Workshop delegates, Soviets, and "Guildsmen"

Whatever the final outcome of the great Russian Revolution, whatever results it may ultimately bequeath to humanity, there are two social institutions created by it that already seem destined to survive and exert their influence on the entire civilized world. The first is that of the "works councils," the second that of the "soviets."

Unfortunately, it was precisely these two democratic institutions that the Soviet regime failed to develop and which were the subject of the harshest and most justified criticism of that regime by the socialists. failed to develop, and for which the harshest and most justified criticism of this regime came from socialists, trade unionists, and anarchists around the world.

The "works councils," whose idea was not new (the institution of "shop stewards" or "factory delegates" having been discussed in the trade union and socialist press worldwide), gave Russian workers direct influence over the organization and management of industrial and commercial establishments for only a few months. Then these councils were abolished, first de facto, then officially.

It must be believed that Russian workers, having only recently been freed from the tsarist regime, are not yet ready to exert a useful influence on the general running of the establishment where they work. As a result, an economic reform of essential importance for future civilization has failed in Russia.

The "workers' and soldiers' soviets," often renamed in recent times as "workers' and peasants' soviets," continue to exist as a representative or parliamentary institution complementing the economic institution of the "works councils." These "soviets" have a real advantage over bourgeois parliaments in that they can exert constant pressure on their elected representatives and have the power to remove an elected citizen from office immediately after he or she has committed a serious offense. Extended to the entire population, to adults of both sexes, this institution could usefully replace or reform the parliamentary system.

But that's just theory: in reality, and under what is commonly referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat," it is rather the central government in Moscow that cooks up the "soviets" according to its Marxist dogmas, rather than the "soviets" dictating the actions of the central government. And if the overly independent soviets are not simply dissolved for not conforming to the political and social opinions of the central government, at least we know, in all countries, from half a century of experience, how little a congress of delegates from socialist sections can be considered to reflect the opinions and will of what is called "the proletariat." It seems that, from a legislative and parliamentary point of view as well as from an economic and technical point of view, Russia was ready to serve as a model for the more democratic countries of Western Europe, America, and Australia. This is not surprising, however...

In France, the most interesting of the two Russian institutions we have just described, that of the "exploitation councils," is the least known and the one for which the least propaganda has been made in revolutionary circles. This is because, in these circles, it has opponents both in the labor unions and among the parliamentary socialists. Admittedly, this opposition is understandable on the part of the latter, who are "parliamentarians" and "legislators" who, despite all their criticism of "bourgeois parliamentarianism," only wish to take the places of their competitors and transform themselves into a central government. parliamentary socialists do not look favorably on direct action by the masses replacing their representative action.

"If we don't do your job well, replace us," they say to the proletarian masses; but once the elections are over, obey our laws and do not try to impose your opinion on our government through direct action by 'the men of the street.'" This reasoning is least surprising coming from that faction of parliamentary socialism which, precisely, predominates in Russia, — the "Marxists," whose spirit of discipline and centralization has become proverbial in the working class.

What these so-called "socialists," whom we prefer to refer to as "social democrats," ultimately want is to replace the men of the current government with their own men, while maintaining the statist regime.

The opposition that the establishment of works councils or shop stewards encounters from union officials can be explained in part by the same disciplinary reasons; more often than not, also by the fear that local interests, or even the particular interests of certain factories, will take precedence over the general interests of the working classes.

This fear is certainly not unfounded, and labor unions as we know them will remain necessary for a long time to counterbalance the particularism of workshops and factories.

But trade unionists who cling too rigidly to the current form of the union and consider it the only form of industrial organization lose sight of the fact that workers must be able to take charge of production from the very first day of a social revolution and that their organizations, as well as production itself, will then necessarily have to be based on the unit of production that is the factory or workshop.

The transformation of militant workers' organizations into productive workers' organizations, which we have always anticipated for the era of social revolution, is nothing other than the transformation of trade organizations into industrial organizations with the workshop or factory replacing the local section.

In England, where the institution of "workshop delegates" is slightly older than in France, there is currently a heated debate about the problems that arise, especially in the wake of the experiences of the Russian Revolution.

Since the general strikes of 1911 and 1912, a form of syndicalist socialism has developed in England that specifically advocates the involvement of workers in the management of the factories, workshops, and warehouses where they work. Clearly influenced by revolutionary syndicalism, which had been widespread since 1893 and 1894 in France, Holland, Switzerland, and the United States, the English movement had become more precise on various points since the war.

In particular, he insists that, in the workshop, foremen and supervisors be appointed and paid by the workers and belong to the workers' union; he sees in the shop steward and the trade union works committee (trade union works committee) as the seeds of an organization capable of ensuring that workers control production in the workshop; To combat the chaotic state still prevailing in trade union circles, he advocated the creation of trade unions by industry (industrial unionism) rather than by trade. With regard to the "nationalization of industries," the adherents of this form of socialism intended to "establish industrial democracy by placing administration in the hands of the workers, but at the same time eliminate profit by placing ownership in the hands of the public." [[Article by one of their most qualified representatives, G.D.H. Cole, published in the Monthly Labor Review of the U.S. Department of Labor in July 1919. The author states: "For example, in the case of mines, the Guildsmen suggest, as an immediate measure, administration by a Mining Board, half of whose members represent the trade unions of the mining industry, while the other half would be appointed by the State from among technical experts and, perhaps, from among persons representing consumers" (loc. cit., p. 31).

Compare this concept of the nationalization of mines with the formula drafted in France for the railways by in its Declaration on Nationalization, published by the newspaper La Bataille on March 4, 1920. The resemblance is striking.]] ".

This movement, known as the "National Guilds" of England, is already organized into a "National League" (National Guilds League), founded in 1915, whose statutes echo the first article of the statutes of the French CGT. The League's goal is "the abolition of wage labor and the establishment, by the workers, of self-government in industry, through a democratic system of national guilds in relation to a democratic state."

While Marxist social democracy did little to appeal to English sensibilities, this new doctrine seems to be understandable to workers organized in trade unions, contrasting parliamentarianism with direct action by workers.

At its last annual conference, held at the beginning of May last year, the National Guilds League focused particularly on the Russian Revolution and the lessons it taught the international labor movement.

During a lively discussion, on the one hand, all the faults of Bolshevism were exposed, such that one of the delegates could, without much contradiction, claim that each of the principles on which the Bolsheviks base themselves is opposed to the ideas that animate the League, while the "Soviet" regime was defended by other delegates as a "welcome experiment." In the end, the League adopted a resolution stating that the socialism of the "National Guilds" is only possible with a form of industrial organization that " directly expresses the will of the workers," and welcoming the "soviets" as "meeting this condition."

However, while stating that the Soviet system is not necessarily the best system for other countries, the resolution stipulates "& nbsp;the appointment of a committee to liaise with other organizations that have expressed their sympathy with the Soviet Republic in order to formulate a joint program of action."

It is above all this project for an international agreement on the practical organization of workers' socialism that should attract our attention in this matter.

And we would be happy if, in particular, agreement could be reached between English trade unionists imbued with the spirit of "guild socialism" and French revolutionary trade unionists. Guild socialism" and the French revolutionary trade unionists.

Throughout this article, we have seen how similar the two movements are in many respects. A broad and unprejudiced exchange of views would certainly be to the advantage of both and could provide a general guideline for a new direction for the international trade union movement.