Talk:Workers' self-management

Criticism of criticism
Currently the article state "The objective function of the labor managed firm creates an incentive to limit employment in order to boost the net income of the firm's existing members". Just like there are laws w/re to corporations, laws could be used to shape the incentive-function. The problem of the laws getting repealed is easily solved by including a thorough "no stone unturned" rationale of why the law was put in place. If this sort of rationale *had* to be included with every law, a lot of pointless laws to serve select few special interests, could not be made in the first place as the rationale would either expose logic flaws or self-interested thinking. Sometimes a thorough explanation of a rationale of something that is few lines could take few books, that problem is solved by putting the whole law system into Wikipedia-like system that is open access for no charge and contains extensive links to supporting rationales/concepts. No doubt top law firms already have something like that but since laws govern everyone they should have the laws and rationales explained so that a 5 year old can understand the rationale behind the rule and if 5 year old can poke a stick in some of the explanations then whoever made the law should find another job or rewrite the law to support whatever the 5 year old found. I'm saying this because some 5 year olds have adult level intelligence and don't need education to notice if there's injustice taking place. Of course this is also the only criticism against workers self-management. Few of the workers are probably much more intelligent but could get drowned out by the masses that aren't so the self-management really needs efficient systems like Wikipedia or whatever you have these days (haven't kept up) where everyones voice can get heard in equal measure - eg. by placing the proposal in a wiki and then instead of casting "yes votes" in a poll, everyone would cast "criticism" of each proposal. Then each criticism is grouped and criticized and this repeats until either the critiqued proposal wins or alternative is chosen. Most sites (eg. stack overflow) don't have this sort of system, instead they have "thumbs up" type of system which has severe flaws that aren't immediately obvious but do become obvious over long time - I know this because I use that site a lot and the best ideas/comments DO NOT appear to get most votes, you have to read through every answer to a question to find the best one - that means stack overflows rating system DOES NOT WORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.31.99 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a reference
Would adding a reference to open source / free software projects be appropriate? for example, the way the Debian project works sounds similar to "large-scale decisions are made by all employees during a council meeting and small decisions are made by those implementing them while coordinating with the rest and following more general agreements." Abeld 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the abstract example is highly biased. It implies that the capitalist boss wouldn't act to fix the problem, while the worker-run company wouldn't punish the worker responsible. Both are assumptions that I find dubious. TurboCamel 19:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Example removed
I took this out because it's pure speculation, and the two options which are counterposed are not mutually exclusive: "Say if a worker makes a major mistake during the middle of a work day that results in major profit loss, the workers are quick to discuss the consequences and adapt accordingly to avoid such a mistake in the future. In traditional capitalism, a manager would discipline and punish the worker responsible for the mistake.". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge recovered factory here
Although the entry on recovered factory present it as a Spanish or Hispanic phenomenon, such is international and has been used in many various situations (as can be seen on this page here, albeit small). I don't think the Argentine case justify an article all for itself, and if those, it should be renamed "Recovered factories in Argentina", or, even better, "Workers' self-management in Argentina". In any case, these two, short, articles deal with the same subject. Or did I miss sgth? Tazmaniacs 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While the case of recovered factories in Argentina is actually quite unique in that it is such a large-scale and seemingly permanent phenomenon, I'm not at all against this suggestion, especially while recovered factory is so incomplete. --Brian Z 21:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. If necessary later, we can make a sub-article titled "Workers' self-management in Argentina, and link it to es:Fabricas recuperadas. Another question: for specific reasons, I am more used to the term "autogestion". Isn't keeping the title "workers' self-management" restricting the scope of the article to, precisely, recovered factories and the classic workers' movement, thus excluding various self-management experiences of popular education or, simply put, self-management as a spontaneous way of organisation? I'm not sure self-management would be an adequate title, as it would take the risk of being too psychological or even including the economic liberal conception that the market auto-organizes itself. But wouldn't "autogestion" allow to get out of the sole frame of the factory, in much the same way that the operaismo movement has concentrated itself on figures of alienation - and of liberation - outside of the factory? Tazmaniacs 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LIP movie.jpg
The image Image:LIP movie.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2009-06 tags still present on 2010-03-24
Per the following ¶:

Following May 68 in France, Lip factory, a clockwork factory based in Besançon, was self-managed starting in 1973, after the management's decision to liquidate it. The LIP experience was an emblematic social conflict of post-68 in France. CFDT (the CCT as it was referred to in Northern Spain),trade-unionist Charles Piaget led the strike allowing workers to claim the means of production. The Unified Socialist Party (PSU), which included former Radical Pierre Mendès-France, was in favour of autogestion or self-management. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Retitle (from "OR/Contribution to Autogestion" which I set). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Improper changes
An new IP address editor added Rosa Luxemburg to the article, and changed the Anarchist theory category to Marxism. Adding Marxism might have been OK; removing Anarchist theory is the main reason that i reverted. Willing to listen, in case someone wishes to justify. Richard Myers (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jugoslav self-management comment in Theory paragraph
Just found this statement in the "Theory" section, at the very top of the article:

"Critics of workers' self-management from the left, such as Gilles Dauvé and Jacques Camatte, do not admonish the model as reactionary but simply as not progressive in the context of developed Capitalism. Such critics suggest that Capitalism is more than a relationship of management. Rather, they suggest Capitalism should be considered as a social totality which workers' self-management in and of itself only perpetuates and does not challenge - despite its seemingly radical content and activity. This theory is used to explain why self-management in Yugoslavia never advanced beyond the confines of the larger state monopoly economy, or why many modern worker-owned facilities tend to return to hiring managers and accountants after only a few years of operation."

Such a nebulose of a statement only confirms what the scientific community has been saying from the beginning of this "wikipedia" experiment: leva the science alone and do not try to rewrite the history. In doing this, wkipedia is only damaging the scientific work of millions of hard-working people who dedicate their lives to research and never-ending learning.

And this particular statement is a shining example of such devastation to the science the ignorance of the conributors of this silly page does. The facts are completely contrary. When all the layers of ideological and political correctness are removed, what becomes clear is that the Jugosla self-management was actually extremely successful. It had created jobs and supported the socialist economy in Jugoslavia to the point where it became one of the fastest growing economies of its time. It certainly became the fastest growing ecomomy among the socialist countries after the WWII. The apparent "failure", attributed to Jugoslav self-management invariably by ignorants and right-wing "theorists", capable only of repeating their brainwashing mantras about "evil communism" with no substance in the claims, occured for entirely different reasons. Not one was purely economic, stemming from possible flaws of the concept. The reasons for the "failure" of the Jugoslav self-management lies in destructive terrorist attacks of capitalist countries, led by the USA and its' NATO extension in the Europe. It is now well known that many of the managers in Jugoslavia were exposed to bribes and incentives from their foreign partners, which were depicted to Jugoslavs as "this is how we do business" concepts. After a successfully signed contract Jugoslav managers were given the "customary" 10% of the value of the contract. Such a practice had the goal to create the impression among Jugoslav management rank that in capitalism everything is "wonderful" and "beautiful" once ypu become a director or a manager. And to think how much more could they "earn" in such a beautiful system, if only Jugoslavia was a capitalist country.

It was a bribe in reality the money given to Jugoslav managers and directors, something that was illegal even in capitalism in 1960's, 1970' and 1980', but that did not stop the state-sponsored terrorism to try and corrupt Jugoslav economists and full them into co-operating with the western "businessmen" in spreading those false "messages" about how "wonderful" and "beautiful" is everything in the "west". One such example of a total failure due to corruption instigated by western state-sponsored terrorism was aluminium factory in Obrovac, now in Hrvatska. Just about everything was wrong with that project, yet it was promoted and forced into construction by the "socialist elite" of the time, which was already corrupt and had their pockets lined with money from the west.

The project costed Jugoslavia tens of millions of dollars, and it was one catastrophic failure that had ordinary people shaken and disillusioned with socialism.

Just what the terrorist from the west wanted.

Some of the actors of such failures, which are actually failures of the west since these terrorists are the instigators, are people who have then turned into the "fighters" for democracy, after they had a key role in destruction first. People like now arrested ex-prime minister of Hrvatska, who just couldn't accept that what he was exposed to was in fact an illegal bribery, so when Hrvatska declared independence, he continued to demand and extort his 10% stash from foreign companies looking to do business in Hrvatska. It is estimated that he had cashed in over 16 millions of euros just from austrian Hippo Bank. He is now sitting in an Austrian prison awaiting the trial.

Another such ex "communist to the grave" is newly created "capitalist to the grave" dinasty of Dzemal Bijedic, whose son is now one of the biggest investors in Hrvatska and Bosna and Hercegovina.

Where did all the money (we are talking about tens of millions of euros) come?

From those bribes in Jugoslav times. And there are many more such "socialists" who were loading their foreign bank accounts while pretending to be "socialists" and "building" Jugoslavian society. To list them would take a lot of space. Have a look at the names among Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian or Macedonian politicians and you will see many names quite familiar in socialist governing bodies of the time. Today many of those in action will be the rich children of those "socialist leaders" of yesterday, investing heir faters' "hard" earned bribe cash from the west.

All these cases and consequences have been recorded and studied by serious scientists. They are the facts. Much of that information is not available on the internet. You amateurs should do us all a favour and stop writting your "articles" which are only full of your own personal positions and ideologies, instead of actual facts and knowledge.

Contrary to popular politically correct brainwash of the day, socialism in Jugoslavia was actually quite progressive and successful. And that is why it had to go. That the seccession of Slovenia and Hrvatska were highly illegal did not matter to "western capitalist democracies" who swear by the rule of, ironically, the law...

The only thing that matters is to destroy this unbearably successful socialism. It is bad for business.

Another irony is that the very self-management of Jugoslav style is now deeply entrenched in the western, particularly the USA, economic millieu. There are some big companies there that have quietly transformed their operations from capitalist into Jugoslav-style self-managed socialist model. And the companies that practice it have only heard about the collapse of capitalism in 2007 from the news. These companies did not suffer any damages to their operations and productivity.

None whatsoever.

Isn't that an interesting fact, given that some anonimous "contributor" here claims that Jugoslav self-management was unable to progress beyond "state-controlled" (another typical capitalist propaganda brainwash. The "state" did not own anything in Jugoslavia)?

Dr. Damir Matulovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.111.103 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

French workers trade association enterprises post 1848
I've just been reading Ranciere's Proletarian Nights. A large section of this is about the Worker run enterprises that got support after 1848 in Paris. The four associations that embodied the 'golden legend' of association were: the tailors; the chair-turners; tin-lampmakers; the piano-makers. JR provides an analysis. They fail due to a mixture of lack of business knowledge and contacts, victims of the market and lack of sustained capital investment. Although they could get state loans they would be susceptable to debt. On the positive side it gave workers something to work out about ethics of rewards (unfortunately the result was often meritocracy) and basic forms of welfare. Szczels (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The British 'Workers Control' movement in the 1970s
Factory occupations led to a movement for 'Workers Control' of industry in Britain in the early Seventies. See the Wikipedia stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Workers'_Control For a polemical survey http://free-magazines.atholbooks.org/problems_2/Problems_3.pdf Szczels (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation
If you go to the spanish or french "Autogestion" entry there is no translation to english, but this page redirects from "autogestion" in english. I think it'd be good to replace the translation equivalent so that it's easier to reach the english translation. Autogestión is a very widely used term in Spain and it's hard for people to find a useful equivalent in english so it's usually translated as "self management" or "self organisation". I would also ask for your opinion on wether this page should be also renamed as "self management" if that's more fitting, as autogestión also relates to non-"worker" situations. ale 19:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shomon (talk • contribs)
 * As Mirriam-Webster would have it, "autogestion" is simply a synonym for worker's self-management. On that basis, redirecting here makes sense. But I agree that doesn't really capture how the term is typically used. There is an existing disambig for self-management, but it includes a lot of irrelevant things. If self-managed economy were expanded into its own article, I'd think autogestion should redirect to that, but right now that's only a sub-section of socialism. So for a quick fix, I just turned autogestion from a redirect into a dismabig page, linking both here to workers' self-management and to the relevant sub-section of socialism.Dowcet (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

149.43.108.4 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Myles 149.43.108.4 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Myles

POV-check
The article strikes me as unduly balanced toward the benefits of worker self-management. I found no reference to economists criticizing the model. The only criticism offered is from farther to the left, arguing that worker self-management will only perpetuate capitalism. Surely there are economists who think that socialization of the wok place would have efficiency costs? It seems like a controversial enough issue to warrant mention of these arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.108.4 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Socialization of the workplace" or self-management is widely viewed as being more efficient than hierarchical management structures. The article does not give undue weight to proponents of self-management - Benjamin Ward, who was critical of labor-managed firms, is mentioned. The article is simply underdeveloped (it can use a lot more information on self-management and the labor-managed firm) but it isn't biased as it is. - Battlecry 09:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Ward is listed as a supporter of workplace self-mangment: "The major proponents of self-managed market socialism in the 20th century include the economists Benjamin    Ward, Jaroslav Vanek and Branko Horvat." I am biased in favor of workplace self-managment so I may not be the best devil's advocate, but there are many economist that think unionization   distorts the labour market, resulting in efficiency losses. My understanding of their argument is that, just as free market competition requires the operation of many firms that are not "price makers" but "price takers", meaning they are unable to influence the market price, the labour market is also most efficient when the "sellers" of labour do not collaborate to become "price makers." There are also many economists that claim that, under the right circumstances. unionization can cause increased productivity due to higher wages. My point is that if there is a substantial debate about the productivity gains from unionization, surely there is similar controversy about worker self-management. It would seem that at least some of the arguments against worker unionization would apply to work-place self-managment.

98.178.147.100 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Myles


 * I think you are confused; unionization and unions are entirely different concepts than self-management (a form of management) and the labor-managed firm (a self-managed firm). - Battlecry 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I may be, I admit not having expertise on this. I am not claiming they are the same. I am claiming that some of the criticisms and purported economic costs of unionization may be applicable to labor-managed firms. If you could explain how those criticisms aren't applicable, I would appreciate it. For example, if laborers are able to decide wages, is it not likely the worker salaries will be raised? And isn't one of the criticisms of unionization that it increases the cost of labour? This article gives the impression that there is really nothing controversial at all about labour-managed firms - the only controversy is whether we should have labour-managed firms in a market based economy or if we should fundamentally alter the market based economy itself (that is, whether labour-managed firms go far enough). Frankly, the article seems to me to suggest that the only real issue of controversy is between socialism and communism. An economy with firms completely managed by labour sounds like liberal socialism. I am someone who thinks that's not a bad idea, but suggesting that this is not controversial makes the article biased. 149.43.108.51 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Myles  Myles cc (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I brought up POV concerns quite awhile ago and saw that this was removed but I don't think removal of the POV flag is warranted. The article still suggests that the efficiency of worker self-managed firms over firms not worker self-managed is uncontroversial among experts. This is not the case. Worker cooperatives are rare and among the theories to explain their rarity is their lack of efficiency (for example Vanek (1997) argues that self-managed firms under invest, given the incentive of workers to allocate profits to higher wages). If the claim about the purported efficiency gains from worker management is preserved, then I think there needs to be some acknowledgment of opposing views from experts. I'm happy to discuss this further with people but as it stands I do think this in an issue with the articles neutrality that should be addressed. The article has a bit of a doting tone towards its subject as it stands. Mylescoen12 (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Myles

"Workers" is socialist theory jargon and therefore should be in quotes
Like with anything polemic, the word "workers" is used here in the context of "revolutionist" (meaning hardline anti-imperialist) socialist theory, so its meaning is different from the standard usage of the word "workers" and so its jargon; severely misleading when used without qualification.

"Workers" is used as a name for one of the two main social classes, in a simple idea of social division, but using word "workers" asks us to accept a whole lot of communist propaganda along with it, the same as with the word "revolution." -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Non-controversial reversion of undiscussed move buidhe 21:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Organizational self-management → Workers' self-management – This page was moved without discussion. The explanation for the move was; "This kind or variant of "Self-management" which refers to the workplace and the structure of an organization, fits better according to scientific literature under the expression "Organizational Self-management"."

I personally don't agree with this reasoning, but that's me. Maybe others do. The point is we discuss it properly. Charles Essie (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Autogestion.jpg