In this article, we are concerned with a social system which seeks to interpret democracy in terms of the participation of the whole working population of a country in the processes of decision-taking at all levels of the social organization. This concept starts from a different basic assumption from that which underlies the social systems of the Western liberal democracies. In the latter, the words “freedom” and “democracy” are primarily concerned with the life of man as a political animal. The liberal considers that a society is free if he can answer the following questions about it in the affirmative. Have the people the right to turn out a government of which they disapprove? Is there the right of free expression of minority opinions and the right to criticize and oppose the government of the day? Are the law courts free from interference by the Executive or by a political party?

Even assuming that these conditions are fulfilled in any existing liberal democracy—and in practice they are suspended where a fundamental challenge to the social order is presented—there would still be a serious objection to their validity as expressions of democratic principle. The implication behind what is excluded from them is that all the important decisions in society are those which fall within the competence of a multi-party Parliament. Yet, as the early Spender wrote, “the political questions which most deeply concern us are not decided by parliament at all, but by the industrial interests which control the liberal democratic state.” Despite the Liberal Party’s recent highly dubious flirtations with “workers’ control”, it remains true today that no major party in Britain challenges the assumption that the partial democracy which offers us the right to choose once in five years between Gaitskell, Grimond or MacMillan, is anything but adequate to our needs. Democracy which begins at the level of the shop floorfootnote1 and permeates every aspect of national life, democracy which is lived day by day, and not indulged in spasmodically once in five years, is in our view synonymous with socialism, and implies workers’ control. In fact the terms socialism, democracy, and workers’ control are in this sense expressions of the same basic attitude. Until the means of production are socially owned and managed, workers’ control cannot operate, and workers’ control without democracy is a contradiction in terms.

The idea of workers’ control has a long history in the British Labour movement, but its advocates have always failed to carry conviction because they have paid too little attention to detail, and have never been able to offer a concrete example of how such a system would work out. As Dennis Butt wrote in the NLR of August, 1961:

“If, to begin with, we were to ask ourselves what in present knowledge and experience, is the most glaring general deficiency in our grasp of the subject, a reasonable answer would be that we have no real understanding of a scheme of workers’ control that is sufficiently comprehensive to operate over an entire industry from top to bottom, and through the whole range of activities.”

We believe that such a system does operate today in Yugoslavia, and that an examination of its main features is relevant to the discussion about workers’ control which is developing amongst British socialists. There is no doubt in our minds that the subject is of vital importance to our society today, and that it is tragic that the Labour movement has not yet grasped this. The TUC leaders are at present engaged in a study of their role within a planned capitalist society, and are about to look at the Swedish system of industrial relations to see whether they can create in this country something on the lines of the Scandinavian “eternal triangle” in which a respectable and responsible trade union leadership joins with employers and the state to assist in the formulation of industrial policy. There is little talk amongst them of industrial democracy, still less of socialism. It is left to the Liberals to sense the frustration of many workers at their role of hired hands, and to propose their phoney scheme for “workers’ control” which is to be operated in a way which is “neither socialist nor capitalist”.

Yugoslavia emerged from the Second World War bearing terrible wounds. Two million of her people had been killed. Civil war, foreign occupation, the destruction of homes, farms, livestock and means of transport, and all the social problems consequent upon these disasters, were but a part of the legacy which her new Communist leaders inherited from the past. One problem which they did not have to face, however, was the possibility that the mass of people would wish to return to the Yugoslavia of the inter-war years. The old regime was thoroughly discredited, having failed to solve any of the major social and economic problems which had arisen during the two decades of its existence. Old Yugoslavia was a peasant country, in which 75 per cent of the population earned a meagre living from farms which were too small to keep those who lived on them. Her few industries were mainly extractive, controlled by foreign capital, and run by foreign technicians. The politicians who ran the government on behalf of the monarchy were more concerned with chauvinist bickerings between the various Yugoslav nationalities than with the welfare of their people. The Yugoslavs emerged from the war with an understandable reluctance to return to those circumstances. Their new leaders pointed the way forward to form a society which would sweep away the injustices of the past. The post-war constitution proclaimed the state ownership of the means of industrial production, distribution and exchange, but left the land in the hands of the peasant. A structure of six constituent republics and two autonomous regions was intended to cater for the national aspirations of the major ethnic groups. In fact the economic and political life of the country, closely modelled on that of the Soviet Union, was controlled by the centralized machinery of the Party. The Yugoslavs argue that such a system was inevitable in the conditions of the immediate post-war period, and that they would have changed the structure of the state in due course regardless of any external events. In fact, the decision of the Cominform in 1948 to expel the Yugoslav Party forced upon them an urgent need to re-examine their policies. When they had recovered from the shock, and had grappled with the immediate economic consequences of the disruption of trade with Eastern Europe, they began to evolve political and social theories which owed little to Soviet models. They identified Bureaucracy as the principal source of evil in Soviet society, and therefore set themselves the task of creating a constitution and social system which, by emphasizing decentralization and lay participation, would counteract bureaucratic tendencies in their own society. Three overlapping areas in which decentralization has been introduced can be distinguished. 1. The political-territorial government of the country. 2. The methods of controlling the overall direction and performance of the economy. 3. The management of the individual firm, or Enterprise. We shall describe each of these in turn, and add some comments on the role of the “socio-political bodies”, such as the Trade Unions and the League of Communists, which act as the cement binding the different elements together.

The basic unit of government is the Commune, which operates over a similar area to that of the English Urban District or Borough. Its functions and structure however, are very different. Its governing body is the People’s Committee, whose tasks are “to direct and secure the economic, social and cultural development of the commune and district: to consolidate and develop socialist relationships . . .” The People’s Committee is composed of two Chambers of equal status—a Communal Council and a Council of Producers. The former is elected by universal suffrage of all adults within the commune, whilst the latter is composed of representatives from the Workers’ Councils of the Enterprises within the Commune. As we shall see, the Commune plays an important role in the economic and social development of its area. Amongst its many sub-committees are those for the Economy, Labour Relations, Workers’ Selfgovernment, Public Utilities, Education and Culture, Public Health, Welfare, and Social Planning. This form of organization is repeated at regional, Republican, and Federal level. The Federal Assembly, for instance, has a Federal Council representing all voters, and a Council of Producers. In addition, a vestige of the former Council of Nationalities survives in that 70 members of the Federal Council are chosen by election from the Republic Councils, and on matters concerning the special interests of the national groups, these 70 members constitute a separate Chamber of the Federal Assembly. The two Chambers together elect the Federal Executive Council, whose President is also President of the Republic. Parliamentary elections take place every four years, but there are annual elections in the Commune. The Federal bodies, in addition to foreign policy, defence, and major national questions, draw up the general lines of economic planning, but there is a wide area of decision left to the Communes acting in consultation with the Workers’ Councils of the local Enterprises. At all levels, decisions are taken after a great deal of discussion in which influences are exerted both upwards and downwards through the structure. There is great flexibility in the ways in which local and national bodies work together with all kinds of statutory and voluntary institutions. This governmental structure, based on the constitituonal reform of 1953, is at the present time under revision again, and it is proposed to make the Federal Council of Producers a much more significant body. This will be achieved by providing for delegate bodies representative of each separate field of employment in the country to fulfil the role of Producers’ Council when legislation concerning their particular field is introduced. The principle of rotation of office will also be introduced, which provides that office holders (up to and including members of the Federal Executive) may not be re-elected after serving their term.