Subject: [SocialistWorker.org] Sam Farber on worker self-management
-----
View original article here:
http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2012/07/12/sam-farber-worker-self-managem
Critical reading [1]: A SocialistWorker.org blog
======== SAM FARBER ON WORKER SELF-MANAGEMENT ================================
July 12, 2012 11:21 pm CDT
Why genuine worker self-management is only possible in combination with
democratic central planning and democratic control of the state. --PG
Follow Critical Reading on Twitter: @CriticalReading [2]. Subscribe to
Critical Reading [3]'s public updates on Facebook.
.... Cuba: The Implications of Worker Self-Management [4]
Source: Havana Times
July 9, 2012
By Samuel Farber*
HAVANA TIMES — Much of the emerging critical Cuban left is advocating
workers’ self-management as a keystone of a truly democratic socialism.
This is a welcome proposal that cannot be taken for granted in a country with
a long history of labor militancy and struggle but lacking in traditions of
class and group autonomy, the legacy of centralized top-down /caudillismo/
and the rule of Communism – in its Cuban version – for over fifty years.
Worker self-management has important implications that need to be fully
explored. The worker self-management model adopted in Argentina and elsewhere
in Latin America has been a courageous and self-confident response to
prolonged strikes, employer lockouts and bankruptcies, which has led to the
formation of democratically administered cooperatives.
But they are a local and defensive tactic. These coops exist and are part of
a capitalist economy that they do not control. Consequently, the workers’
self-directed activity remains fundamentally constrained by capitalist
competition and the market.
This model is not relevant to a Cuba where worker self-management is being
proposed for the whole economy, or, at least, for its dominant sectors.
However, it is important to realize that what happens in each self-managed
factory or work center is directly and closely interdependent with what
happens in other economic units.
Poor coordination among economic units and sectors is already a major problem
that the Cuban economy faces under the existing bureaucratic one-party state,
which results in a great waste of resources.
In 2009, Marino Murillo Jorge, the minister of Economy and Planning,
complained that new electrical equipment acquired to save precious energy had
been kept in storage instead of being installed promptly and properly.
The official press has also reported on the serious impact that the lack of
coordination among state enterprises – such as the various agencies
responsible for the repair of water leaks – is having on the quality of
work performance, which has fostered a climate where nobody takes
responsibility for a project as a whole.
Conceived as the separate and uncoordinated administration of each work
center, a system of worker self-management could not address the serious
coordinating deficiencies of the existing system.
Moreover, inequalities would arise among workers in different plants and
industrial branches due to the vast differences in the modernization,
capitalization, and productivities among industries as well as different
units within a given economic sector.
Such differences, for which the affected workers cannot be held responsible,
would inevitably lead to large wage differentials and vastly different rates
of investment that would perpetuate those inequalities.
A system of worker self-management would also have to face the task of
economic innovation, particularly to lighten the burden of labor for as many
people as possible.
Following this logic of innovation and economic progress, the economy may
need to open new productive facilities and close obsolete ones without
treating the workforce in the capitalist fashion, as objects to be dumped on
the garbage heap, but rather as subjects, as human beings and workers worthy
of equitable treatment, alternative equivalent employment and full
compensation for the costs of their displacement.
By definition, a new productive facility has no previous body of workers to
bring it into being and would logically need to be created by some kind of
democratic planning body. Besides, it is undemocratic to leave the decision
to close an obsolete facility, which often draws resources from the rest of
society to stay in operation, only to the people who work there.
By the same token, all democratically run industries and work centers have to
reconcile the decisions of those who work in each them with society-wide
democratic priorities. To take an extreme example, it would be undemocratic
for large media organizations to broadcast only the views of the people who
happen to work in those enterprises.
*The Yugoslavia Model*
In Yugoslavia, the system of worker self-management acquired a major economic
and social weight from the 1950s until the 1970s. Being a part of a system
that combined “market socialism” with political authoritarianism,
self-management was limited to the operation of individual work centers; the
political and economic power for the various regions and the country as a
whole was monopolized by the one-party state embodied in Marshall Tito’s
League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
While this locally self-managed but regionally and nationally authoritarian
“market socialism” did increase worker input, decision-making and
productivity at the local level, it also created unemployment, sharp trade
cycles, pay inequality and increased managerial usurpation of decision-making
authority.[1]
Local self-management combined with the workers’ lack of political and
economic power outside their work place understandably fostered in them a
parochial outlook.
As the Yugoslav scholar Mitja Kamusi pointed out, this model of
self-management encouraged workers to be interested in investments that could
ensure an immediate increase in their earnings, stable employment, and better
working conditions, but not in investments over the long-term and in other
parts of the enterprise, or in the types of investment that would require
reduction of manpower or its re-qualification. Workers were least interested
in investments – however viable – in other enterprises, particularly
those situated far away.[2]
Some of the attitudes that Tito’s Yugoslav system fostered lead anew to the
questions raised by Karl Marx in his polemic against the German socialist
leader Ferdinand Lassalle in the /Critique of the Gotha Program/. For
Lassalle, every member of a socialist society should receive the
“undiminished proceeds of labor.”
But Marx insisted that deductions would have to be made from the “total
social product” to replace the means of production that had been used up,
and to expand production (an ecologically sound economic expansion is
indispensable to improve the living standards of the great majority of the
population), and to build a reserve or insurance fund to provide against
accidents and natural calamities.
Deductions also would have to be made from the means of consumption to pay
for the general costs of administration not belonging to production, and for
those expenses that are intended for the common satisfaction of needs such as
schools and health services, as well as for those unable to work.
*The Importance of Coordination*
All of this underscores that a democratic, self-managed economic system needs
a coordinated decision making process for the economy as a whole that is
fully transparent. For this decision process to be democratic, purposes and
demands coming from numerous and diverse social sectors must be integrated
into internally coherent programs that are bound to provoke disagreement.
That is what political parties should be about: forums to debate alternative
socio-economic priorities for society as a whole. This requires the abolition
of “monolithic unity” and the constitutionally mandated single party
system that enforces it.
One of the most important questions to be addressed in such a democracy would
concern the amount and kinds of accumulation that the society requires; in
other words, whether to reduce savings to improve present living standards,
or to increase savings, in spite of current scarcities, out of concern for
the standard of living of future generations.
Decisions would also need to be taken about where or in which sectors of the
economy to realize the savings. Market mechanisms always favor the
elimination of “unprofitable” economic units or sectors of the economy,
but they may need to be kept and subsidized for otherwise sound social
reasons.
This does not mean that every economic enterprise can be subsidized because
the economy would in short order become severely inflationary and
undercapitalized. But a rational economy policy can include a calculated and
measured use of subsidies for specific and thought out purposes.
It is conceivable, although very unlikely, that the Cuban Communist Party
might be compelled to allow for worker self-management of factories. But if
that happens, self-management will be limited to the operation of discrete,
separate units while the single ruling party retains its control over the
coordination of sectors of production and the economy as a whole.
Cornelius Castoriadis, perhaps still reflecting the anti-Stalinist Marxist
tradition in which he was trained, described this state of affairs as akin to
the “specialists of the universal,” that is, the ruling party, saying,
“You go manage your little corner, that’s fine; as for us, we are going
to take care of the general coordination of activities.”
Obviously, if that were to occur, local “management” would very quickly
be emptied of all meaning, since the question of the integration of the
various “social units” cannot be miraculously be resolved all by itself,
and it does not constitute some sort of secondary and external aspect whose
repercussions on each unit might remain strictly circumscribed and of limited
importance.
It is absurd to think of socialist factories or simply self-managed ones
within the context of a bureaucratic “coordination” of the economy and
society.[3]
Some will argue that a democratic socialist economy would be best managed
through one or another form of market socialism. This is not the place to
argue an issue about which hundreds of books and articles have been written.
In any case, that would be a matter to be decided by the Cuban people once
they are free to debate on the issue in all its enormous implications. That
is when others, myself included, can make the case for a democratically
planned economy as the only way in which people are able to control their
destiny, both political and economic.
*/Samuel Farber was born and raised in Cuba and is the author of many books
and articles dealing with that country. His most recent book is Cuba Since
the Revolution of 1959. A Critical Assessment [5] (Haymarket Books, 2011) /
[1] Saul Estrin, “Yugoslavia: The Case of Self-Managing Market
Socialism,” /Journal of Economic Perspectives/, Vol. 5, No. 4, Fall 1991,
189.
[2] Mitja Kamusi, “Economic Efficiency and Workers’ Self-Management” in
Branko Horvat, Mihailo Markovic and Rudi Supek (eds.) /A Reader.
Self-Governing Socialism. Volume Two. Sociology and Politics. Economics/.
White Plains, New York: International Arts and Sciences Press, Inc. 1975,
222.
[3] “ ‘The Only Way to Find Out if You Can Swim is to Get into the
Water’: An Introductory Interview (1974)” in David Ames Curtis (ed.) /The
Castoriadis Reader/, Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 1997, 7-8.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
[1] http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading
[2] https://twitter.com/#!/CriticalReading
[3] https://www.facebook.com/criticalreading
[4] http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=73935
[5] http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=56831
