The Experience of the Factory Committees in the Russian
Revolution
Building Up To October
The repression after the abortive July Days was aimed primarily at
the workers, as capitalists and bourgeois politicians alike demanded
an end to 'anarchy' in the factories. There were attacks on the right
of factory committees to meet in working hours; the Committee of
United Industrialists proposed that committee members get no pay for
time spent on committee business; some employers stopped paying
workers for the hours they were on militia duty; some refused to let
the factory committees meet on the firm's premises. Plants closed
down, partly because of the owners' deliberate policy, but also
because of fuel and other shortages as the country's railway system
reached breaking-point. Orders were turned down by bosses, lock-outs
used, and some employers tried moving their plant and machinery to
less radical areas to start afresh. The Petrograd Manufacturers'
Association campaigned for piece-wages and 'open shops'. All this was
part of the attempt to suppress the committees and workers' control.
The motto of the bourgeois appeared to be: "May the country perish if
it no longer belongs to me."
Some local soviets were forced to take over organising the supply
of goods and essentials, as commerce collapsed. They did not find the
socialists in the government either helpful or sympathetic. Skobelev,
the Menshevik Minister of Labour, who had already put out a circular
at the end of August that said that any meeting in working hours was
illegal, circulated a notice from industrialists in the Urals which
condemned "any interference by the factory committees in the
management of an enterprise (...)." In the face of the attacks made
on them, workers noted the ineffectiveness of the higher soviets and
the trade unions. Increasingly, they were having to look to
themselves.
The most effective way to do this was through the factory
committees. In August, the second conference of the Factory
Committees of Petrograd and its Environs met. This did much to
regularise the way the committees were organised. The General
Assembly of all the workers in a factory was the highest organ and
the backbone of the movement. From this was elected the factory
committee. A General Assembly could only be overruled by the Central
Council of Factory Committees, a body built up from all the
factories. The General Assembly had the right to recall and re-elect
the committee at any time. For a factory committee to be a valid one,
50% of the workforce had to vote. Sub-committees were to exist for
the different departments within a factory, or to carry out specific
tasks. "The factory and shop committees are not created out of
temporary meetings. The masses elect to these committees those who at
home in the everyday life of the factory have demonstrated their
firmness, their business-like character and their devotion to the
interests of the workers.'' [21] At
this conference, it was the Bolsheviks who again said that the job of
the committees was to supervise, not to initiate decisions; the
anarchists defended the idea of self-management. The Petrograd
factory committees were faced with the problem of keeping production
going to stop the economy disintegrating: the owners' sabotage was
forcing workers to take over. Pressure was growing for seizing the
factories, for enterprises to be nationalised, for workers' control.
During August, workers responded with increasing effect to the
bosses' July offensive. As the vanguard of metal workers took a
cautious attitude, new layers of workers took up the battle. There
was a one-day strike in Moscow on August 12th. An observer commented
"There were no lights, no tramcars; the factories and shops were
closed and the railroad yards and stations; even the waiters in the
restaurants had gone on strike." Some 400,000 were out. Other large
towns such as Kiev also had strikes. Moscow leather-workers also
struck for the right of their factory committees to hire and fire. In
some places committees took to arresting the managers. Although there
was a revival of activity among the soviets from the bottom up, the
leading role of the committees was clear. Even Lenin recognised that,
briefly, in August: "We must swing over the centre of gravity to the
factory and shop committees. (They) must become the organs of
insurrection." This rash of enthusiasm for the workers' organisations
did not last long. On August 31st, the Bolsheviks won a majority in
the Petrograd Soviet, and five days later took the Moscow Soviet. Now
the call from Lenin and Trotsky was "All power to the Bolshevik
soviets!"
The Bolsheviks were also winning over some trade unions, who had
always opposed the factory committees. The centralised unions wanted
the committees to supervise affairs locally and nothing more; against
this was the loose network of committees who stood for collective
management at the factory, city and national levels. But the
committees were getting organised nationally. On October 15th they
published their own journal 'Novy Put' ('New Path'). From the
17th-22nd October they held the first All-Russian Conference of
Factory Committees with 137 representatives from 49 industrial
centres, 66 of the delegates being Bolshevik. The conference voted to
set up an All-Russian Council, and discussed the problems of the
Central Council of Factory Committees. As local committees had kept
their best activists, the resulting vacancies were being filled by
representatives from Soviets, trade unions and political parties. The
conference stated that "The workers are more interested than the
owners in the correct and uninterrupted operation of the plants."
Workers' control was "in the interest of the whole country and ought
to be supported by the revolutionary peasantry and the revolutionary
army." The Bolshevik Milyutin argued that a soviet take-over was
needed for workers' control. His comrade, Larin, touched on a theme
that was to become a favourite of Lenin's : "Germany has set up a
national economic programme, but it has been conceived in the
interests of the ruling class: we must do the same, only in the
workers' interest." An anarchist, Pistrkovsky, attacked the unions :
"the unions are trying to throttle us (...) their members are not
actually in the factory (...) they are always ready to compromise
(...) the committees hold the key to the future."
The trade unions were in the main Menshevik controlled and against
the October Revolution. The factory committees on the other hand
called for the soviets to take power. During October, power was more
and more shifting into the hands of the workers, soldiers and
peasants. Printing workers took action to stop any
counterrevolutionary propaganda; arsenal workers and clerical
employees controlled the release of arms and ammunition; the
Petrograd lighting station factory committee liased with other
committees to get coal and grease for turbines to get round the
employers' sabotage; a conference of artillery factory workers called
for a soviet government, and set up a group to study the transition
to peaceful production.
Meanwhile, Lenin was writing on the evening of October 24th --
"Who is to seize the power? That is now of no importance. Let the
Military Revolutionary Committee take it, or 'some other
institution', which will declare that it will surrender the power
only to the genuine representatives of the interests of the people.''
[22] Not 'the people', not even
'representatives of the people', but 'representatives of the
interests of the people': that is, the Bolshevik Party led by
Lenin. Lenin's programme for revolution adopted the demands of the
mass movement -- replace the existing government with a soviet
system, end the war, give the land to the peasants, establish
workers' control -- only to dilute the demands and hold back the
movement. Workers' control, for instance, was to be nothing more than
"a national, all-embracing, omnipresent, most exact and most
conscientious accounting of production and distribution of
goods," and the existing state machinery would be taken over for
this. [23]
Notes
[21] Trotsky, p799.
[22] quoted in Trotsky, p1132.
[23] see Carr, pp 71-2.