Anarchy 47/Editor's note - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 06:13, 10 April 2020

2020-04-10T06:13:54Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 02:08, 26 March 2020

2020-03-26T02:08:42Z

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 47 (Vol 5 No 1) January 1965
Editor{{s}} note | author = Colin Ward | section = | previous..."

2020-03-26T02:06:21Z

Created page with "{{header | title = [[../|ANARCHY 47 (Vol 5 No 1) January 1965]] Editor{{s}} note | author = Colin Ward | section = | previous..."

New page

{{header
| title = [[../|ANARCHY 47 (Vol 5 No 1) January 1965]] Editor{{s}} note
| author = Colin Ward
| section =
| previous = [[../|Contents of No. 47]]
| next = [[../Towards freedom in work|Towards freedom in work]]
| notes =
}}

<div style="max-width:500px; margin:auto;">{{p|1}}

'''Editor{{s}} note'''

<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|[[Author:James Gillespie|James gillespie]]{{s}} [[../Towards freedom in work|essay]] is not likely to please everyone}}! Most managers will regard his ideas as a threat to their right to manage. Industrial workers will view them as the sales-talk of industrial conciliation. Industrialists will see him as an anarchist, and anarchists will see him as an apologist for half-measures. But to categorise him in this way would be to miss the point of his arguments.

{{tab}}If anyone can claim to have seen manufacturing industry from every angle, it is the author of this essay. He has been a thirteen-year-old labourer, apprentice machine-hand, {{w|time-study|Time_and_motion_study}} man, {{w|shop steward|Shop_steward}}, strike leader, {{popup|works|engineering and construction}} manager and management {{w|consultant|Consultant}}. In this last capacity he has written a number of books on industrial organisation: {{l|''Training in Foremanship and Management''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001424076}}, {{l|''Dynamic Motion and Time Study''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001424066}}, {{l|''Engineering Reorganization''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001424068}}, {{l|''Foundry Organization and Management''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001424069}}, {{l|''Production Efficiency Manual for Trade Unionists''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01006792181}}, {{l|''Principles of Rational Industrial Management''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001424071}}, and {{l|''Free Expression in Industry''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001424071}}.

{{tab}}The last of these books was so radical and original in its approach to the question of industrial management that it virtually ended its author{{s}} career as a consultant. Firms were unwilling to pay for the advice of a man whose opinions were unacceptable to them because they challenged all their preconceptions about the role of managers and the rights of workers. There were, however, exceptions. A handful of manufacturers in the {{w|Birmingham|Birmingham}} area adopted Gillespie{{s}} {{qq|free group theory}} and attempted to apply it in their works. When I met one of these Birmingham industrialists{{dash}}an active socialist and {{w|Quaker|Quakers}}, not a typical manufacturer, certainly, he was full of enthusiasm at the way in which the adoption of Gillespie{{s}} suggestions had changed the whole atmosphere of his factory. Mr. Gillespie touches on this experience in his essay, and it is to be hoped that a full account of it will be published.

{{tab}}The idea of {{qq|industrial democracy}} has taken many forms over the last hundred years{{dash}}varying from schemes of co-partnership and co-ownership, which as Mr. Gillespie points out {{qq|seldom have more than a superficial effect if unaccompanied by individual direct involvement in the managing process}}, to the plans of the {{w|Guild Socialists|Guild_socialism}} for national guilds and the demands of {{w|syndicalists|Syndicalism}} for worker{{s|r}} control.

{{tab}}Taken at face value, all these aspirations have failed, in that they have not changed the structure of industry in this country. Fifty years ago in their paper {{qq|Why the Self-Governing Workshop Has Failed}}, {{w|Sidney|Sidney_Webb,_1st_Baron_Passfield}} and {{w|Beatrice Webb|Beatrice_Webb}} attributed this failure not to any defects in the characters of the people involved, nor even to lack of adequate capital, but to three leading disadvantages which they saw in practically all the then recorded experiments: {{qq|The group of workmen who make a particular commodity, though they may know all the technical processes of their industry, do not seem able, when they control their own enterprise, to secure in a high degree, either (i) adequate workshop discipline, or (ii) the requisite knowledge of the market, or (iii) sufficient {{p|2}}alacrity in changing processes}}. The Webbs regarded these factors as inherent drawbacks rather than as {{qq|accidental or remediable defects}}, and they thought that the future of this kind of experiment lay in associations of producers working for a {{qq|tied}} market of associations of consumers which provided capital and was represented on the committee of management. (In other words the relationship which exists between those co-operative co-partnerships federated in the {{popup|Co-operative Productive Federation|Co-operative Productive Federation Ltd., British workers' co-op founded in 1882 by E. V. Neale and Edward Owen Greening}} and certain {{w|retail co-operative societies|Consumers'_co-operative}}.)

{{tab}}Similarly the efforts of syndicalist movements to propagate worker{{s|r}} control as a revolutionary objective have always met with the dilemma which [[Author:Geoffrey Ostergaard|Geoffrey Ostergaard]] summed up in the words: {{qq|To be effective as defensive organisations the unions needed to embrace as many workers as possible and this inevitably led to a dilution of their revolutionary objectives. In practice, the syndicalists were faced with the choice of unions which were ''either'' reformist and purely defensive ''or'' revolutionary and largely ineffective.}}

{{tab}}But in spite of every discouraging experience, the idea which some call {{qq|industrial democracy}}, and others call {{qq|worker{{s|r}} control}}, and which Mr. Gillespie would call {{qq|free work in fellowship}}, does not die. Every aspect of this aspiration still has its advocates and eager experimenters{{dash}}whether in the form of independent workers who want to build it from the bottom up, or of enlightened employers who are as much interested in making things as in making profits, or of trade unionists who are anxious to put the idea of worker{{s|r}} control back on the agenda.

{{tab}}What distinguishes the modern discussion of this issue is a certain sobriety of tone which forswears the luxury of revolutionary rhetoric in order to concentrate on the actual steps forward in the present situation. One aspect of this is the increasing advocacy of the {{qq|{{w|collective contract|Collective_bargaining}} system}} some examples of which are discussed by Mr. Gillespie, and another is the revival of the notion canvassed in the first two decades of this century by the syndicalists and guild socialists of {{qq|encroaching control}}. Thus in reporting the {{popup|Nottingham conference|conference on industrial democracy and workers' control that convened possibly on 25 April 1964}}, {{popup|Tony Topham|Anthony John Topham (1929–2004), writer and co-founder of the Institute for Workers' Control}} notes that {{qq|there were too many preliminary problems of definition and understanding, for an agreed set of specific demands for encroaching control to be formulated, though there were many references to such things as the right to hire and fire, the right to determine speed of work, the right to control expenditure and policy in welfare and safety matters, etc.}}<ref>Tony Topham: {{qq|Conference Report}} ''{{w|The Week|The_Week_(1964)}}'' 30/7/64.</ref> The American writer {{w|Daniel Bell|Daniel_Bell}} has stressed the same aspect: {{qq|If there is any meaning to the idea of worker{{s|r}} control, it is control{{dash|''in the shop''}}over the things which directly affect his work-a-day life: the rhythms, pace, and demands of work; a voice in the setting of equitable standards of pay; a check on the demands of the hierarchy over him.}}<ref>{{w|Daniel Bell|Daniel_Bell}}: {{l|''The End of Ideology''|https://archive.org/details/endofideologyont00bell}} (1960).</ref> Or as {{w|Ken Alexander|Kenneth_Alexander_(economist)}} puts it more positively, {{qq|And it is from worker{{s|r}} desire to change the character of their lives{{dash|working {{p|3}}and leisure}}that the motive power for social change must come. The Guild Socialist policy of {{q|encroaching control}} indicates how industrial action, economic power exercised by workers, can be used to set in motion basic changes in industrial organisation and indeed in society. A few simple aims{{dash|for example, control over hire and fire, over the {{q|manning of machines}} and over the working of overtime}}pressed in the most hopeful industries with the aims of establishing bridgeheads from which worker{{s|r}} control could be extended, could make a beginning. The factors determining whether such demands could be pressed successfully are market, industrial organisation and, most important, the extent to which the nature of their work already compels the workers to exercise some control.}}<ref>{{w|Kenneth Alexander|Kenneth_Alexander_(economist)}}: {{qq|Power at the Base}} in {{l|''Out of Apathy''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01014004187}} (1960).</ref>

{{tab}}Another of the dominant themes discussed at Nottingham was the failure to advance beyond the normal capitalist methods of industrial management in the nationalised industries. {{qq|There was unanimous agreement on the need to press with utmost vigour for the democratisation of the existing nationalised industries. This general position was developed in one of the working groups which, in its report back, urged the need for legislation to give executive powers to the consultative machinery in the mining industry, as a first step}}. On this topic, Mr. {{w|Robert Best|Robert_Dudley_Best}}, whose experiments in the {{qq|free group method}} are described in the following pages by James Gillespie, writes:


: {{tab}}Before 1945 we all thought that if industry came under Common Ownership workers would participate in the fullest sense of the word, and would feel that the nationalised industries really belonged to them. It is almost a truism to say that this has not happened. But what is tragically strange is that at no time has there been any evidence of a strong desire, on the part of our socialist leaders, for experiment and change. Even when there was a national {{w|Labour|Labour_Party_(UK)}} {{w|government|Attlee_ministry}} it was quite clear that those at the top just weren{{t}} thinking along these lines at all. And now … where are we? Read this from the latest {{w|Fabian|Fabian_Society}} {{l|Tract|https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/collections/fabiansociety/tracts}}, {{l|''Nationalised Industries in the Mixed Economy''|https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:ruq668gen}}: {{qq|The Webbs, discussing nationalisation, called for a searchlight of published information. All too often the information published by nationalised industries resembles smoke screens rather than searchlights}}. Or {{qq|The fact remains that no new forms of industrial democracy have been thrown up in our nationalised industries, there is no change in the basic commodity status of labour and the wage system}}.

: {{tab}}Just think what an opportunity for experimentation has been missed. Experiment in one or two pilot schemes would have proved beyond any doubt that participation is not only humane but, in the long run, efficient.

: {{tab}}But really this authoritarian resistance to real participation on the part of managers, chairmen, secretaries, big business bosses, trade union leaders, politicos and others is so well documented that I must apologise for stressing it now.

: {{tab}}Still there it is{{dash}}and that brings me to the ''obstacles'' to sharing power and responsibility. They are formidable. Participation takes time. In the short run authoritarian leadership ''looks'' more efficient. Many people like power for its own sake and for the status it brings. Furthermore some of the managers are now using the knowledge of the {{w|social psychologists|Social_psychology}} to ''manipulate'' groups …<ref>{{w|Robert D. Best|Robert_Dudley_Best}}: Sharing Power, Thought and Responsibility ({{w|Birmingham|Birmingham}} {{w|Fabian Society|Fabian_Society}} 1961).</ref>


{{tab}}Mr. Best{{s}} reference to the dangers of manipulation brings us to an important point raised at the Nottingham conference by Ray Collins, in commenting on the conclusions to be drawn from {{w|Seymour Melman|Seymour_Melman}}{{s}} {{l|''Decision-Making and Productivity''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01002453919}}:


: {{tab}}It is interesting to note how some American sociologists characterise the arrangements described by Melman. {{w|Blau|Peter_Blau}} and {{w|Scott|William_Richard_Scott}} in their book {{l|''Formal Organizations''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01000374617}} warn against the dangers of {{qq|pseudo-democracy}} in the context of a discussion about what we might call non-hierarchical methods of management. They urge that allowing scope for initiative and decision-taking does not amount to democracy unless the most basic decisions about operations are made by workers. They then go on to state that management by the use of {{qq|impersonal mechanisms}} does not involve any assumptions about democracy. As an example of such impersonal control mechanisms they cite Melman{{s}} account of the [[../Anarchy 2/The gang system in coventry|gang system]] at {{w|Standard Motors|Standard_Motor_Company}}, which, they say, {{qq|''reduced the need for supervision because work-group pressures assured a high level of productivity''}}. In short you get the workers to apply the whips to ''themselves''! To be quite fair, however, there should be less danger of managerial manipulation in this situation precisely because of the collective bargaining situation in which the gang system has been worked out. This only emphasises how dangerous {{qq|self-control}}; {{qq|worker participation}} etc., could be in the absence of unions at the place of work. Here we have to meet the criticism of writers such as {{w|Clegg|Hugh_Clegg_(industrial_relations_expert)}} that systems such as that obtaining in {{w|Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia}} do not appear to measure up to collective bargaining in their protection of worker{{s|r}} rights.


{{tab}}He is right of course, and no modern advocate of {{qq|industrial democracy}} suggests that it does away with the traditionally defensive role of the trade unions, which provide the best safeguard against the dangers of a worker participation system being exploited my manipulative managements, and would still be required in the most thorough-going system of {{qq|worker{{s|r}} control}} that can be conceived. Melman himself, in the study referred to, differentiates between the {{qq|predatory competition}} which characterises management and the {{qq|mutuality}} of the workers:


: {{tab}}Within the management hierarchy the relationships among the subsidiary functionaries are characterised primarily by predatory competition. This means that position is gauged in relative terms and the effort to advance the position of one person must be a relative advance. Hence one person{{s}} gain necessarily implies the relative loss of position by others. Within the worker{{s|r}} decision system the most characteristic feature of the decision-formulating process is that of mutuality in decision-making with final authority residing in the hands of the grouped workers themselves.


{{tab}}What Melman calls {{qq|mutuality}} and Gillespie calls {{qq|fellowship}} are at the heart of the argument of the following pages. As Gillespie says, {{qq|our economic culture rewards some of the worst of human characteristics and penalises some of the best, in the running of the economic rat-race}}. This is why he vehemently opposes incentive payment schemes like individual piecework which have the effect of reducing group solidarity and increasing predatory competition. A change here, to Gillespie, is fundamental.

{{tab}}If you don{{t}} think his arguments are relevant, read the chapters on the {{w|Ford|Ford_Motor_Company}} works in Graham Turner{{s}} {{l|''The Car Makers''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01008330194}}, where a shop-steward says of his fellow-workers: {{qq|They{{ll}} cut each other{{s}} throats for an hour{{s}} overtime}}.

{{dash}}{{dash}}{{dash}}{{dash}}


<references />
</div>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Editors note}}
[[Category:Labour and industry]]
[[Category:Workers' control]]
[[Category:Editor's note]]
[[Category:Articles]]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 {{tab}}The last of these books was so rad&shy;ical and ori&shy;ginal in its ap&shy;proach to the ques&shy;tion of in&shy;dus&shy;trial man&shy;age&shy;ment that it vir&shy;tu&shy;ally ended its author{{s}} career as a con&shy;sult&shy;ant. Firms were un&shy;wil&shy;ling to pay for the ad&shy;vice of a man whose opin&shy;ions were un&shy;ac&shy;cept&shy;able to them be&shy;cause they chal&shy;lenged all their pre&shy;con&shy;cep&shy;tions about the role of man&shy;a&shy;gers and the rights of work&shy;ers. There were, how&shy;ever, ex&shy;cep&shy;tions. A hand&shy;ful of man&shy;u&shy;fac&shy;tur&shy;ers in the {{w|Birming&shy;ham|Birmingham}} area adop&shy;ted Gilles&shy;pie{{s}} {{qq|free group theory}} and at&shy;temp&shy;ted to ap&shy;ply it in their works. When I met one of these Birming&shy;ham in&shy;dus&shy;tri&shy;al&shy;ists{{dash}}an act&shy;ive so&shy;cial&shy;ist and {{w|Quaker|Quakers}}, not a typ&shy;ical man&shy;u&shy;fac&shy;turer, cer&shy;tainly, he was full of en&shy;thus&shy;i&shy;asm at the way in which the adop&shy;tion of Gilles&shy;pie{{s}} sug&shy;ges&shy;tions had changed the whole atmo&shy;sphere of his fac&shy;tory. Mr. Gilles&shy;pie touches on this ex&shy;peri&shy;ence in his essay, and it is to be hoped that a full ac&shy;count of it will be pub&shy;lished.
-{{tab}}The idea of {{qq|in&shy;dus&shy;trial demo&shy;cracy}} has taken many forms over the last hun&shy;dred years{{dash}}vary&shy;ing from schemes of co-<wbr>part&shy;ner&shy;ship and co-<wbr>owner&shy;ship, which as Mr. Gilles&shy;pie points out {{qq|sel&shy;dom have more than a super&shy;fi&shy;cial ef&shy;fect if unac&shy;com&shy;pan&shy;ied by in&shy;di&shy;vidual di&shy;rect in&shy;volve&shy;ment in the man&shy;a&shy;ging pro&shy;cess}}, to the plans of the {{w|Guild So&shy;cial&shy;ists|Guild_socialism}} for na&shy;tional guilds and the de&shy;mands of {{w|syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ists|Syndicalism}} for worker{{s|r}} control.
+{{tab}}The idea of {{qq|in&shy;dus&shy;trial demo&shy;cracy}} has taken many forms over the last hun&shy;dred years{{dash}}vary&shy;ing from schemes of co-<wbr>part&shy;ner&shy;ship and co-<wbr>owner&shy;ship, which as Mr. Gilles&shy;pie points out {{qq|sel&shy;dom have more than a super&shy;fi&shy;cial ef&shy;fect if unac&shy;com&shy;pan&shy;ied by in&shy;di&shy;vidual di&shy;rect in&shy;volve&shy;ment in the man&shy;a&shy;ging pro&shy;cess}}, to the plans of the {{w|Guild So&shy;cial&shy;ists|Guild_socialism}} for na&shy;tional guilds and the de&shy;mands of the {{w|syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ists|Syndicalism}} for worker{{s|r}} control.
 {{tab}}Taken at face value, all these aspir&shy;a&shy;tions have failed, in that they have not changed the struc&shy;ture of in&shy;dus&shy;try in this coun&shy;try. Fifty years ago in their paper {{qq|Why the Self-<wbr>Gov&shy;ern&shy;ing Work&shy;shop Has Failed}}, {{w|Sidney|Sidney_Webb,_1st_Baron_Passfield}} and {{w|Beatrice Webb|Beatrice_Webb}} at&shy;trib&shy;u&shy;ted this fail&shy;ure not to any de&shy;fects in the char&shy;ac&shy;ters of the people in&shy;volved, nor even to lack of ad&shy;equate cap&shy;ital, but to three lead&shy;ing dis&shy;ad&shy;vant&shy;ages which they saw in prac&shy;tic&shy;ally all the then re&shy;corded ex&shy;per&shy;i&shy;ments: {{qq|The group of work&shy;men who make a par&shy;tic&shy;u&shy;lar com&shy;mod&shy;ity, though they may know all the tech&shy;nical pro&shy;ces&shy;ses of their in&shy;dus&shy;try, do not seem able, when they con&shy;trol their own enter&shy;prise, to secure in a high degree, either (i) ad&shy;equate work&shy;shop dis&shy;cip&shy;line, or (ii) the re&shy;quis&shy;ite know&shy;ledge of the mar&shy;ket, or (iii) suf&shy;fi&shy;cient {{p|2}}alac&shy;rity in chan&shy;ging pro&shy;ces&shy;ses}}. The Webbs re&shy;garded these fac&shy;tors as in&shy;her&shy;ent draw&shy;backs rather than as {{qq|ac&shy;ci&shy;dental or re&shy;medi&shy;able de&shy;fects}}, and they thought that the fu&shy;ture of this kind of ex&shy;peri&shy;ment lay in as&shy;so&shy;ci&shy;a&shy;tions of pro&shy;du&shy;cers work&shy;ing for a {{qq|tied}} mar&shy;ket of as&shy;so&shy;ci&shy;a&shy;tions of con&shy;sum&shy;ers which pro&shy;vided cap&shy;ital and was re&shy;pre&shy;sented on the com&shy;mit&shy;tee of man&shy;age&shy;ment. (In other words the re&shy;la&shy;tion&shy;ship which exists be&shy;tween those co-<wbr>oper&shy;at&shy;ive co-<wbr>part&shy;ner&shy;ships feder&shy;ated in the {{popup|Co-<wbr>oper&shy;at&shy;ive Pro&shy;duct&shy;ive Fed&shy;er&shy;a&shy;tion|Co-operative Productive Federation Ltd., British workers' co-op founded in 1882 by E. V. Neale and Edward Owen Greening}} and cer&shy;tain {{w|re&shy;tail co-<wbr>oper&shy;at&shy;ive so&shy;ci&shy;eties|Consumers'_co-operative}}.)
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 {{tab}}But in spite of every dis&shy;cour&shy;aging ex&shy;peri&shy;ence, the idea which some call {{qq|in&shy;dus&shy;trial demo&shy;cracy}}, and others call {{qq|work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol}}, and which Mr. Gilles&shy;pie would call {{qq|free work in fel&shy;low&shy;ship}}, does not die. Every aspect of this aspir&shy;a&shy;tion still has its ad&shy;voc&shy;ates and eager ex&shy;peri&shy;ment&shy;ers{{dash}}whether in the form of in&shy;de&shy;pend&shy;ent work&shy;ers who want to build it from the bottom up, or of en&shy;light&shy;ened em&shy;ploy&shy;ers who are as much in&shy;ter&shy;ested in mak&shy;ing things as in mak&shy;ing pro&shy;fits, or of trade un&shy;ion&shy;ists who are anxious to put the idea of work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol back on the agenda.
-{{tab}}What dis&shy;tin&shy;guishes the modern dis&shy;cus&shy;sion of this issue is a cer&shy;tain sobri&shy;ety of tone which for&shy;swears the lux&shy;ury of re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary rhet&shy;oric in order to con&shy;cen&shy;trate on the actual steps for&shy;ward in the pres&shy;ent situ&shy;a&shy;tion. One aspect of this is the in&shy;creas&shy;ing ad&shy;voc&shy;acy of the {{qq|{{w|col&shy;lect&shy;ive con&shy;tract|Collective_bargaining}} sys&shy;tem}} some ex&shy;amples of which are dis&shy;cussed by Mr. Gilles&shy;pie, and another is the re&shy;vival of the no&shy;tion can&shy;vassed in the first two dec&shy;ades of this cen&shy;tury by the syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ists and guild so&shy;cial&shy;ists of {{qq|en&shy;croach&shy;ing con&shy;trol}}. Thus in re&shy;port&shy;ing the {{popup|Notting&shy;ham con&shy;fer&shy;ence|conference on industrial democracy and workers' control that convened possibly on 25 April 1964}}, {{popup|Tony Topham|Anthony John Topham (1929–2004), writer and co-founder of the Institute for Workers' Control}} notes that {{qq|there were too many pre&shy;lim&shy;in&shy;ary prob&shy;lems of defin&shy;i&shy;tion and under&shy;stand&shy;ing, for an agreed set of spe&shy;cific de&shy;mands for en&shy;croach&shy;ing con&shy;trol to be for&shy;mu&shy;lated, though there were many ref&shy;er&shy;ences to such things as the right to hire and fire, the right to de&shy;term&shy;ine speed of work, the right to con&shy;trol ex&shy;pend&shy;iture and pol&shy;icy in wel&shy;fare and safety mat&shy;ters, etc.}}<ref>Tony Topham: {{qq|Con&shy;fer&shy;ence Re&shy;port}} ''{{w|The Week|The_Week_(1964)}}'' 30/7/64.</ref> The Amer&shy;ican writer {{w|Daniel Bell|Daniel_Bell}} has stressed the same aspect: {{qq|If there is any mean&shy;ing to the idea of work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol, it is con&shy;trol{{dash|''in the shop''}}over the things which di&shy;rectly af&shy;fect his work-<wbr>a-<wbr>day life: the rhythms, pace, and de&shy;mands of work; a voice in the set&shy;ting of equit&shy;able stand&shy;ards of pay; a check on the de&shy;mands of the hier&shy;archy over him.}}<ref>{{w|Daniel Bell|Daniel_Bell}}: {{l|''The End of Ideo&shy;logy''|https://archive.org/details/endofideologyont00bell}} (1960).</ref> Or as {{w|Ken Alex&shy;ander|Kenneth_Alexander_(economist)}} puts it more pos&shy;it&shy;ively, {{qq|And it is from work&shy;er{{s|r}} desire to change the char&shy;acter of their lives{{dash|work&shy;ing {{p|3}}and leisure}}that the mot&shy;ive power for so&shy;cial change must come. The Guild So&shy;cial&shy;ist pol&shy;icy of {{q|en&shy;croach&shy;ing con&shy;trol}}<!-- double quotes in original --> in&shy;dic&shy;ates how in&shy;dus&shy;trial action, eco&shy;nomic power exer&shy;cised by work&shy;ers, can be used to set in mo&shy;tion basic changes in in&shy;dus&shy;trial or&shy;gan&shy;isa&shy;tion and indeed in so&shy;ciety. A few simple aims{{dash|for ex&shy;ample, con&shy;trol over hire and fire, over the {{q|man&shy;ning of ma&shy;chines}}<!-- double quotes in original --> and over the work&shy;ing of over&shy;time}}pressed in the most hope&shy;ful in&shy;dus&shy;tries with the aims of estab&shy;lish&shy;ing bridge&shy;heads from which work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol could be ex&shy;tended, could make a be&shy;gin&shy;ning. The factors de&shy;term&shy;in&shy;ing whether such de&shy;mands could be pressed suc&shy;cess&shy;fully are mar&shy;ket, in&shy;dus&shy;trial or&shy;gan&shy;isa&shy;tion and, most im&shy;port&shy;ant, the ex&shy;tent to which the na&shy;ture of their work al&shy;ready com&shy;pels the work&shy;ers to exer&shy;cise some con&shy;trol.}}<ref>{{w|Kenneth Alex&shy;ander|Kenneth_Alexander_(economist)}}: {{qq|Power at the Base}} in {{l|''Out of Apathy''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01014004187}} (1960).</ref>
+{{tab}}What dis&shy;tin&shy;guishes the modern dis&shy;cus&shy;sion of this issue is a cer&shy;tain sobri&shy;ety of tone which for&shy;swears the lux&shy;ury of re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary rhet&shy;oric in order to con&shy;cen&shy;trate on the actual steps for&shy;ward in the pres&shy;ent situ&shy;a&shy;tion. One aspect of this is the in&shy;creas&shy;ing ad&shy;voc&shy;acy of the {{qq|{{w|col&shy;lect&shy;ive con&shy;tract|Collective_bargaining}} sys&shy;tem}} some ex&shy;amples of which are dis&shy;cussed by Mr. Gilles&shy;pie, and another is the re&shy;vival of the no&shy;tion can&shy;vassed in the first two dec&shy;ades of this cen&shy;tury by the syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ists and guild so&shy;cial&shy;ists of {{qq|en&shy;croach&shy;ing con&shy;trol}}. Thus in re&shy;port&shy;ing the {{popup|Notting&shy;ham con&shy;fer&shy;ence|conference on industrial democracy and workers' control that convened possibly on 25 April 1964}}, {{popup|Tony Topham|Anthony John Topham (1929–2004), writer and co-founder of the Institute for Workers' Control}} notes that {{qq|there were too many pre&shy;lim&shy;in&shy;ary prob&shy;lems of defin&shy;i&shy;tion and under&shy;stand&shy;ing, for an agreed set of spe&shy;cific de&shy;mands for en&shy;croach&shy;ing con&shy;trol to be for&shy;mu&shy;lated, though there were many ref&shy;er&shy;ences to such things as the right to hire and fire, the right to de&shy;term&shy;ine speed of work, the right to con&shy;trol ex&shy;pend&shy;iture and pol&shy;icy in wel&shy;fare and safety mat&shy;ters, etc.}}<ref>Tony Topham: {{qq|Con&shy;fer&shy;ence Re&shy;port}} ''{{w|The Week|The_Week_(1964)}}'' 30/7/64.</ref> The Amer&shy;ican writer {{w|Daniel Bell|Daniel_Bell}} has stressed the same aspect: {{qq|If there is any mean&shy;ing to the idea of work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol, it is con&shy;trol{{dash|''in the shop''}}over the things which di&shy;rectly af&shy;fect his work-<wbr>a-<wbr>day life: the rhythms, pace, and de&shy;mands of work; a voice in the set&shy;ting of equit&shy;able stand&shy;ards of pay; a check on the de&shy;mands of the hier&shy;archy over him.}}<ref>{{w|Daniel Bell|Daniel_Bell}}: {{l|''The End of Ideo&shy;logy''|https://archive.org/details/endofideologyont00bell}} (1960).</ref> Or as {{w|Ken Alex&shy;ander|Kenneth_Alexander_(economist)}} puts it more pos&shy;it&shy;ively, {{qq|And it is from work&shy;er{{s|r}} desire to change the char&shy;acter of their lives{{dash|work&shy;ing {{p|3}}and leisure}}that the mot&shy;ive power for so&shy;cial change must come. The Guild So&shy;cial&shy;ist pol&shy;icy of {{q|en&shy;croach&shy;ing con&shy;trol}}<!-- double quotes in original --> in&shy;dic&shy;ates how in&shy;dus&shy;trial action, eco&shy;nomic power exer&shy;cised by work&shy;ers, can be used to set in mo&shy;tion basic changes in in&shy;dus&shy;trial or&shy;gan&shy;isa&shy;tion and indeed in so&shy;ciety. A few simple aims{{dash|for ex&shy;ample, con&shy;trol over hire and fire, over the {{q|man&shy;ning of the ma&shy;chines}}<!-- double quotes in original --> and over the work&shy;ing of over&shy;time}}pressed in the most hope&shy;ful in&shy;dus&shy;tries with the aims of estab&shy;lish&shy;ing bridge&shy;heads from which work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol could be ex&shy;tended, could make a be&shy;gin&shy;ning. The factors de&shy;term&shy;in&shy;ing whether such de&shy;mands could be pressed suc&shy;cess&shy;fully are mar&shy;ket, in&shy;dus&shy;trial or&shy;gan&shy;isa&shy;tion and, most im&shy;port&shy;ant, the ex&shy;tent to which the na&shy;ture of their work al&shy;ready com&shy;pels the work&shy;ers to exer&shy;cise some con&shy;trol.}}<ref>{{w|Kenneth Alex&shy;ander|Kenneth_Alexander_(economist)}}: {{qq|Power at the Base}} in {{l|''Out of Apathy''|http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01014004187}} (1960).</ref>
 {{tab}}Another of the dom&shy;in&shy;ant themes dis&shy;cussed at Notting&shy;ham was the fail&shy;ure to ad&shy;vance beyond the normal cap&shy;it&shy;al&shy;ist meth&shy;ods of in&shy;dus&shy;trial man&shy;age&shy;ment in the na&shy;tion&shy;al&shy;ised in&shy;dus&shy;tries. {{qq|There was un&shy;anim&shy;ous agree&shy;ment on the need to press with ut&shy;most vigour for the demo&shy;crat&shy;isa&shy;tion of the ex&shy;ist&shy;ing na&shy;tion&shy;al&shy;ised in&shy;dus&shy;tries. This gen&shy;eral posi&shy;tion was de&shy;veloped in one of the work&shy;ing groups which, in its re&shy;port back, urged the need for legis&shy;la&shy;tion to give ex&shy;ec&shy;ut&shy;ive pow&shy;ers to the con&shy;sult&shy;at&shy;ive ma&shy;chinery in the min&shy;ing in&shy;dus&shy;try, as a first step}}. On this topic, Mr. {{w|Robert Best|Robert_Dudley_Best}}, whose ex&shy;peri&shy;ments in the {{qq|free group method}} are de&shy;scribed in the fol&shy;low&shy;ing pages by James Gilles&shy;pie, writes:
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
-{{tab}}He is right of course, and no modern ad&shy;voc&shy;ate of {{qq|in&shy;dus&shy;trial demo&shy;cracy}} sug&shy;gests that it does away with the tra&shy;di&shy;tion&shy;ally de&shy;fens&shy;ive role of the trade un&shy;ions, which pro&shy;vide the best safe&shy;guard against the dan&shy;gers of a worker par&shy;ti&shy;ci&shy;pa&shy;tion sys&shy;tem being ex&shy;ploited my ma&shy;nip&shy;u&shy;lat&shy;ive man&shy;age&shy;ments, and would still be re&shy;quired in the most thorough-<wbr>going system of {{qq|work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol}} that can be con&shy;ceived. Melman himself, in the study re&shy;ferred to, dif&shy;fer&shy;en&shy;ti&shy;ates be&shy;tween the {{qq|pred&shy;at&shy;ory com&shy;peti&shy;tion}} which char&shy;ac&shy;ter&shy;ises man&shy;age&shy;ment and the {{qq|mu&shy;tu&shy;al&shy;ity}} of the work&shy;ers:
+{{tab}}He is right of course, and no modern ad&shy;voc&shy;ate of {{qq|in&shy;dus&shy;trial demo&shy;cracy}} sug&shy;gests that it does away with the tra&shy;di&shy;tion&shy;ally de&shy;fens&shy;ive role of the trade un&shy;ions, which pro&shy;vide the best safe&shy;guard against the dan&shy;gers of a worker par&shy;ti&shy;ci&shy;pa&shy;tion sys&shy;tem being ex&shy;ploited by ma&shy;nip&shy;u&shy;lat&shy;ive man&shy;age&shy;ments, and would still be re&shy;quired in the most thorough-<wbr>going system of {{qq|work&shy;er{{s|r}} con&shy;trol}} that can be con&shy;ceived. Melman himself, in the study re&shy;ferred to, dif&shy;fer&shy;en&shy;ti&shy;ates be&shy;tween the {{qq|pred&shy;at&shy;ory com&shy;peti&shy;tion}} which char&shy;ac&shy;ter&shy;ises man&shy;age&shy;ment and the {{qq|mu&shy;tu&shy;al&shy;ity}} of the work&shy;ers:

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 [[Category:Labour and industry]]
 [[Category:Workers' control]]
-[[Category:Editor's note]]
+[[Category:Editor's notes]]
 [[Category:Articles]]

Anarchy 47/Editor's note - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 06:13, 10 April 2020

imported>Ivanhoe at 02:08, 26 March 2020

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 47 (Vol 5 No 1) January 1965Editor{{s}} note | author = Colin Ward | section = | previous..."

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 47 (Vol 5 No 1) January 1965
Editor{{s}} note | author = Colin Ward | section = | previous..."