Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T02:01:09.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Worker's Control of Industry and the British Labor Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert A. Dahl
Robert A. Dahl*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Socialist thought has long contained two potentially contradictory doctrines concerning the control or management of productive enterprises under a socialist régime. One of these is the idea of workers' control: the concept that under socialism workers will no longer be merely passive victims of the productive process, but, direct participants in the control of productive enterprises. The other is the idea of central control on behalf of the entire community: the concept that socialism will replace “the anarchy of production” under capitalism with a central determination of the appropriate goals of economic activity. That there is possibiUty of conflict between these two objectives is self-evident. The decentralization of economic administration implied by workers' control may easily contradict the desire for centralization of certain kinds of economic decisions. Conceivably, one goal or the other might have to be abandoned, or at least seriously modified.

Today, for the first time in any major industrial nation, a socialist party pledged to the maintenance of democratic institutions is undertaking the task of building socialism. The achievements of the British Labor party may well determine the future goals and techniques of democratic socialists elsewhere. It is not inconceivable that success or failure of the British experiment will determine the path that Western Europe will follow. It is noteworthy, then, that during the last decade the Labor party has abandoned the goal of workers' control; in its current program of nationalization, it is making no provision for direct control of production by workers. This modification of socialist objectives, representing a swing away from the syndicalist content of socialist thinking in the direction of Fabian ideas, was achieved only after the entire socialist movement and the Labor party itself underwent the test of a protracted internal struggle, both of an intellectual and of a practical kind.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , October 1947 , pp. 875 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Quoted in Bernstein, Edward, Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer, trans. by Aveling, Eleanore Marx (London, 1893), p. 104 Google Scholar.

2 Webb, Sidney, “The Historic Basis of Socialism,” in Fabian Essays in Socialism [1889] (London, 1931), pp. 53–54 Google Scholar.

3 What Socialism Is. Fabian Tract No. 13 (London, 1890)Google Scholar.

4 For various criticisms of workers' control, see Webb, Sidney, Socialism: True and False, Fabian Tract No. 51 (London, 1894), p. 16 Google Scholar. See also, A Plea for an Eight Hours Bill, Fabian Tract No. 16 (1891), p. 3 Google Scholar; and The Case for an Eight Hours Bill, Fabian Tract No. 23 (1891), p. 7 Google Scholar. For parliamentary reforms, see The New Reform Bill, Fabian Tract No. 14 (1891); George Bernard Shaw, “Transition,” in Fabian Essays, op. cit., p. 174; Schloesser, Henry H., The Twentieth-Century Reform Bill, Fabian Tract No. 153 (1911)Google Scholar; and Webb, Sidney, The Reform of the House of Lords, Fabian Tract No. 183 (1917)Google Scholar. For criticisms of direct election of administrators, the referendum, and PR, see Report on Fabian Policy, Fabian Tract No. 70 (1896), pp. 5, 13–14 Google Scholar; Sharp, Clifford D., The Case Against the Referendum, Fabian Tract No. 155 (1911)Google Scholar, passim; and Finer, Herman, The Case Against Proportional Representation, Fabian Tract No. 211 (1924), p. 5 Google Scholar.

5 The Necessary Basis of Society, Fabian Tract No. 159 (1911), p. 6 Google Scholar.

6 For Fabian descriptions of the operation of industry under a socialist régime, see Annie Besant, “Industry Under Socialism,” in Fabian Essays, op. cit., pp. 143–151; Davies, Emil, State Purchase of Railways; A Practicable Scheme, Fabian Tract No. 150 (1910), p. 22 Google Scholar; Public Control of Electric Power and Transit, Fabian Tract No. 119 (1905), pp. 12–15 Google Scholar; Schloesser, Henry S., The Nationalization of Mines and Minerals Bill, Fabian Tract No. 171 (1913)Google Scholar, passim.

7 Beer, Max, A History of British Socialism, 2 vols. (London, 1929), Vol. I, p. 320 Google Scholar.

8 Quoted in Beer, op. cit., p. 339.

9 See Cole, G. D. H., Self-Government in Industry [1917] (London, 1922), pp. 31–32, 95 Google Scholar.

10 Ibid., p. 130; and his Guild Socialism Restated (London, 1920), p. 33 Google Scholar.

11 For various proposals, see Orage, A. R., National Guilds; An Enquiry into the Wage System and the Way Out (London, 1914), Chaps. 13, 16Google Scholar; Reckitt, Maurice B. and Bechhofer, C. E., The Meaning of National Guilds (London, 1920), p. 199 Google Scholar; Hobson, S. G., National Guilds and the State (London, 1920), pp. 125–126 Google Scholar. See especially Cole's introduction to the 1919 edition of Self-Government in Industry, where he first recognized the inadequacy of his earlier conception.

12 The Webbs referred to these as separate parliaments, respectively a Political Parliament and a Social Parliament; in effect, however, final sovereignty lay in a collective meeting of both parliaments. For details, see A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920), pp. 110 et seqGoogle Scholar.

13 See Chap. III for these details.

14 See, e.g., TUC Standing Orders, Appendix B, 64th Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress (London, 1932), p. 450 Google Scholar.

15 64th Annual Report (1932), p. 210 Google Scholar.

16 Report of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1932), p. 211 Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., pp. 214, 215.

18 Ibid., pp. 223–224.

19 65th Annual Report of the TUC (1933), p. 210 Google Scholar, and 33rd Annual Report of the Labour Party (1933), p. 14. My italicsGoogle Scholar.

20 65th Annual Report, pp. 370–379. Mr. Dukes has since become president of the Trades Union Congress and no longer asserts a claim to direct worker representation. See his illuminating discussion of the new functions of trade unions under a socialist government in the Annual Report of the 78th Trades Union Congress, Oct. 21, 1946.

21 33rd Annual Report, pp. 204–210. My italics. It is worth noting that Ernest Bevin, of the Transport and General Workers Union—the organization which had sponsored the amendment the previous year—now supported the Executive Committee and voted against the resolution (p. 208).

22 66th Annual Report of the TUC, 1934, pp. 203–205 Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., pp. 371–373.

24 For Socialism and Peace [preliminary draft, July] (London, 1934), pp. 12–17 Google Scholar.

25 Report of the 34th Annual Conference (1934), pp. 183–184 Google Scholar. See also pp. 201–202.

26 See the statements in 67th Annual Report of the TUC (1935), p. 211 Google Scholar, and Report of the 35th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1935), p. 18 Google Scholar. See also For Socialism and Peace (December, 1934), pp. 15, 18 Google Scholar.

27 The Will and the Way to Socialism (London, 1935), p. 109 Google Scholar. See also pp. 67, 71.

28 For these arguments against workers' control, see the Report of the Thirty-Second Annual Conference of the Labor Party (1932), pp. 212–214, 221–223 Google Scholar; the Thirty-Third Annual Conference (1933), p. 208 Google Scholar; Labour Party Policy Report No. 3 (1932), p. 14 Google Scholar; Morrison, Herbert, Socialization and Transport (London, 1933), Chaps. 10–13, esp. pp. 171–173, 191, 225–226 Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H., “Socialist Control of Industry,” in Problems of a Socialist Government (London, 1933), p. 182 Google Scholar; ibid., The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy (London, 1929), Chaps. 7 and 8, esp. pp. 161, 167; and Rowse, A. L., “Industry in the Transition to Socialism,” in Where Stands Socialism Today? (London, 1933), pp. 122 Google Scholar et seq.

29 For these arguments in favor of workers' control, see the Report of the Thirty-Second Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1932), p. 215, 219 Google Scholar; the Thirty-Third Annual Conference (1933), pp. 206–207 Google Scholar; Trades Union Congress, 64th Annual Report (1932), p. 380 Google Scholar, and 65th Annual Report (1933), pp. 373, 376 Google Scholar; and see Harold Clay, “Workers' Control,” in Problems of a Socialist Government, op. cit., p. 216; also Cole, G. D. H. and Mellor, W., Workers' Control and Self-Government in Industry (London, 1933)Google Scholar.

30 For Lenin's criticisms, see The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (March–April, 1918), in Selected Works (N. Y., no date), Vol. VII Google Scholar; Report of the Central Committee at the Eighth Party Congress (Mar. 18, 1919), ibid., Vol. VIII, pp. 34–37; “Left Wing” Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Mentality, ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 374–375. See also Dobb, Maurice, Russian Economic Development Since the Revolution (2nd ed., London, 1929), pp. 44–46 Google Scholar.

31 Der Weg Zum Sozialismus (Vienna, 1921), pp. 10–11 Google Scholar. See also Kautsky, Karl, The Labour Revolution (New York, 1925), pp. 203–204 Google Scholar. See the suggestive proposals for applying interest-group representation, to capitalist industry in Neurath, Otto, Wesen und Weg Zur Sozialialisierung (Munich, 1919)Google Scholar, and Strobel, Heinrich, Socialisation in Theory and Practice (London, 1922), Chap. 6Google Scholar. For recent Austrian proposals, see New York Times, Dec. 8, 1946, sec. I, 35: 3.

38 See Les Nationalisations en France, Notes Documentaires et Etudes, No. 182, Série Francaise XLVI, Ministère de l'Information, Nov. 17, 1945, p. 29 Google Scholar, for M. Moch's remarks. “Je le dis tout net,” he said. “Pour nous, les socialisations comportent la disparition de la propriété privée, mais aussi l'absence de toute participation du capital privé à la gestion de l'entreprise, l'administration général des secteurs ainsi rendus autonomes par des délégués des ouvriers et des employés d'une part, des techniciens de l'autre, des représentants de l'intérêt général enfin, à l'exclusion de tous autres, ….” See the Socialist proposals for the coal industry, p. 30. A central council for coal with a complex representation of the general interest, the management, and the workers, would be collectively responsible to the government; in case of conflict, the minister could appoint a new council and even, with the consent of Parliament, suppress it altogether. Compare this with the system of appointive managers and consultative councils actually provided in the nationalization laws, pp. 9–14.

33 See the comments of Marshall Dimock on German “mixed enterprises,” where both government and private owners were represented on boards of management, in “Public Corporations and Business Enterprise,” Public Administration, Vol.14, p. 424 (1936)Google Scholar.

34 British Transport at Britain's Service (London, 1938), pp. 9–10 Google Scholar.

35 For the full report, see the 76th Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress (London, 1944), Appendix D, p. 393 et seqGoogle Scholar.

36 P. 412.

37 For these points, see paragraphs 99–101, p. 411.

38 See the discussion, pp. 289–303.

39 Forty-Third Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1944), pp. 163, 168 Google Scholar. See also the party's nationalization proposals in Coal and Power (London, 1944)Google Scholar, and in The Post-War Organization of British Transport (London, 1944)Google Scholar.

40 Let Us Face the Future (London, 1945)Google Scholar.

41 Report of the Forty-Fourth Annual Conference, pp. 134–138.

42 See Clause 2 [2] and the Second Schedule (Supplemental Provisions as to Court of Directors), Bank of England Bill, 9 and 10 Geo. 6.

43 418 Oficial Report (Hansard), 712, 714 (Jan. 29, 1946)Google Scholar.

44 Labour and Industry in Britain, Vol. IV, No. 4 (Apr., 1946), p. 56 Google Scholar.

45 Report of the Forty-Fifth Annual Conference (1946), p. 144 Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., pp. 145–146. For a more recent explicit rejection of workers’ control, see report of the speech by Sir Stafford Cripps in New York Times, Oct. 28, 1946, 3: 6 Google Scholar.

47 See the Transport Bill, 10 Geo. 6 (Bill 12), esp. paragraphs 1, 4, and 99. And see the debates in 431 House of Commons Official Report (Hansard), nos. 25, 26, 27 (Dec. 16–18, 1946).

48 422 Official Reports (Hansard), 51 (Apr. 30, 1946). My italics. It is worth noting that under the National Health Service Bill which Mr. Bevan was presenting for the Labor government, dentists, doctors, and chemists would have half the representatives on the local health executive. This local board would be under the supervision of regional boards chosen by the minister and not representative of any interests. Introduction of interest-group representation at the local level in the health plan is undoubtedly a special case, resulting from the peculiar problem of securing intelligent supervision of the medical profession. It does not imply the acceptance of the idea of workers, control or worker representation in general.

49 418 Official Report (Hansard) 707 (Jan. 29, 1946)Google Scholar.

50 418 Official Report (Hansard) 969 (Jan. 30, 1946)Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.