motion to lrc conference on workers’ self-management

Our organisation is proposing the following motion to the Labour Representation Committee conference:

After years of being told ‘There is No Alternative’, the crisis of global capital has shown that the entire system can be brought into question.  Furthermore the widespread state intervention to preserve finance capital has brought into question previously conceived ideas of nationalisation and “public ownership” traditionally accepted in the labour movement.

As part of developing a vision of a viable alternative to capitalism our movement needs to develop new ideas of social ownership and abandon statist conceptions which have proven to be an historical failure.

are we really fighting in unison?

By James Caspell

Earlier this year, local government workers in UNISON voted for sustained industrial action in support of their claim to “catch up and match up” their salaries with the level of inflation over the last two years, and reject yet another pay cut being imposed by a Labour Government.

Despite this, after just two days of strike action, UNISON’s national bureaucracy decided to suspend all further threats of industrial action, without consultation, before even entering formal negotiations with the employer, therefore undermining the only tactic we had strong enough to win our demands – the collective withdrawal of our labour power.

new pamphlet – “the crisis: an interview with andrew kliman”

For our latest pamphlet, on the subject of the current economic crisis, we interviewed Andrew Kliman (author of Reclaiming Marx’s Capital) on the crisis of global capitalism, prospects and alternatives. The text is reproduced below. Email uncaptiveminds@gmail.com if you would like to order a hard copy of the pamphlet (£1).

Q. Descriptions of today’s crisis have included headlines proclaiming the “collapse” of the system.  How would you characterise the current crisis?

A:  There hasn’t been a collapse yet.  If there were one, you’d know it.  But there’s indeed a danger of collapse-of the financial system, and thus of the capitalist system as a whole. That danger was most acute and severe in mid-to-late September, prior to the U.S. Treasury’s $700 billion-plus bailout measures, but it persists even now [November 2].

The crisis is a crisis of “confidence.”  “Confidence” here isn’t some general optimism about the future of capitalism, but lenders’ confidence that the monies owed them will in fact be repaid. When that kind of confidence is shaken, as it has been, lending dries up. But production and trade depend crucially on lending–not only loans to build factories, malls, and offices, and to buy additional equipment–but also loans just to get from today to tomorrow, to pay workers, buy supplies and inventories, etc.  So any “credit crunch” has an effect on the so-called real economy.  If confidence were to be severely shaken, such that there’s outright panic in the credit markets-we were evidently rather close to that point in September, and the threat of such panic persists-there would be almost no new lending to speak of.  The “real” economy would grind to a halt in fairly short order.  That’s a collapse.

the communal system of government – by mészáros

The following essay, “The Communal System and the Principle of Self-Critique,” by the esteemed Marxist scholar István Mészáros was published in the Hungarian journal Eszmélet (‘Consciousness‘, No. 79, Autumn 2008) with whom The Commune has fraternal relations.   Eds.

The Communal System and the Principle of Self-Critique
by István Mészáros

The Necessity of Self-Critique

The conscious adoption and successful maintenance of the orienting principle of self-critique is an absolutely fundamental requirement of the historically sustainable hegemonic alternative to capital’s social metabolic order as an organic system.

Since it cannot be allowed to conflict in any way with the necessarily open-ended historical determinations of labor’s alternative reproductive order—on the contrary, it must be a vital guarantee against all temptations to relapse into a self-complacent closure, and thereby into the reproduction of vitiating vested interests, corresponding to the traditional pattern of the past—the envisaged and knowingly pursued faithfulness to the theoretical as well as practical operative methodological principle of self-critique needs to be embraced as a permanent feature of the new, positively enduring, social formation. For precisely through the genuine and continuing exercise of that orienting principle it becomes possible to correct in good time the tendencies that might otherwise not only appear but, worse than that, also consolidate themselves in favor of the ossification of a given stage of the present, undermining thereby the prospects of a sustainable future.

considerations on self-management – by henri simon

We are pleased to publish this letter we received from Henri Simon, a French activist who has been involved in the Socialisme ou Barbarie group, Informations et liaisons ouvrières/Informations et correspondances ouvrières and Échanges et mouvement. A long-time council communist favouring a self-managed society based on workers’ councils, Henri has written about the impossibility of maintaining self-managed units as islands of communism within capitalist society:

What follows is only a schematic look at my views on self management and not at all a complete and well documented article on the subject of self management. I was for a long time, and still now am interested by all kinds of experiments which could be connected to this idea of self management from the Israeli kibbutz up to the past and recent experience of cooperatives or communes, and have got some material about all that.

leaflet: why we need workers’ management

We have produced a leaflet on the need for workers’ management and explaining some of our basic political positions.

A pdf file of the 4-page A5 leaflet is below – since it’s landscape you’ll have to print it off, or failing that tilt your head side-on.

why we need workers’ management

We have also produced a pdf file of a leaflet we had earlier produced, the cost of living: it’s time to act

tom d’s report of workers’ control meeting

Tom D has written this report of our ‘uncaptive minds‘ forum on ‘the debates on workers’ control’ held on Monday 29th September.

What does it mean for workers to control the institutions that determine the content of their lives? What does it mean for us to control organisations of struggle, factories, workplaces, production, consumption – and, ultimately, all society? This question matters, because it is posed ever more intensely, the higher the pitch of the class struggle, until it becomes the final question of politics. The answer is the difference between victory and defeat, communism and bureaucracy.

andrew fisher’s report on last night’s meeting

Andrew Fisher from the Left Economics Advisory Panel spoke at our ‘uncaptive minds’ forum on ‘The Debates on Workers’ Control’ last night, and has posted the following report on the LEAP website:

Last night, I spoke at a discussion forum organised by the Commune entitled ‘The Debates on Workers’ Control’. The debate is part of a series of discussion forums on class struggles in the 1970s.

The debate was wide-ranging, considering different models of workers’ control – from participation on boards to co-operative control under nationalisation, the role and limitations of trade unions, and the old chestnut of reformism vs. revolution. Around 20 people attended the debate.

You can download a copy of the presentation I gave, and please give any feedback in the comments section. It is a much extended version of the preface to the new LEAP pamphlet, Building the new Common Sense – social ownership for the 21st century.

You can buy Building the new common sense online for just £3 or by sending a cheque payable to ‘Another World is Possible’ to LEAP, PO Box 2378, London, E5 9QU.

new pamphlet: ‘nationalisation or workers’ management?’

We have produced a pamphlet on the subject of workers’ control and management, counterposing working-class power exercised from below to nationalisations by the bourgeois state.

The pamphlet, costing £1, includes the following articles:

Review of the LEAP pamphlet on social ownership for the 21st century

The struggle for self-management (by Solidarity)

An exchange between Solidarity and the Institute for Workers’ Control

The ambiguities of workers’ control (by Solidarity)

The Harrogate debates: the 1977 debate between the then secretary of state for energy Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill and Peter Heathfield from the NUM on workers’ control. Includes summaries of contributions from the floor.

As indicated above, we have posted some of the contents on this website already, but we have not yet uploaded the Harrogate debates piece, which represents about half the pamphlet’s length.

If you would like a copy of the 26 page pamphlet, email uncaptiveminds@googlemail.com or write to us at The Commune, 2nd Floor, 145-157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY.

social ownership for the 21st century

Building the new common sense: Social ownership for the 21st century, Ed. Andrew Fisher

Reviewed by Chris Kane

The publication of Social ownership for the 21st century by the Labour Representation Committee on behalf of the Left Economics Advisory Panel is a significant development.  For the first time in nearly three decades an important section of the labour movement is at last developing a discussion on the questions of forms of social ownership, workers’ control and workers’ self-management.  The Tragedy of the historical moment is that at a time when the inadequacy of capitalist society is so glaringly apparent, there is a lack of confidence in the viability of an alternative society fit for humanity.  Amidst all the declarations that ‘another world is possible’ the traditional left has failed to conceptualise what that other world means.  Without developing an idea of what we want to replace capitalism with, the struggle of the labour movement is trapped in a spiral of fighting to ameliorate the conditions of life within capitalism.   In that regard this series of seven articles is a breath of fresh air in the arid plains of English socialism.

changes in ‘uncaptive minds’ discussion series on the 1970s

We have made a couple of changes to the running order of our ‘uncaptive minds‘ series of discussion forums on class struggle in the 1970s.

Ian MacDonald, who had been billed to speak at the Monday 29th September meeting on the debates on workers’ control, is now unable to attend but Andrew Fisher from the Left Economics Advisory Panel, which has recently produced a pamphlet on social ownership, has kindly stepped in at short notice. He will be speaking alongside David Broder from the commune.

Furthermore, we have moved the discussion on new methods of organising: a critical comparison of the unions, with guest speaker Anton Moctonian, from October 27th to October 13th.

There will now be no meeting on October 27th, due to an unfortunate clash with a meeting in London about the Shrewsbury Six, who were jailed for their role in the 1972 building workers’ strike. Since this strike was of great importance and is of course of direct relevance to the subject of our discussion series on 1970s class struggle, we thought it best (and in the spirit of non-sectarianism) to defer. Therefore we would urge our readers and supporters to attend this meeting. It takes place at the Welsh Club, 157-163 Grays Inn Road, WC1 London, from 7:30pm on Monday October 27th. The confirmed speakers are Ricky Tomlinson and Terry Renshaw; Arthur Scargill has also been invited.

reading material for 29th september (updated)

Comrades may be interested in a look at some of the following articles, which relate to the subject of our 29th September ‘uncaptive minds’ forum on ‘the debates over workers’ control’ in the 1970s workers’ movement.

Self-management in the struggle for socialism (by Raptis, aka Pablo)

The ambiguities of “workers’ control” (Solidarity)

The struggle for self-management: an open letter to IS comrades (Solidarity)

What is Workers’ Control? (Solidarity exchange with Institute for Workers’ Control)

Workers’ Control and Revolutionary Theory: an appraisal of the publications of the Institute for Workers’ Control (Richard Hyman)

This piece is from a slightly earlier period but is still of interest:

Nationalisation: a socialist analysis (ILP)

‘uncaptive minds’ forum on workers’ control, 29th september

Our series of ‘uncaptive minds’ forums on class struggle in the 1970s continues with a meeting at 6:30pm on Monday 29th September.

The subject of the meeting will be the debates on workers’ control. Guest speaker Ian MacDonald and David Broder from the commune will be leading off a discussion on the idea of “workers’ control” of privately-owned and nationalised workplaces raised in the workers’ movement internationally in the 1970s. The issue of workers’ control and how to implement it was widely debated among trade unionists at the time, not least by partisans of workers’ self-management, a project which found particular resonance in Portugal during that country’s revolution.

The venue is in central London – contact uncaptiveminds@googlemail.com or 07595 245494 for details.

For Chris Ford’s report on the last meeting on the 1970 Leeds clothing workers’ strike click here, or here for a report on the first meeting, which was on the subject of the 1968-74 upsurge in class struggle.

the ambiguities of “workers’ control”

The Commune has opened a discussion on the meaning of workers’ self-management and workers’ control, two concepts which are often confused with each other and given a wide range of meanings, from trade union participation on management boards to collective ownership and management of a workplace by its workers themselves. We will be having a forum on the question on 29th September, but are also looking to stimulate a broader debate in the movement. 

We will soon be publishing a review of the new Left Economics Advisory Panel pamphlet on “social ownership for the 21st century”, and have also put online two pieces from previous debates on the meaning of “workers’ control”: an exchange between the libertarian socialist ‘Solidarity’ group and the Institute for Workers’ Control as well as the piece below, also from ‘Solidarity’.