Factory Democracy

If one were to believe the bourgeois writers, then despotism—the unrestricted rule of one person over many others—belongs only to the uncultured past, arising from a barbarism that has been entirely overcome in our era of bourgeois freedom and equality. Such a view can only be explained by the fact that its proponents focus solely on their own surroundings and overlook the masses of the people. True, the worker possesses her bourgeois freedom and equality with others in her home, on the street, and in public places. But where the main part of her life unfolds—in the factory—she lives under an absolute despotism.

When the worker enters his workshop, he is suddenly transported from a world governed by the free political system of the 19th century into a world that politically resembles the oriental antiquity or a tribal state. The entrepreneur rules autocratically; his will is the supreme command. The constitution of this working community, the factory regulations, is set and altered by him; those who dislike it can stay outside. No consultation, no collective decision governs the shared work—only the dictate of the master. And not only are rights absent for the worker, but freedom is too. Chatting with one another, moving about, resting, or looking out the window is forbidden, and violations of blind obedience are all too often punished with fines.

It is obvious that workers will take up the fight against this oppressive factory despotism as soon as they have strengthened themselves through trade union solidarity. Through their organizational power, they wrest not only wage increases and shorter working hours from the entrepreneurs but also often successfully counter the most outrageous acts of arbitrariness by the big or small factory despots. Such successes raised the question of whether, with even greater organizational strength, it might be possible to completely break this factory despotism and replace the will of a single individual with the collective will.

Thus, the ideal of factory democracy emerged in trade union circles; the constitutional factory was to replace factory absolutism in the same way that constitutional government had supplanted earlier absolutism in political life. No longer should one person command; instead, the workers, like the people in the state, should have a say in regulating their work. From being subjects of an absolute ruler, they would step into the role of modern citizens who take an interest in the state because they participate in deciding its fate and shaping its direction. This progress would align entirely with the direction of societal development; it would realize democracy in industry, in labor, and transform outward political freedom into actual freedom. What the political workers’ party otherwise sets as its goal—breaking the dominance of the capitalist class—would here be achieved within the elements of society, the individual factories, through the power of trade union organization.

However, this ideal can only persist where a crucial aspect of capitalism is overlooked, where the focus remains fixed on the individual enterprise without considering the machinery of the entire world. It sees the capitalist only in his factory and not outside it, in his relationship to other capitalists. He is not only a despot toward his workers but also a competitor to his peers. The factory is not just a site of production but also a military camp, from which, with the machine as a weapon, the enemy is threatened with destruction—and which, in turn, is threatened by him.

This is no minor detail; rather, the relationships outside the factory determine the behavior within it. The manufacturer is a despot, an autocrat, because he is a competitor, a commander. Production is not an end in itself for him, pursued for the benefit of his fellow humans. It is a means to the end of profit-making, which he can only achieve by fighting in the market; he must maximize profit at the lowest possible prices. He can only wage this fight successfully if absolute discipline reigns in his army, if he can instantly carry out everything he deems necessary for his purpose without encountering resistance. Thus, he tolerates no interference from the workers in what he, from the capitalist standpoint, rightly calls his affairs. If he cannot rule freely in his factory, he faces his competitors like a fighter with bound arms.

For this reason, the capitalist will reject any attack on his autocracy. For him, it is a matter of survival. Only where it becomes a matter of survival for the workers does a fierce struggle erupt. Under capitalism, workers are not co-producers or stakeholders in production but simply sellers of their labor power. Ensuring that this labor power is not destroyed by long working hours and that they receive a decent price for it is a matter of survival for them. This is why both sides fight bitterly over wages and working hours, and here the workers can achieve successes. Further demands that are not matters of survival for them can only be granted if they—such as outrageous excesses of factory despotism—are not matters of survival for the capitalist either. But the capitalist class will not allow the principle of industrial autocracy to be shaken; it deploys all its power, including state authority, to curb the influence of the trade unions.

Thus, as long as state power protects the capitalists, the constitutional factory remains a dream—and not even a beautiful one. If it were realized, it would forge a bond of shared interest between each capitalist and his workers, while tearing apart the solidarity of the working class. Participating in the management of their factories, workers would face each other as competitors, seeking to defeat and deprive one another of their livelihoods. Abolishing factory despotism without simultaneously abolishing capitalist competition would destroy the great, magnificent strength of the working class—its inner unity—through which it will conquer the stronghold of capitalism: political power.

Factory despotism, as a symptom of the broader, intolerable capitalist economy, can only be abolished along with the whole—exploitation and competition together. Not within the narrow confines of the factory, but only in society at large, through the development toward free collective production and the establishment of brotherhood and solidarity of interest among all people, can democracy in production be achieved.