Bolsheviks And Workers Control

by Maurice Brinton

Brinton undertakes an innovative analysis of the Russian revolution and its implications for workers' autonomy. As he demonstrates, an appreciation of the historical precedent can generate fresh insights into contemporary problems.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Russia, Russian Revolution, Soviet Union, Economics

86 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Christopher Agamemnon Pallis (2 December 1923, Bombay – 10 March 2005, London) was an Anglo-Greek neurologist and libertarian socialist intellectual. Under the pen-names Martin Grainger and Maurice Brinton, he wrote and translated for the British group Solidarity from 1960 until the early 1980s. As a neurologist, he produced the accepted criteria for brainstem death, and wrote the entry on death for Encyclopædia Britannica.[1]

1. Goodaway, David; Lewis, Paul (24 March 2005). "Obituary: Christopher Pallis (Maurice Brinton): An irreverent critic of the Bolshevik revolution". The Guardian. London, England: Guardian Media Group.

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

a thorough denunciation of Lenin and his Bolshevik conspirators, from a revolutionary libertarian perspective (from the left). chronicles month-by-month the undercutting of working class power and control over the economy, by the Bolsheviks. Lenin's rhetoric turned 180 degrees the very day he seized power, from "All Factories to the Workers!" to "Strikes and demonstrations are harmful", which was followed by the disempowerment and dismantling of the workers' committees, the absorption of the Soviets and Trade Unions into the State, and finally the "Militarization of Labor". the game began long before the Civil War, which shows that the interest of the parasitic Bolsheviks was never the same as the interest of the Russian working class.

[Kamyar · Rating 5 out of 5]

A left-wing critique of Leninism, Trotskyism and what made a mess out of the 1917 “great” Russian revolution. Also a hundred page study on why every mf out there claiming Trotsky and Lenin to be on different sides of the history is a cunt.

“Bolshevism will eventually be seen to have been a monstrous aberration, the last garb donned by a bourgeois ideology as it was being subverted at the roots. Bolshevism’s emphasis on the incapacity of the masses to achieve a socialist consciousness through thei own experience or life under capitalism, its prescription of a hierarchically structured ‘vangaurd party’ and of ‘centralisation to fight the centralised state power of the bourgeoisie’, its proclamation of the ‘historical birthright’ of those who have accepted a particular vision of society and the decreed right to dictate this vision to others—if necessary at the point of a gun—all these wille be recognised for what they are: the last attempt of bourgeois society to reassert its ordained division into leaders and led, and to maintain authoritarian social relations in all aspects of human life.”

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great retelling of the events of 1917-1921. Any honest read of the events will lead one to realise that the Bolsheviks were not Paris 1871, but 1789 when the old aristocracy was overthrown & a bourgeois dictatorship set-up 'in the name of the people' as every bourgeois government has styled itself since was established. The Bolshevik bourgeois dictatorship took over the soviets, stole their name, squashes the Factory committees, eradicated trade union power, and crushed everyone in the path of the dictatorship of one man whose word was the party and whose party was the workers they were trampling over.

[Roxana · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In the struggle for these objectives Bolshevism will eventually be seen to have been a monstrous aberration, the last garb donned by a bourgeois ideology as it was being subverted at the roots. Bolshevism's emphasis on the incapacity of the masses to achieve a socialist consciousness through their own experience of life under capitalism, its prescription of a hierarchically structured "vanguard party" and of "centralization to fight the centralized state power of the bourgeoisie", its proclamation of the "historical birthright" of those who have accepted a particular vision of society (and of its future) and the decreed right to dictate this vision to others - if necessary at the point of a gun - all these will be recognized for what they are: the last attempt of bourgeois society to reassert its ordained division into leaders and led, and to maintain authoritarian social relations in all aspects of human life.
"To be meaningful the revolution to come will have to be profoundly libertarian. It will be based on a real assimilation of the whole Russian experience. It will refuse to exchange one set of rulers for another, one bunch of exploiters for another, one lot of priests for another, one authoritarianism for another, or one constricting orthodoxy for another. It will have to root out all such false solutions which are but so many residual manifestations of man's continued alienation. A real understanding of Bolshevism will have to be an essential ingredient in any revolution which aims at transcending all forms of alienation and of self-mystification. As the old society crumbles both the bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy will have to be buried under its ruins. The real roots from which they grew will have to be understood. In this gigantic task the revolution to come will find its strength and its inspiration in the real experience of millions, both East and West. If it is even marginally assisted by this little book our efforts will have been well worthwhile."

[Sugarpunksattack Mick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maurice Brinton's phamplet/short book introduces the Russian Revolution of 1917 by examining essential debates, decisions, and actions through each year from 1917 to 1921. Brinton's objective is clear from the beginning: he wants to demonstrate that the path that the Russian revolution took was steered that way by Lenin, Trotksy and the Bolsheviks. This path was not inevitable or somehow natural, but was pushed through and against many other competing paths and groups. Brinton pulls from the historical record of meetings and the debates held at these meetings in relationship to the unfolding events. Below are the most significant.

An essential aspect of Brinton's book is to center Lenin's philosophy (found especially in 'What is to be Done?' and 'The State and Revolution) as being played out following the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917. Brinton does not spend time going through Lenin's work, but they are worth nothing: Lenin's view on the proletariat as unable to gain consciousness greater than union consciousness as espoused in 'What is to be done?' and his centralism and dictatorship of the proletariat in 'State and Revolution' drove the plan to centralize power over labor unions.

The way Brinton engages with Lenin then is to look at the debates as they take place beginning with the difference between 'workers control' and 'workers management'. He claims that in the context, workers management is the more robust idea of works making all the decisions with out an over and above authority while workers control is limited and includes submission to higher authority.

The second essential aspect of Brinton's book is his analysis of class society. He argues that workers management fundamentally changes the relationship to production and is necessary to avoid class society. This then is junxaposed with the unfolding of the Russian Revolution that changes the class and people who have control over the means of production, but not the relationship to the means of production. The final example he presents comes form debate between Bukharin and Lenin.

Lenin characterizes Bukharin as ideological distortion and calls it syndicalist, which helps to frame the overall book and perspective of Brinton. Lenin's position is that syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism is in opposition to the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, if there is workers self-managment, then there is no dictatorship of the proletariat; the power of the working class is opposed to the power of the party (lenin might have argued that these were the same).

[xDEAD ENDx · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really only read this because Black & Red re-published it. Had the sole publisher been Solidarity, I wouldn't have bother.

Several years ago I took a class at the university on Russian history post-1917. Because of this I was already familiar with names, ideological lines, etc., but this book still managed to expand upon the disagreements and disarray in such a short time period. It really is crazy to think of how much actually happened in 5 short years, in spite of the intense bureaucratization of life in this time period.

Anyways, I found there to be two major lessons to be learned. One is that we must always be skeptical of and combatant towards "worker's control." The other is that Stalin's policies were not aberrant. From the beginning, Soviet Russian leaders and policies were paving the way towards state communism and the complete elimination of [workers'] autonomy.

This is a nice little chronology interspersed with lucid commentary. Recommended for those obnoxious arguments we occasionally enter into with party line Socialists and Communists of whatever variety.

[Eve · Rating 5 out of 5]

The work is from 1967ish. It should be known that the management style of "Taylorism" originates from enslavers in USA, and that's the connotation about why the author keeps emphasizing how it was the Bolsheviks' management theory of choice.

Lots of events. It's helpful as a reference material. This is the kind of book/pamphlet that should be read again & again so that you can remember the timeline. I'll probably need to do that. I need to take better notes.

Anyways, in the epilogue the author gave reasons for the suppression of this history & it makes sense. Anyways, it's helpful especially when we then take this work & its context & apply it to antirevisionist movements.

This pamphlet talks a lot about Trotsky. Sometimes Kollantai gets mentioned.

Also it can be interesting to take some of these events & look up current day similar events. For example, the railroad unions getting attacked by USA's government & how that contributes to environmental racism.

What I didn't like:

The formatting. The author originally wrote this as a pamphlet, so there's some condensements made. Personally I would've wished for a date format that kept the year of the events on the headers because when reading this on a screen it was very difficult to keep track of the years especially as these are unfamiliar events & I couldn't remember when the end year was. To be fair, the dropping of the year makes sense when in physical form because it's easier to get surrounding context.

There was also discussions about organizations backing themselves into corners, and that wasn't clear to me, so again I'll need to reread this take better notes etc.

This probably would've helped people analyze the GPCR in China actually.

[Adrian Acuña · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Mientras las relaciones de producción no hayan sido modificadas no puede juzgarse que una revolución ha alcanzado su objetivo socialista. Digan lo que digan sus dirigentes, esa es la verdadera lección de la revolución rusa”
Una manera certera de producir escépticos y afianzar detractores es instaurar una nueva dictadura en nombre de los que dices representar, sin materializar realmente un cambio esencial al antiguo sistema de control y dominación.

[Jarvis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly detailed, chronological account of the Bolshevik response to attempts at worker self-management.

Very straightforward, even-handed analysis. Might be difficult if you're unfamiliar with the time and place but wikipedia is your friend!

[Sami Eerola · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book about how socialist democracy was eroded in the Soviet Union, but this is extremely boring book that consist mostly of analyses of official documents that have a extremely dry language

[Eve Boylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

pretty good

[Paul Butcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enlightening text that made me reconsider a lot of prior beliefs regarding the bolsheviks.

[Katherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read detailing all that went down throughout the Russian revolution and why it ultimately failed.

[RakhmetovsCigarette · Rating 4 out of 5]

olgusal bilgi kaynağı olarak yetkin, fakat anti bolşevik tavrı -eleştirilerinde haklı bile olsa- onu neredeyse çirkin bir üslup kullanmaya itmiş. her şeye rağmen okunmalı.

[Asa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brinton rips the halo off Lenin’s bald head and says, “Relax—it’s just a bald head.”

He shows the Bolsheviks not as worker-liberators but as bureaucrats with better branding.

The archives and factory-council minutes make it plain: “Workers’ control” meant you controlled your labor by obeying a Party-appointed manager.

This isn’t a grand theory of liberation. It’s a forensic autopsy.
Every page drips clarity and contempt for authoritarian betrayal.
No sentiment, no romance—just solidarity delivered in the tone of a cross-examination.

Brinton offers no new blueprint and doesn’t fake one.
The prose is cold, clean, surgical. Less spark than Goldman, but twice the incision.
Reading it feels like having your illusions stripped with industrial acid: you leave lighter, sharper, certain that Lenin never liberated anyone.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent account of the loss of worker self-management and bottom-up socialism to a growing Bolshevik bureaucracy during the Russian revolution. Quite damning of the actions of Lenin and Trotsky.