Antijob.net: History, real and not fictitious, knows not only the
struggle of hired workers against capitalists, it also knows theconfrontation of workers and states that declared themselves socialist.
In such states, the real power was held by the party bureaucracy, not
the workers, moreover, there, unlike in the countries of the capitalist
center, the workers had much fewer opportunities to defend their
interests: trade unions were completely controlled by the authorities,
and the right to strike was completely absent (for example, in the USSR
it was recognized only in 1989), those who tried to fight against these
orders were subjected to repressions no less than under capitalism.
Nevertheless, even there people found the strength and courage to fight
for better working conditions. But not only for them. The workers also
wanted to be involved in the management of enterprises, and ultimately
to achieve complete control over them. It is clear that under the
conditions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which in reality
was the dictatorship of the "communist" party bigwigs, it was impossible
to even dream of any kind of workers' self-government, but history is
not static, and the state bureaucracy, for various reasons, could
introduce concessions and democratize the political regime. This is what
happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The new party leadership relaxed
censorship, gave people the opportunity to gather for more than three
people and discuss politics. The hired workers also took advantage of this.
Unfortunately, democratic reforms in Czechoslovakia were curtailed as a
result of the invasion of the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies.
Therefore, the workers had very little time to conduct independent
politics, but it is extremely important for us to remember their
experience. And above all, we must never forget that democracy, even if
not the most perfect, is better than dictatorship, even if it is called
the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Below we publish a translation of an excerpt from Pete Dolak's book
"This Is Not the End: Lessons from the Socialist Experiment." In it, the
author tells the story of the workers' council movement that developed
in 1968-1969 in the former Czechoslovakia.
At the time of the Soviet invasion[of Czechoslovakia in August 1968],
two months after the creation of the first workers' councils, there were
perhaps fewer than two dozen of them, although they were concentrated in
the largest enterprises and therefore represented a large number of
workers. But the movement gained momentum, and by January 1969, councils
had been created in about 120 enterprises, representing more than
800,000 workers, or about one sixth of all workers in the country. This
happened despite government opposition that began in October 1968.
From the very beginning, it was a grassroots movement, and the
leadership of the party, government and enterprises were forced to react
to it. The councils independently developed enterprise charters and
immediately began to implement them. A good example is the draft charter
of the Wilhelm Pieck factory in Prague (it was prepared in June 1968 and
was one of the first). "The workers of the V. Píc Factory (CKD Prague)
strive to implement one of the basic rights of socialist democracy,
namely the right of workers to manage their own factory," the
introduction to the statute stated. "They also advocate a closer
connection between the interests of the whole society and the interests
of each individual. To this end, they have decided to establish workers'
self-management." According to the statute of the V. Píc Factory, all
workers, except the director, who had worked for at least three months,
could participate in the management of the factory and constituted the
highest body of the enterprise - the "workers' assembly", which made all
the main decisions. The assembly, in turn, elected the workers' council.
The council was responsible for implementing the decisions of the
assembly, managed the plant and hired the director. The members of the
council were elected by secret ballot, served in turns and could be
recalled. The director was chosen after consideration of candidates by a
body in which the majority were workers and the minority were
representatives of outside organizations.
According to the charter, the director was the chief executive, his
position corresponded to the general executive director of a capitalist
company. The workers' council was analogous to the board of directors.
However, its supervisory role was radically different: the workers'
council consisted of the workers themselves, acting in the interests of
their comrades and, it was assumed, for the good of the whole society.
In contrast, in a publicly traded capitalist company, the board of
directors consists of top managers, the CEO's cronies, the heads of
other companies with similar interests, and perhaps a celebrity or two,
and is beholden only to the company's shareholders. Although in some
countries these obligations to shareholders are strong and enshrined in
law, share ownership is spread among a large number of people, so the
board often acts in the interests of top management. This means that
wealth flows unimpeded to the top, to the top managers. But even when
the board of directors fulfills its legal duty and acts in the interests
of the shareholders, the essence of this duty is to maximize the price
of the shares by any means necessary, not excluding mass layoffs, wage
cuts, and deprivation of employee benefits. In one way or another, the
capitalist company is managed against the interests of its employees
(whose collective efforts are the source of profit), and, according to
the law, this is as it should be.
The National Assembly sought to modify the Councils
The charter of the Wilhelm Pieck factory was similar to the charters of
other enterprises where workers' councils were created. It was only
logical to create a national federation of councils to coordinate their
work and to ensure that the economy was linked to the interests of
society. In anticipation of a government deadline for drafting national
legislation codifying councils, a general meeting of workers' councils
was held on January 9-10, 1969, in Pilsen, one of the most important
industrial cities in Czechoslovakia (perhaps best known abroad for its
famous beer). The meeting resulted in a 104-page report (which was also
audio-recorded). Representatives from all over the Czech Republic and
Slovakia gathered to present the views of the councils and to help draft
the national law.
Among the participants were trade union leaders who supported the
complementary role of unions and councils (trade unions formed
two-thirds of the councils). One of the first speakers, an engineer who
headed the local union in Pilsen, said that the division of tasks
between councils and unions was a natural step: "For us, the
establishment of workers' councils means the possibility of achieving
relative independence of the enterprise, separation of decision-making
powers from the executive, freedom of action for the unions to pursue
their own policies, and progress in solving the problem of the
relationship of the producers to the results of their work. In this way,
we are beginning to solve the problem of alienation."
About 190 enterprises were represented at the meeting, including 101
workers' councils and 61 preparatory committees for the establishment of
councils; the rest were union or other committees. The meeting ended
with the unanimous adoption of a six-point resolution, including "the
right to self-management as an inalienable right of the socialist worker
in production."
The resolution read:
"We are convinced that workers' councils can help humanize both labor
and relations at the enterprise, and make each production worker feel
that he is not just a working element in the production process, but an
organizer and joint creator of this process. This is why we want to
emphasize here and now once again that councils must always maintain
their democratic character and vital connection with their voters,
thereby preventing the formation of a special caste of "professional
self-government leaders".
The democratic character and popularity of the idea of councils is
evidenced by mass participation. According to the results of a survey in
95 councils representing manufacturing and other industries, 83 percent
of workers took part in the elections of council members. The study also
revealed an interesting trend - the elected council members usually had
extensive experience in the enterprise. About three quarters of those
elected had worked in their jobs for more than ten years, and the
majority - for more than 15 years. Of these, more than 70 percent were
technicians or engineers, about a quarter - manual workers, and only 5
percent - representatives of the administrative staff. These results
reflect a strong tendency to vote for the most suitable candidates,
rather than just friends or candidates similar to oneself - since the
movement to create councils was particularly strong in the manufacturing
industries, most of the voters were manual workers.
The results of the study showed a high level of political maturity among
Czechoslovak workers. This was also indicated by the fact that 29% of
those elected to the councils had a university education - that is,
their average level of education was probably higher than that of the
directors at that time. Many of the directors had been appointed to
their posts in the past thanks to political connections, and the desire
to rebel against amateur management played a role in the council
movement. It is also interesting that about half of the council members
were members of the Communist Party. The Czechoslovak workers continued
to believe in socialism, but at the same time they rejected the
Soviet-style system imposed on them. The government tried to weaken
workers' control
The government prepared a bill, copies of which were circulating in
January 1969. However, it was never adopted, as Soviet pressure on the
Czechoslovak party leadership increased and hardliners began to assert
themselves. The bill was to change the name of the workers' councils to
works councils and weaken some of the statutes that the councils
themselves had drawn up. For example, it established the possibility of
a state veto on the results of elections of enterprise directors and a
provision according to which one-fifth of the works councils were to be
unelected outside experts. As for the councils of those enterprises that
the bill called "state-owned" (banks, railways and other institutions
that remained under direct government control), only a minority of their
members were to be elected, and the government could also veto their
decisions.
This proposed departure[from the principles of self-government]met with
resistance. The daily trade union newspaper Práce["Labour"]in a February
commentary and the Federal Trade Union Congress in March called the
government bill "the minimum acceptable". In a commentary in Práce,
engineer and council activist Rudolf Slánský Jr. (son of the executed
party leader) considered the council movement in the context of the
question of the exercise of property rights in enterprises.
"The management of our country's economy is one of the most important
problems," wrote Slánský.
"The basic economic principle on which the bureaucratic-centralist
mechanism of management is based is the direct implementation of
property rights to nationalized industries. This task is undertaken by
the state, or more precisely, by various central organs of the state.
There is no need to remind the reader of one of the main lessons of
Marxism: whoever owns the property, has the power... The
bureaucratic-administrative model of our socialist society can be
transformed into a democratic one only by abolishing the monopoly of the
state administration on the implementation of property rights and
decentralizing it in favor of those who are interested in the
functioning of the socialist enterprise, that is, the collectives of the
enterprise's workers." Addressing the bureaucrats who opposed the
weakening of central control, Slánský wrote,
"These people like to confuse certain concepts. They say, for example,
that this law means the transformation of public property into group
property, although this is clearly not a question of property, but
rather a question of who exercises property rights on behalf of the
whole of society, whether it is the state apparatus or directly the
socialist producers, that is, the collectives of enterprises."
Nevertheless, there is a tension between the tasks of control and
day-to-day management. Another commentator, a professor of law, stated:
"We must ... not oppose democracy and technical competence, but seek a
harmonious balance between these two components. Perhaps it would be
better not to speak of the transfer of functions, but of the transfer of
tasks. In this case, it is necessary that this transfer be dictated by
needs, and not by dogma or prestige."
These discussions have not had the opportunity to develop. In April
1969, Alexander Dubcek was forced to resign as first secretary of the
party, and was replaced by Gustav Husák, who immediately began
repression. In May, the legislative bill was shelved, and the government
and party officials began a campaign against the councils. The
government officially banned the workers' councils in July 1970, but by
then they were already disappearing.
Pete Dolak
https://avtonom.org/news/zabytoe-dvizhenie-prazhskoy-vesny-za-samoupravlenie-rabochih
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten