees, but in practice the tentacles of the Fascist dictatorship made this impossible. Mussolini, in fact, remained at the very centre of the decision-making process, which weakened the autonomy of the corporations. All discussions in the National Council of Corporations had to be approved by him, and corporation regulations could only be made effective by decrees from the Duce, which were rarely forthcoming.

Mussolini was supposed to be enthusiastic about the Corporate State, but the corporations remained ultimately toothless because whereas the employers were fully represented, the workforce was not. Representatives of the working class in the corporations were usually Fascist Party bureaucrats or Ministry of Corporations officials who had no real contact with the shop floor or village. In a similar fashion Bottai's 'Charter of Labour', which was supposed to focus on labour relations and social issues, proved to be a sad disappointment for those syndicalists of the Rossoni era who had seen the Corporate State as a means of eradicating class tensions and regulating capitalism.

Employers in Confindustria were gratified that the corporations did not involve them in any kind of centralised Soviet-style planning machanism. Neither were the Fascist syndicates represented at the shop-floor level in the way that free trade unions were represented by shop stewards. In fact, the syndicates continued to be an instrument for the coercion of a working class which was penalised if it dared to strike, and which suffered severe wage cuts between 1930 and 1934."
Neville, Peter. Mussolini, pp. 112- 113 (emphasis added).

It's a stillborn ideology; one which could never be made to work even if genuinely attempted, due to the myriad contradictions it retains. Its primary function was to attract enough workers away from the Left to ensure that the Fascists could attain state power, whereupon the regime(s) acted at the behest of capital—thereby confirming the Marxist theory of fascism as a representation of the bourgeoisie's desperate circumstance.

After the social democrats took over Europe, they have been in charge of the third-way, and they have done many of those things that the third-wayers of the 1920s and 1930s wanted.

I wouldn't associate the Third Way ideologues of New Labour too strongly with Third Positionism for the simple reason that the latter group has historically favored policies akin to National Capitalism (e.g., dramatically restricting the autonomy of finance capital, and limiting the mobility of industrial capital), while the former are much more comfortable with the neoliberal status quo.

Now with the war on Libya, they have even followed the Strasserist dream of an all-European imperial-campaign into Africa.

Yes, but the imperialism envisioned by Strasser was of the traditional variety, i.e., imperial charter companies literally extracting resources from Africa to send to Europe. Neoliberal imperialism is more subtle.

I have studied the italian model as well.

It was restricted in a lot of ways, but it was defended ideologically.

1) The battle against communism (Which led to workers syndicates being restricted more than employers syndicates, due to very little communist activities, or suspected communist activities among the employers)

2) All Fascist agree that the leader should be the strongman of the nation, corporatism is for low-level decition-making, a tool for the leader, as well as the machine of class-collaboration. But perhaps it is stupid to believe one can balance the two?

This is all history now.

On the subtleness of Neoliberal imperialism... Is it? I see it more as an obvious grab for Libyan oil. The Syrian conflict is a bit harder to grasp, but I think it might be about Israel wanting to expand into Lebanon, and that Syria must be destroyed before that can happen. The root of the problem might be that foreign policy in Europa and the US is outside democratic control.

Confusion wrote:All Fascist agree that the leader should be the strongman of the nation, corporatism is for low-level decition-making, a tool for the leader, as well as the machine of class-collaboration. But perhaps it is stupid to believe one can balance the two?

In theory, the state is only supposed to act as an impartial arbiter in whatever disputes emerge between the employer and employee corporations in the process of their negotiations. In practice, however, the fascist states which proclaimed to have implemented corporativism invariably defended the decisions most favorable to capital. The reason they did so was precisely because they were concerned with retaining the financial support of the bourgeoisie, while naïvely assuming that a combination of ideological indoctrination and authoritarian social control were sufficient enough to subjugate the working class.

On the subtleness of Neoliberal imperialism... Is it? I see it more as an obvious grab for Libyan oil.

It's obvious to we who study international relations and economics, but not to the average American citizen. Unlike Strasserist imperialism, which is explicit about its foreign policy objectives, neoliberalism masks its imperialism behind a façade of "humanitarian" interventionism, and crooked loans and trade policies. The end result is obviously similar, but the means do slightly differ.

Celtiberian wrote:In theory, the state is only supposed to act as an impartial arbiter in whatever disputes emerge between the employer and employee corporations in the process of their negotiations. In practice, however, the fascist states which proclaimed to have implemented corporativism invariably defended the decisions most favorable to capital.

They wanted to ban strike and lockout, and replace it with controlled arbitrations. But how? If you have three people in a room (state-arbiter, employer and employee) and then have a vote, it is the state-arbiter that decides who to favor, and this problem does not solve itself by adding more people to the group and call it a "corporation"
(It could be worth mentioning that the corporations also made plans for building-projects and such, so it was not all about wages and working-conditions)

So I think maybe it is better that policies regarding wages and working-conditions are set by a parliament that is dedicated to equality, and then very local issues regarding the individual workshop, farm of factory can be decided democratically be the workers in question, I imagine direct-democracy stuff on the work-floor.

So now I am leaning towards what I believe is a more mainstream socialist viewpoint. Here is a fun thing I ran across on twitter. A fellow countryman of mine nicknamed "diktatoren" (the dictator in English) is making some sort of absurd fan-fiction that combines elements from a movie-universe ("Treholts Ninjatroopers" or something) with this thing:

Technocratic Functionalism

It could be that it runs into similar problems? I don't know.