Duno why but this reminds me how much i like the iww 
What is "Industrial Democracy"?
This is so damn inspiring:
The last few pages of this pamphlet may shed some further light on the subject:
http://debs.indstate.edu/w893e9_1900.pdf
Some of the principles of the IWW's Industrial Democracy come out of the SLPs vision, and there were also influences by the Technocracy movement, moreso in the 30s.
Of note, the vision does not encompass broad notions of "voluntary associations" of producers, nor does it include the notion of private ownership *by workers* of the means of production. Rather, what is produced by all should be held by all.
Here is something by Jesus of the Lumberjacks -- Jimmy Rowan. He formed the "Emergency Program" in 1924, and was characterized by some as a "decentralist" but I think that is not too descriptive.
http://www.iww.org/en/unions/dept100/iu120/lumber/lumber11.shtml
Compare the above with the SLP program. I am not sure when this crystalized:
"industrial democracy" has had quite a few meanings over the years. in 1921 Bukharin used the slogan "industrial democracy" for his proposal that the management boards and central planning board in Russia would be elected by the workers. but there was no idea of eliminating of the hierarchies of supervisors and engineers in the workplaces.
after World War I the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the university arm of the old Socialist Party, renamed itself the League for Industrial Democracy. one of the tendencies among social democrats was to redefine "industrial democracy" to mean only collective bargaining and the acceptance of workers having a voice through unions.
classic problem with the slogan of "industrial democracy" is that it doesn't differentiate indirect democracy of electing management boards from participatory democracy, where workers collectively make the decisions.
a problem with the General Strike pamphlet is -- as it alludes -- was influenced by the theories of Thhorsten Veblen. Veblen studied the development of taylorism in the World War I period, but only looked at the conflict between engineers and professional managers and the "cuopon clipping" investor elite. He didn't talk to workers, so had a poor grasp of how taylorism and the elaboration of the new engineering/supervisorial hierarchies were part of the control apparatus, the elaboration of a class separate from the working class, based on control over positions of authority and key expertise. that's why one of the key weaknesses of "General Strike" by Chaplin is that it tends to think of management as "fellow workers" not as a class with interests antagonistic to workers, and doesn't envision reorganization of industry so as to do away with the corporate style hierarchies of engineers, managers, accountants, etc.
ncwob wrote:
x357997 wrote:
Quote:
(without the descruction of the exchange economy)?no
Elaborate? Are you advocating the exchange economy?
Quote:
Of note, the vision does not encompass broad notions of "voluntary associations" of producers, nor does it include the notion of private ownership *by workers* of the means of production. Rather, what is produced by all should be held by all.
Quote:
a problem with the General Strike pamphlet is -- as it alludes -- was influenced by the theories of Thhorsten Veblen. Veblen studied the development of taylorism in the World War I period, but only looked at the conflict between engineers and professional managers and the "cuopon clipping" investor elite. He didn't talk to workers, so had a poor grasp of how taylorism and the elaboration of the new engineering/supervisorial hierarchies were part of the control apparatus, the elaboration of a class separate from the working class, based on control over positions of authority and key expertise. that's why one of the key weaknesses of "General Strike" by Chaplin is that it tends to think of management as "fellow workers" not as a class with interests antagonistic to workers, and doesn't envision reorganization of industry so as to do away with the corporate style hierarchies of engineers, managers, accountants, etc.
This would also tie into Chaplin's (and the friendly to the CP wing of the IWW) friendliness to Technocracy, Inc during the early twenties.
pghwob wrote:
I thought the Howard Scott debacle was more in the 30s, but Thorstein Verblen was earlier. Ironically, Chaplin and the CP were not exactly on the best of terms, but one can definately see how this "professional management" crap appealed to the Bolshies.
Howard Scott (Technocracy Inc.) was brought in during the early 1920s when all the research was done regarding the various industries the IWW was organizing in - eg Rowan's book you referenced earlier. It was trying to present the IWW in a more positive light. In fact it was a contributing cause of the 1924 EP split.
I think Chaplin was much closer to the CLP than usually acknowledged, especially in his autobiography. For example, he was the one who led James Cannon to Wm Foster and helped intigrate Foster into the CLP. Why would he do that if he was not on good terms. Of course this changed gradually from about 1924 on.
Quote:
but one can definately see how this "professional management" crap appealed to the Bolshies.
yeah the techocratic prejudices of that era fit very well with what was going on USSR. it made it seem like Communism (in the CP's version) was the wave of the future. made anarchosyndicalism and democratic socialism look "quaint".
syndicalistcat wrote:
yeah the techocratic prejudices of that era fit very well with what was going on USSR. it made it seem like Communism (in the CP's version) was the wave of the future. made anarchosyndicalism and democratic socialism look "quaint".
But didn't at least a wing of the CNT also adopt a more or less taylorist view during the SCW?
In contrast, there is also other IWW literature from that period focusing on the need for more involvement from the rank-and-file as part of the planning process, and stressing that these decisions should be made by committees, not any technological or managerial elite who often don't know squat about how the jobs are actually done, and who are actually not on the front lines to improvise new ways of doing things at the micro level.
pghwob wrote:
In contrast, there is also other IWW literature from that period focusing on the need for more involvement from the rank-and-file as part of the planning process, and stressing that these decisions should be made by committees, not any technological or managerial elite who often don't know squat about how the jobs are actually done, and who are actually not on the front lines to improvise new ways of doing things at the micro level.
Yes, by the non-CP faction(s). But this can be as much inspired by reformist tendancies - see the IWW can run capitalist industries better than the Taylorists - as from anti-capitalist mode of production ones. That is socialism being a completely different mode of production, abolition of the market, etc.
i do know that Bill Haywood disagreed with Chaplin and the Veblenites circa 1921. don't know about the '30s. haywood thought they needed to develop an alternative center of info about production to be able to counter management. i think Haywood had the right instincts.
in the '30s the emphasis was on the failure of the market, the parasitic nature of the capitaliist owners, etc.
Oh Come On! Veblen was awesome. He was friendly to the IWW and a supporter. He drew out the fundamental distinction of decision making power in the economy, which marxists had obscured and been hostile to all along, and made compelling economic arguments about its role in reproducing power.
I do agree that his perspective is limited by how he carried out his inquiries, but we should just give him credit for what he did right. I think he anticipated the anti-marxist turn of Castoriadis' economics later on.
Industrial democracy broadly tried to pick out a society organized along industrial lines in a syndicalistic format, but one that came out of the whole SLP SPUSA IWW early era.
Veblen, to his credit, did see the conflict between the people i'd call the coordinator class -- professional managers, engineers, "efficiency experts", in general top professionals who help shape and control the production process and defend corporate interests -- and the capitalist owners. Marx didn't see this class conflict. What Veblen didn;'t see was how the growing influence of this class was at the expense of the working class, and how there was class conflict between the class he was concerned with and the working class. thus Veblen stuck with Marx's two-class polarity. the Veblenites in the IWW at the time of that debate in 1921 saw the deskilling process of taylorism as weakening the AFL and they made the mistake of supporting it for that reason. Haywood saw that it weakened the position of workers against management.
A euphemism for communism?
Workers "self-managment" of the enterprises (without the descruction of the exchange economy)?
Or something else?