工作中的民主：资本主义的良药
作者：理查德·沃尔夫 (Richard D. Wolff)（作者）2012 年 10 月
by October 2012
资本主义作为一种制度，在其花钱买来的政治体制的同时，也引发了日益加深的经济危机。 两者都不能满足我们社会的需求。 无论是安全、高薪、有意义的工作，还是我们所依赖的与自然环境的可持续关系，我们的社会都没有提供人们需要和应得的结果。
造成这种令人无法容忍的状况的一个关键原因是我们的经济和政治缺乏真正的民主。 解决方案需要建立真正的经济民主，从工人管理自己的工作场所开始，作为真正政治民主的基础。
理查德·D·沃尔夫 (Richard D. Wolff) 在这里提出了如何实现这一目标的充满希望和具体的愿景，向许多已经得出结论认为经济不平等和政治一如既往不能再被容忍并正在寻求具体行动计划的人们。
理查德·D·沃尔夫 (Richard D. Wolff) 是马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校的经济学名誉教授。 他目前是纽约社会研究新学院的客座教授。 沃尔夫是多本书的作者，其中包括《资本主义陷入困境：全球经济崩溃》和《如何应对》。 他在 WBAI（Pacifica Radio）上主持每周一小时的广播节目《经济更新》，并定期为《卫报》、Truthout.org 和 MRZine 撰稿。
书评
https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7827_democracy-at-work-review-by-hans-g-despain/
评论者：汉斯·G·德斯潘 (Hans G Despain) ，马萨诸塞州尼科尔斯学院的经济学教授兼系主任。 他鼓励您通信：hans.despain@nichols.edu
理查德·沃尔夫的最新著作《工作中的民主：资本主义的治愈方法》探讨了从现在到另类非资本主义社会的转变，主要关注当下。 沃尔夫为美国读者，特别是美国的制度变革写了这本书。 然而，它的一般原则适用于所有资本主义社会。 从本质上讲，沃尔夫认为资本主义工作场所应该通过创建和建立工人自主企业（WSDE）来开始民主化。 目前这种努力的时机已经成熟，首先，因为公民渴望并愿意接受替代方案，以取代我们大多数人目前所忍受的工人不友好、低工资、福利匮乏和不民主的工作场所。 其次，仍有数百万美国工人因2007年8月的金融崩溃而周期性失业。 第三，公民仍然对缺乏“大街”级别的“救助”感到愤怒，并且有一种感觉，该系统被操纵以反对工人并被操纵以支持狭隘的精英（另见169-79）。
沃尔夫的书分为三个部分，十一章，一个引言和一个非常简短的结论。 第一部分解释了资本主义社会的不稳定、发展不平衡以及危机和金融崩溃的趋势，其中2007年8月的崩溃只是最近的一次。 第二部分解释说，国家形式的资本主义（例如苏联、中国等）充其量只是部分替代方案。 他们成功地改变了经济生产的宏观政治管理。 然而，沃尔夫认为，除了改变宏观政治管理之外，个体生产企业的微观内部组织和管理也需要民主化。 第三部分是本书的核心部分，也是最长的部分。 第三部分详细介绍了在资本主义社会中创建和建立“工人自主企业”（WSDE）的可能性和方法，以及它们对资本主义政治的系统动力所产生的影响和后果。 经济，工人和管理者行为和激励的改变，以及对现实世界替代不民主的极权主义资本主义工作场所的概念的认知转变，以及公民、社区和工人的政治赋权。
沃尔夫并不抱有 WSDE 能够结束工人斗争的幻想。 与奴隶制的终结类似，前奴隶仍然面临着经济和政治问题。 前奴隶不再为成为奴隶主的财产而斗争，但其他形式的剥削、压迫和种族主义仍然存在（182）。 十九世纪的解放宣言改变了斗争的基础。 机构发生转变，权力关系发生变化。 同样，沃尔夫认为，WSDE 将改变工人斗争的政治和经济基础。 WSDE 将成为民主的延伸和社会治理权力关系的转变。
与其他马克思主义经济学家类似，沃尔夫强调了资本主义的不稳定（25）、其不平衡发展（27）以及在收入（135-7）、财富（92）、机会（44- 5）和政治权力（89-90）。 福利国家资本主义和新政政治旨在弥补资本主义的这些矛盾和弊病（31-7）。 新政改革既是局部的，又是暂时的。
繁荣和萧条的历史有平行的政策发生。 也就是说，在萧条时期，监管和支持劳工的政策有所增加，而在繁荣时期，监管的废除和反劳工政策的增加（151-4）。 换句话说，典型的危机之后会出现反周期、有利于劳工和“涓滴”的经济计划，这些计划对于扭转危机的紧迫性相当有效（112-3），但对于防止繁荣和萧条却无效 序列本身 (35-7)。
美国对 2007 年 8 月金融危机的政策反应在历史上是独一无二且引人注目的，那就是没有对保护美国工人和家庭的“涓滴”经济计划进行认真的辩论 (68)。 相反，应对措施是对金融公司和关键行业的救助（56-60），以及“涓滴”经济计划（96-7），即政府向（通常是大）企业和富人提供大量直接援助， 这反过来“应该会‘渗透’并为大众提供康复”(7)。 问题是“预期的涓滴效应未能实现”（57）。
救助和涓滴计划产生了巨额联邦预算赤字（56-60），辩论很快从社会经济危机转向对“赤字支出”的批评（63）。 现在的大问题变成了政府赤字和债务的“病症”，而适当的药物被认为是紧缩或勒紧经济腰带（66-7）。 对于紧缩政策的重要性和有效性几乎没有什么分歧（9）。 主要的政治问题不是是否紧缩，而是紧缩的程度（67）。
“太大而不能倒”的银行在 2007 年 8 月倒闭后规模变得更大 (76)，但如果没有政府的大规模支持和救助就无法运作的银行仍然被认为是“私营企业”(71)。 因此，不仅没有关于新政“涓滴”经济的认真辩论，“资本主义的任何系统性替代方案”也被保持沉默并排除在国家议程之外（68）。 占领华尔街运动试图挑战财富和权力的集中（177）以及任何有关“资本主义的系统性替代方案”（174-5）的全国性讨论的社会禁忌。
“资本主义的系统性替代方案”讨论面临的一个主要问题是苏联和中国式“社会主义”的遗产。 沃尔夫大量借鉴了他以前的著作（Wolff and Resnick 2002），仔细地定义了资本主义。 传统观点认为，（1）生产资料所有权的转变，以及（2）生产资料和产出分配的转变，（分别是（1）从资本家到国家政府，以及（2）从经济 市场到政治计划）就是从资本主义转向“社会主义”（99-100）。 沃尔夫认为这是错误的。 它确实实现了宏观经济转变，但是，进一步需要的是生产企业（93）内部组织的微观经济转变（140）以及谁控制所产生的剩余分配（104）。 在西式资本主义（“私人资本主义”）和所谓的资本主义替代品（国家资本主义）中，工人生产的剩余被其他人侵占和分配（109）。
沃尔夫的马克思主义盈余分析揭示了美国资本主义和苏联“社会主义”的丑闻：这些制度产生的盈余分配缺乏民主。 “事实上，我们必须质疑在一个以资本主义为基本经济制度的社会中真正民主的可能性”（94），两者都缺乏真正的民主。 丑闻是，在被认为是世界上最重要的民主国家的美国，工人激发了苏联的“社会主义”，两者都排除了民主和工人控制的工作场所。 新的经济体系必须批判私人和国家资本主义，并提供具体的前进道路（116）。
沃尔夫的主要议程是为工作场所民主化提供论据和蓝图。 毕竟，大多数美国人接受民主作为基本的社会价值观。 “如果民主是真正的基本社会价值观，那么它应该首先管理工作场所”（147）。 他的总体希望似乎是革命性的，然而，他的论点和蓝图无疑是改良主义的。 沃尔夫认为，改革政治可以成为社会转型的补充基石。 “事实上，沃尔夫书中的一个目标”是“制定一项革命性变革计划，以实现不会轻易逆转的改革”（113）。 例如，我们目睹了新政和其他改革和法规的倒退（36-7）。
在私人和国家资本主义中，与工人不同的董事会或公共机构集体占有和分配剩余。 “相比之下，在 WSDE 中，任何单独的群体——任何不参与企业生产性工作的个人——都不能成为董事会成员”（118）。 WSDE内部组织的要点在于“WSDE中的剩余生产、分配和分配不同于各种生产资料所有制形式，并且可以与之共存”（141）以及货币和市场的存在与否（143）。 -4）。
对于 WSDE 来说，在（微观）政治上解决“两种工人”之间“相互可接受的关系”至关重要（129）。 第一类工人是剩余产品的直接生产者，第二类工人是间接“促成”剩余产品生产的工人，如秘书、文员、保安、清洁工、经理、律师、建筑师、顾问等。 谁维护提供必要条件的文书工作和物理空间（128）。 此外，还有第二个推动者领域（沃尔夫未提及），他们与整个社区一起维持家庭，为儿童、老人、病人等提供护理（145）。
沃尔夫对如何制定 WSDE 的微观政治提供了很少的指导。 尽管如此，应该指出的是，这些微观政治问题目前是以一种根本不民主的方式简单地解决的（151）。 沃尔夫的观点是强调“占领”运动表明了从 1% 寡头非民主霸权中彻底变革的愿望。 工人如何选择解决和不断调整WSDE内部的关系将深刻地塑造其内部生活，并将其与资本主义企业的内部（通常是极权主义）内部生活区分开来（130）。
沃尔夫在他的网站 www.democracyatwork.info 上提供了一百多个当前工人自主经营企业的例子。 书中提供的主要例子是西班牙蒙德拉贡公司及其 85,000 名工人成员，所有这些都基于一名工人一票的前提 (157)。 沃尔夫进一步将他的 WSDE 与员工持股计划 (ESOP) 和其他工人所有的企业 (119-20)、工人管理的企业 (120-1) 和合作社 (122) 区分开来。 主要区别在于，只有在 WSDE 中，盈余分配才是民主决定的。 这在经济和政治上赋予了工人权力（146），最重要的是工人阶级日常生活中的彻底的非剥削性微观政治转变（124）。
沃尔夫认为，WSDE 可以存在于资本主义及其企业内部并与其共存（159）。 他认为，认为非资本主义企业无法成功与资本主义企业竞争的观点是错误的（156）。 西班牙蒙德拉贡公司五十多年来取得了令人瞩目的成功 (128)。 数百个 WSDE 正在证明资本主义企业还有另一种选择（参见 www.democarcyatwork.info）。
不仅有理由相信工人和公民会更喜欢、在政治上争取并在经济上支持 WSDE（例如仅消费 WSDE 生产的商品），而且还会对社会的其他几个方面产生积极影响。 参与性政治将会发生转变，因为人们会被鼓励他们的政治信仰和行动可以产生影响（146）。 同样，对技术变革和专利的影响也将是革命性的，因为工人和社区决定是否实施新技术 (131-2)。 地方环境政策 (172)、收入分配 (135) 和教育 (128, 161) 将发生根本性转变。
尽管沃尔夫将 WSDE 与 ESOP、工人管理的企业和合作社区分开来，并且更喜欢 WSDE，但他强调，从战略上讲，这些机构（以及工会）与 WSDE 的创建和制度化之间存在着密切的联系（169- 79）。
此外，沃尔夫建议我们支持一项联邦计划，允许失业工人一次性领取失业补偿金，与其他人共同创建 WSDE (170-1) 和支持 WSDE 的基础设施项目 (161)。 例如，“WSDE 需要公立学校教导所有学生如何设计和指导大型团体活动”、“集体行为的好处和方式”、“以及如何在平等的社区内发出和接受命令”（162）。 当然，这些想法在改善工人生活方面比当今国会讨论的任何其他想法都更有潜力。
沃尔夫的 WSDE 提供了一项新政，与其说是关于政府与公民之间的关系，不如说是关于生产性企业与其工人成员之间的关系的新政。 这将是一项从根本上扩展美国人及其政治历史所珍视的民主的新政。 WSDE 将成为能够实现以下四件事的新机构：（1）为失业者提供就业机会，（2）为所有工人提供极权资本主义企业的替代方案，（3）能够与资本主义企业竞争并超越资本主义企业，以及（ 4）抵制政治倒退。
沃尔夫的书和想法值得广泛支持和广泛辩论，以实现美国人口的重新政治化并重振美国劳动力和公民的活力。
2013 年 10 月 4 日
参考
Wolff, R. D. 和 Resnick, S. 2002 年阶级理论和历史：苏联的资本主义和共产主义 纽约：劳特利奇。
网址：https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7827_democracy-at-work-review-by-hans-g-despain/
Capitalism as a system has spawned deepening economic crisis alongside its bought-and-paid-for political establishment. Neither serves the needs of our society. Whether it is secure, well-paid, and meaningful jobs or a sustainable relationship with the natural environment that we depend on, our society is not delivering the results people need and deserve.
One key cause for this intolerable state of affairs is the lack of genuine democracy in our economy as well as in our politics. The solution requires the institution of genuine economic democracy, starting with workers directing their own workplaces, as the basis for a genuine political democracy.
Here Richard D. Wolff lays out a hopeful and concrete vision of how to make that possible, addressing the many people who have concluded economic inequality and politics as usual can no longer be tolerated and are looking for a concrete program of action.
Richard D. Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is currently a visiting professor at the New School for Social Research in New York. Wolff is the author of many books, includingCapitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It. He hosts the weekly hour-long radio programEconomic Updateon WBAI (Pacifica Radio) and writes regularly forThe Guardian, Truthout.org, and MRZine.
<<<<<<>>>>>>
Reviewed by Hans G Despain
https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7827_democracy-at-work-review-by-hans-g-despain/
About the reviewer
Hans G Despain is Professor of Economics and Department Chair at Nichols College, Massachusetts. He encourages your correspondence: hans.despain@nichols.edu
Richard Wolff’s latest book Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism addresses the transition from now to an alternative non-capitalistic society, with the primary focus on the now. Wolff has written the book for an American audience and specifically U.S. institutional change. However, its general principles are applicable to all capitalistic societies. Essentially, Wolff argues capitalistic workplaces should begin to be democratized by means of creating and instituting Worker Self-Directed Enterprises (WSDEs). The current moment is ripe for such an effort, first, because citizens are eager and receptive for alternatives to the worker unfriendly, low pay, benefit impoverished, and undemocratic workplaces most of us are currently enduring. Second, there are still millions of American workers cyclically unemployed from the financial collapse of 2007-8. Third, citizens remain angry about the lack of ‘main-street’ level ‘bailouts’ and there is a sense that the system is rigged against the workers and rigged in favor of a narrow elite (also see 169-79).
Wolff’s book is divided into three parts and eleven chapters, an introduction, and very brief conclusion. Part One explains the instability of capitalist societies, uneven development, and tendency for crisis and financial collapse, with the collapse of 2007-8 merely the most recent. Part Two explains that state-form capitalisms (e.g. Soviet, China, etc.) are partial alternatives at best. They successfully changed the macro-political management of economic production. However, Wolff argues in addition to changing macro-political management, the micro internal organization and management of individual productive enterprises need democratization. Part Three is the heart, and lengthiest section, of the book. Part Three presents in great detail the possibility for, and the how-to of, creating and instituting “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises” (WSDEs) within a capitalistic society and the impact and consequences they would have on the systemic dynamic of a capitalistic political economy, the change of behavior and incentives for workers and managers, and the transformation of cognition with respect to the conception of real-world alternatives to the undemocratic totalitarian capitalist workplaces and the political empowerment of citizens, community, and workers.
Wolff is under no illusion that WSDEs will end workers’ struggles. Analogous to the end of slavery, ex-slaves still had economic and political problems. Ex-slaves no longer struggled over being the property of a slave-master, but other forms of exploitation, oppression, and racism persisted (182). The nineteenth century emancipation proclamation shifted the grounds of the struggles; institutions transformed and power-relations shifted. Similarly, Wolff believes that WSDEs will transform the political and economic grounds of worker struggles. WSDEs will be an extension of democracy and a shift of the power-relations that govern society.
Similar to other Marxian economists, Wolff underscores the historical record of the instability of capitalism (25), its uneven development (27), and tendency to generate massive inequalities in income (135-7), wealth (92), opportunity (44-5), and political power (89-90). Welfare state capitalism and New Deal politics intended to mend these contradictions and maladies of capitalism (31-7). New Deal reforms were both partial and all too temporary.
The boom and bust history has a parallel policy occurrence. Namely, during the bust there is an increase in regulation and pro-labor policy, and during the boom there is a dismantling of regulations and an increase in anti-labor policy (151-4). In other words, typically crises have been followed by countercyclical, pro-labor, and “trickle-up” economic programs that have been rather effective to reverse the immediacy of the crisis (112-3), but ineffective to prevent the boom and bust sequence itself (35-7).
Historically unique and remarkable, of the U.S. policy response to the 2007-8 financial crisis, was the absence of any serious debate concerning “trickle-up” economic programs to protect American workers and households (68). Instead, the response was bailouts for financial corporations and key industries (56-60), and programs of “trickle-down” economics (96-7), whereby, large and direct government assistance for (typically big) business and the rich, which in turn “is supposed to ‘trickle down’ and provide a recovery for the mass of people, too” (7). The problem is that “the expected trickle [down] failed to materialize” (57).
The bailouts and trickle down programs generated massive federal budget deficits (56-60), and the debate quickly turned from socio-economic crisis to a critique of “deficit spending” (63). The big problem now became the “sickness” of government deficits and debts and the appropriate medicine was argued to be austerity or economic belt-tightening (66-7). There was little disagreement about the importance and effectiveness of austerity (9). The main political question was not, if austerity or not, but how much austerity (67).
The “too big to fail” banks got bigger after the 2007-8 collapse (76), but the banks which were unable to function without massive government support and bailouts were nonetheless argued to be “private enterprises” (71). Thus, not only was there no serious debate concerning New Deal “trickle-up” economics, “any systemic alternative to capitalism” was keep silent and off the national agenda (68). The Occupy Wall Street movement attempted to challenge the concentration of wealth and power (177) and the social taboo of any national discussion concerning “a systemic alternative to capitalism” (174-5).
A major problem confronting the discussion of “a systemic alternative to capitalism” is the legacy of Soviet and China style “socialism.” Wolff, drawing heavily from his previous writings (Wolff and Resnick 2002), carefully defines capitalism. The conventional wisdom accepts that a shift in (1) the ownership of the means of production, and (2) the distribution of the means of production and output, (respectively (1) from capitalists to national government, and (2) from economic markets to political planning) is to move from capitalism to “socialism” (99-100). Wolff argues this to be false. It does accomplish a macroeconomic shift to be sure, however, what is further required is microeconomic shift (140) in the internal organization of producing enterprises (93) and who controls the distribution of the surplus generated (104). In both western-style capitalism (“private capitalism”) and the so-called alternatives to capitalism (state capitalism) the surplus produced by workers is appropriated and distributed by others (109).
Wolff’s Marxian surplus analysis reveals the scandal of American capitalism and Soviet “socialism” alike: there is an absence of democracy concerning the distribution of the surplus generated by these systems. “In fact, we must question the very possibility of genuine democracy in a society in which capitalism is the basic economic system” (94), real democracy is absent in both. The scandal then is that in the U.S. which is argued to be the world’s foremost democracy, and the worker inspired Soviet “socialism,” both preclude democratically and worker controlled workplaces. A new economic system must critique both private and state capitalism and provide a concrete pathway forward (116).
Wolff’s primary agenda is to provide an argument and blueprint for the democratization of the workplace. After all, most Americans accept democracy as a foundational social value. “If democracy is a genuine foundational social value, it ought to govern the workplace first and foremost” (147). His overarching hope seems to be revolutionary, however, his argument and blueprint is surely reformist. According to Wolff, reform politics can be complimentary building blocks for social transformation. “Indeed, one goal” of Wolff’s book “is to lay out a program for revolutionary change that can achieve reforms that won’t easily be reversed” (113). For example the rollbacks we have witnessed of the New Deal and other reforms and regulations (36-7).
In private and state capitalism, a board or public body, different from the workers, collectively appropriates and distributes the surplus. “By contrast, in a WSDE, no separate group of persons – no individual who does not participate in the productive work of the enterprise – can be a member of the board of directors” (118). The salient point of the internal organization of WSDEs is that the “surplus production, appropriation and distribution in WSDEs is different from and can coexist with various forms of ownership of means of production” (141) and presence or absence of money and markets (143-4).
It is crucial for WSDEs to work out (micro)politically the “mutually acceptable relationship between” “two kinds of workers” (129). The first type of workers are the direct producers of the surplus and the second type of workers are those that “enable” indirectly the production of surplus, such as secretaries, clerks, security guards, cleaning staff, managers, lawyers, architects, counselors and so on who maintain the paperwork and physical spaces that provide the necessary conditions (128). Additionally there is a second realm of enablers (unaddressed by Wolff) who maintain households, provide caregiving to children, elderly, sick, etc., along with the community at large (145).
Wolff provides little guidance of how the micro-politics of WSDEs would be worked out. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that these micro-political problems are currently worked out rather simply in a radically undemocratic way (151). Wolff’s point is to underscore the Occupy movement illustrates the desire for radical change from the 1% oligarchic undemocratic hegemony. How workers choose to work out and constantly adjust the relationships within the WSDE will profoundly shape its internal life as well as distinguish it from the internal (typically totalitarian) internal life of the capitalist enterprise (130).
At his website, www.democracyatwork.info, Wolff offers well over one hundred examples of current worker self-directed enterprises. In the book the primary example offered is Mondragón Corporation of Spain and its 85,000 worker-members, all based on the premise of one worker-member, one vote (157). Wolff further differentiates his WSDEs from Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and other worker-owned enterprises (119-20), worker-managed enterprises (120-1), and cooperatives (122). The key difference is that it is only in WSDEs that distribution of surplus is determined democratically. This empowers workers both economically and politically (146) and most important is a radical nonexploitative micro-political shift in the daily lives of the working-class (124).
Wolff argues that WSDEs can exist within, and coexist with, capitalism and its enterprises (159). He argues it erroneous to believe that noncapitalistic enterprises cannot successfully compete with capitalistic enterprises (156). The Mondragón Corporation of Spain has been impressively successful for more than five decades (128). Hundreds of WSDEs are demonstrating there is an alternative to capitalistic enterprises (see www.democarcyatwork.info).
Not only are there reasons to believe that workers and citizens will prefer, politically fight for, and economically support WSDEs (e.g. consuming only WSDEs produced goods), there will also be positive impacts on several other dimensions of society. There will be a shift in participatory politics, because people will be encouraged that their political beliefs and actions can make a difference (146). Likewise, the impact on technical change and patents will be revolutionary because workers and communities decide whether to implement new technology (131-2). There will be a radical shift in local environmental policy (172), distribution of income (135), and education (128, 161).
Although Wolff distinguishes and prefers WSDEs from and over ESOPs, worker-managed enterprises, and co-ops, he emphasizes that strategically there is a close connection between these institutions (along with trade-unions) and the creation and institutionalization of WSDEs (169-79).
Moreover, Wolff suggests that we support a federal program that allows unemployed workers to take their unemployment compensation as a lump-sum to pool with others to create WSDEs (170-1) and infrastructure projects supportive of WSDEs (161). For example, “WSDEs need public schools to teach all students how to design and direct large group activities,” “the benefits and modalities of collective behavior,” “and how to give and receive orders within a community of equals” (162). Certainly these ideas have far more potential to improve the lives of workers than anything else being debated in Congress today.
Wolff’s WSDEs afford a New Deal, not so much concerning the relationship between the government and the citizen, but a New Deal concerning the relationship between a productive enterprise and its worker-members. It would be a New Deal that radically extended the democracy that is so valued by Americans and its political history. WSDEs would be new institutions capable of the following four things: (1) providing jobs to the unemployed, (2) offering an alternative for all workers to the totalitarian capitalist enterprises, (3) able to compete with and outperform capitalist enterprises, and (4) resist political rollback.
Wolff’s book and ideas deserve wide support and wide debate to repoliticize the American population and rejuvenate the American workforce and citizens.
4 October 2013
References
- Wolff, R. D. and Resnick, S. 2002 Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR New York: Routledge.
