[WS:] I meant "easy solved' in comparison to some utopian notions of absolute absence of any formal organization that I am currently reading about in Graeber's book "Direct Action." I do recognize that it is far more difficult in practice, even in nominally socialist states. However, I take exception to your blanket assumption that the state always sides with managers against workers, although I also recognize that anti-statism is well entrenched on this side of the pond and arguing against it is an uphill battle.
I think a more accurate view of the state is that of multiple centers of bureaucratic power connected to various social interest groups and shifting alliances among them. This means that the "state" is not a monolith - some elements of it are more likely to side with the bosses while other - with workers and for various reasons that constantly change. This is true even in the supposedly monolithic socialist states - there were different alignments between different parts of the technostructure and different factions of the political structure and the opposition (cf. Michael Kennedy, _Professionals, Power and Solidarity in Poland__). The main point here is that you cannot automatically assume that the state is always anti-worker for it really depends on historical circumstances.
I think that the main reason why socialism fights an uphill battle has less to do with the supposed collusion between the bosses and the state, but with something totally different - social status attainment. The flattening of social hierarchies may be initially cheered by the "downtrodden masses" but it soon becomes resented by the same masses. This certainly happened in Eastern Europe. The sons of workers and peasants who -thanks to socialist education system - became members of the technostructure quickly started resenting being on a more or less equal footing with the proles. But even the proles themselves resented the relative absence of what following Veblen can be termed "status consumption" - i.e. purchase of goods that are associated with high social status regardless of their utilitarian value. A good example is US made blue jeans that could fetch a month salary (or more) in Eastern Europe. The relative scarcity of social status consumer products and the relative absence of social status distinctions were among the most frequently voiced grievances against the socialist system in Eastern Europe, especially in informal conversation. On the record it was about "freedom" and kindred lofty sounding abstractions.
Social status attainment and the role of conspicuous consumption in this attainment is the most powerful weapon of capitalism against socialism. This weapon operates independently of formal power structures, although it often receives backing of the latter. It acts as the "fifth column" that undermines the solidarity of the working class and "downtrodden masses" in general. The competition for status in the workplace was among the mechanisms of labor control in both socialism and capitalism. Michael Burawoy (_Manufacturing Consent_) describes the labor process as a "game" (instigated by the bosses, to be sure) that the workers play against each other.
Of course, the role of social status in the workplace has been extensively studied by feminists and labor market sociologists. Their arguments boil down to the proposition that contrary to meritocratic pretenses, the division of labor is based to a significant extent on social status of the incumbents. Again it is Veblen (_The Theory of the Leisure Class_) who recognized the role of social status in the division of labor. The close fusion of division of labor and social status is the main mechanism that legitimates that division of labor, even among those who receive the short end of this bargain. Reskin & Roos (_Job Queues, Gender Cueues_) provide case studies of deskilling of certain, mostly male dominated, occupations through "feminization."
One of the most important observations they make is that this work because female job applicants tend to be more accepting of lower social status of the newly redesigned (and taylorized) jobs than male applicants.
Social status distinctions, which are deeply embedded in our culture, are the main mechanism that undermines not just workplace democracy, but socialism as well. Social status attainment makes people responsive to commercialism and conspicuous consumption that the capitalists are more than willing to satisfy. And if an attempt is made to curb this through rational planning of the economy and abolition of social hierarchies, this will only increase popular receptiveness to capitalist commercialism and conspicuous consumption.
This - not the supposed "state repression" - is the main reason why democracy - both at the micro-structural and the national levels - is rather difficult to implement, but it can be rather easily derailed by commercial interests.
Wojtek
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wojtek:
>
>> I think that the problem of democratic governance is over-theorized to
>> death by the anarchist types...I think that in reality the problem can be easily solved by employing
>> principles of reciprocity. Workers' councils making strategic
>> decisions or deciding salaries and tenure of management would be an
>> example. This is not that difficult to implement in an institution.
>> And this micro-institutional level is what that matters the most -
>> democracy at a national level is an abstraction and empty word most of
>> time.
>
> I agree with most of what you've written on this thread, though I think you're also underestimating how "easily solved" is the problem of democratic control at the "micro-institutional" level. Historically, there has been only episodic and limited demand for workers councils at the enterprise level. Such councils have typically formed in a political rather than economic context, aiming at state power in insurrectionary conditions. More to the point, were workers to demand control over strategic investment decisions, management rights, and fixing salaries and working conditions at the local level, they'd quickly discover that the organized power of the state and the employing class was more than just an "empty abstraction" at the national level. Of course, there's a long history of worker representatives being co-opted onto employer and state sponsored works councils to create an illusion of "joint partnership", but I assume such tokenism is not what you have in mind. They've!
> have only retained some credibility among workers for so long as employers have been willing and able to improve rather than rollback their pay and benefits.
>
> This discussion is reminiscent of our recent disagreement over whether union-sponsored retail cooperatives can flourish within the bosom of the capitalist state.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/