The Russian Revolution & Workers’ Control
By Micah Dewey
Introduction
This paper will delve into the Russian Revolution and the factory committees that arose from the working class taking control of their workplaces. The formation of the Soviet state was shaped by two major eras of worker control: worker control between February and October 1917 and worker control under Lenin’s rule. However, it is important to note that control in the Soviet sense is not the same as genuine self-management. The term 'kontrol' in Russian implies oversight rather than administration, and this misconception, perpetuated by the early Bolshevik leadership, has been instrumental in constructing Bolshevik mythicism. This dishonest or poorly translated feature of ‘control’ of the early Bolshevik leadership has been central to the construction of Bolshevik mythicism. The Russian Workers' Self-Management system was characterized by dynamic and ambiguous control mechanisms and, in some rare instances such as Kuzbass, direct management. It was this system that led to other socialist experiments, and provided valuable knowledge that could be used to create a more balanced economic system with workers at the helm.
Worker Control Between February and October 1917
During the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, under tsarist rule, the state maintained autocratic control over the country through repression and censorship. The economy of Tsarist Russia was dominated by a small class of aristocratic bourgeois and was characterized by low productivity, backwardsness and a lack of modern industry. This neglectful situation led to social tensions between the peasants and the ruling class, which only fueled discontent from the workers. Most working-class Russians of the pre-February revolution had long hours, low pay, and very dangerous working conditions with little to no recourse for hardship. Combined with the Russian Empire’s disastrous misadventures in World War I, the people of Russia finally had enough, and the spark of revolution was ignited. Hundreds of thousands of workers, peasants and Liberals rose up against the Tsar and toppled the government, allowing for the creation of the Provisional Government.
The system of workers’ self-management in the time of the Provisional Liberal Government was not unilateral and did not appear in the same form at all workplaces. The economic downturns due to the first World War and the capital strikes in opposition to the Bolsheviks led to a neutered version of worker control in most cases. Worker Control and Workers’ Self Management are not the same things, and in this period of time, worker control was the primary form of organization that occurred. Under worker control, the workers elected representatives that would make decisions about hours, pay, and more but would not be directly in the place of management. It was a system of balancing the power of the workers and the capitalist class.
However, during this time period, the workers in the soviets had gained enough power to actually challenge the system of control from above, from the capitalists and the liberal government. Unfortunately, it would not last. When the October Revolution came to pass, the workers’ soviets were put under the direct control of the Central Committee under different sovnarkhoz. The Bolsheviks would not allow the workers to have true self-management as it collided with the centralization and nationalization model that Lenin and the Committee deemed necessary for the state’s survival.
Workers’ Control Under Lenin
By the late 1920s, the real power of the workers had diminished into a Nationalized system of autocratic centralized control, partially due to chaotic economic conditions and partially due to capitalistic greed or power-hungry leadership.
To the suggestion that the committees limit themselves to a few representatives in management and to only a consultative voice, a member of the Central Council retorted: “That is extremism, some kind of deformed Bolshevism...The factory committees must absolutely stand at the head of the factories, …subordinated, of course, to the state regulating organization, the sovnarkhoz, …[since] the committees know best the situation at their factory and the workers have confidence in them.”
The concept of centralism in socialist planning and self-management in socialism presents an inherent contradiction as the more power the center holds, the less autonomy the workers in the enterprises have. However, under certain circumstances, this contradiction can be managed and even turned into a positive factor. These circumstances include objective factors that limit central control and an economy that provides workers with economic security and a decent standard of living. If these conditions are not met, self-management loses its meaning, and workers cannot be expected to prioritize the general good over their local interests. Unfortunately, both of these conditions were absent in Russia.
One of the few instances of genuine workers’ self-management was the case of The Autonomous Industrial Colony Kuzbass. At Kuzbass, members of the American International Workers of the World, under the direct supervision of Vladimir Shatov and in collaboration with Big Bill Heywood and Lenin himself, the level of productivity soared. Under the watch of Shatov and Heywood the colony would “for the first time, establish an egalitarian system of wages in the enterprises, "speaking out against motives of material interest." The anarcho-syndacalist colony would remain until 1926. Stalin ended the experiment, likely due to the increased productivity and fulfillment achieved by the anarchist-led colony without the issues previously seen under Liberal dual power.
An Analysis of Workers’ Control in the Early Soviet Union
The attempts at dual power control during the time betwixt the February and October Revolutions were intended to draw the workers closer to socialism as perceived by Lenin and his comrades. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the ideological differences between the anarchists who wanted direct control over the means of production and the state communists who viewed the state as the true owners and, therefore, directors of capital had disagreements that ended in purges, economic instability alongside counter-revolutionary class collaboration. The “socialism” of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was counterproductive to the end goal of establishing a socialist state with the workers in charge of production. In “The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control” by Maurice Brinton, the author makes the obvious conclusion to the issue underlying the failed attempt at creating economic democracy.
An analysis of the Russian Revolution shows that in allowing a specific group, separate from the workers themselves, to take over the function of managing production, the working class loses all possibility of even controlling the means of producing wealth. The separation of productive labour from the means of production results in an exploiting society. Moreover, when institutions such as the Soviets could no longer be influenced by ordinary workers, the regime could no longer be called a soviet regime.
Workers who did not have control over the means and methods of production could not have been free of exploitation and capital interests even in a “socialist” state. Even the most charitable view of the practices that the Bolsheviks pursued would barely be considered socialist. The state control over something, without direct democratic control in the workplace and simply assuming that a proletariat party in control of the state is the same as workers controlling the production process is asinine. Delegated or ‘elected’ officials in Soviet society were not in favour of the rights of workers as the anarchists wanted. Instead, they chose a centralized control system of economic planning which led to uncountable numbers of deaths. It is by this means of economic control that the state attempted to convince others that they were, in fact, socialist.
This misconstruction of socialism, socialist theory and Soviet State Socialism is oftentimes viewed as the main reasons to oppose such systems of increased Worker Self-Management. The failures of the Soviet systems de facto allow for reactionaries and liberals to view all socialist projects in the same light of failure and despair. This is because of the failure of the Soviet leaders, such as Lenin and Stalin, to not disassociate with the Marxist terminology but that they actively embrace it. Even if this were simply a rhetorical or translational failure, which it is not, it would still make any move towards socialist means of control more difficult. It is better for socialists and anarchists who view worker control and self-management to not associate with Soviet symbolism or rhetoric.
Whether State Socialist, Socialist or “Communist”, the technical descriptive terminology to define the early Soviet Union is somewhat irrelevant. We have seen states attempt to reproduce different outcomes with some of the same inputs. The People’s Republic of China is currently going through what Economist Richard Wolff claims is a “New Economic Policy” that is similar to what occurred in the Soviet Union under Lenin in the early 1920s. The systems of control that were prevalent in the time of Lenin have been reintroduced in China and have been much more successful than previous attempts. However, it is clear that China, using private capital and state capital under the control of the CCP is not in line with Orthodox Marxist approaches to bringing economic democracy to the workers directly.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has examined the Russian Revolution and the system of workers' self-management that arose during the period of worker control between February and October 1917, as well as under Lenin's rule. The paper has highlighted the distinction between worker control and workers' self-management and the challenges that arose due to the centralization and nationalization model that Lenin and the Committee deemed necessary. Ultimately, the dynamic and ambiguous control mechanisms of the Russian Workers' Self-Management system led to other socialist experiments and provided valuable knowledge that could be used to create a more balanced economic system with workers at the helm.
References
Brinton, Maurice. “Introduction,” in The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control (London: Solidarity, 1970): https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/01.htm#h1
Hakim. “Talking w/ Richard Wolff: The Controversial Questions (China, Revolution, Markets and more!).” YouTube video, 41:27. September 7, 2022.
Mandel, David. “The Factory Committee Movement in the Russian Revolution,” in Ours to Master and to Own (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011), 104-129.
Shtyrbul, Anatoly. “The Autonomous Industrial Colony ‘Kuzbass’: An Experiment in Industrial Autonomy and International Solidarity of the Workers (1922-1926).” Struggle.ws. Accessed March 31, 2023. https://struggle.ws/russia/kuzbass_colony.html.