The experiment discredited Trotsky and weakened him in the struggle for the succession to Lenin not only because it had failed but because it made him vulnerable to charges of “Bonapartism.” For indeed, if Russia’s economy had been militarized, officers subordinate to him would have acquired a dominant role in the civilian sector. “Trotskyism” as a term of abuse gained currency in 1920 in connection with this scheme.139
In a regime based on compulsory labor there was, of course, no place for free trade unions. There were logical reasons why such unions could not be allowed, since in a “worker” state the workers by definition could not have interests separate from those of their employer. As Trotsky once put it, the Russian worker was “obligated to the Soviet state, under its orders in every direction, for it is
It will be recalled that after the outbreak of the February Revolution, with Bolshevik encouragement, Factory Committees spread and gained influence in Russia as organs of workers’ control. In conditions of spreading anarchy, they expanded at the expense of the trade unions, organized nationally by crafts, because the workers found more in common with others employed in the same plant than with fellow workers possessing the same skills but employed elsewhere. Inspired by syndicalist ideas, the Factory Committees gravitated leftward and in the fall of 1917 provided one of the main sources of Bolshevik strength.
But once in power, the Bolsheviks found little use for these committees. Pursuing their private interests and tending to treat industrial establishments as property, they interfered with production and obstructed economic planning. In the weeks that followed the October coup, while they were still insecurely in power, the Bolsheviks continued to curry favor with them. A decree of November 27, 1917, provided for the establishment of Workers’ Committees in all enterprises employing five or more workers. They were to supervise production, determine the minimum output, set production costs, and enjoy access to the accounting books.141 This was syndicalism, pure and simple. But Lenin no more intended workers to run Russia’s industries than peasants to own Russia’s agricultural land, soldiers to run their regiments, or national minorities to secede. All these were means to an end, the end being the conquest of power. Hence, he inserted into the decree on Factory Committees two provisions, little noted at the time, which gave the government the right to abrogate it. One stated that while the decisions of the workers or their representatives were binding on the owners of enterprises, they were subject to annulment by “trade unions and [their] congresses.” Another clause stipulated that in enterprises designated as being of “state importance”—that is, either working for defense or producing articles “necessary for the existence” of the masses—the Workers’ Committees were accountable to the state “for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline.” As one historian observes, these vague provisions soon rendered the decree on workers’ control “not to be worth the paper it was written on.”142
In time, the Factory Committees were emasculated by being subjected to bureaucratic oversight. The decree on workers’ control required each committee to render accounts to the Regional Council of Workers’ Control; these Regional Councils, in turn, were subordinated to the All-Russian Council of Workers’ Control. Officials running these supervisory organs received their appointments from the Communist Party and were duty-bound to carry out its instructions.143 These institutions prevented Factory Committees from forming their own national organization independent of the state. The decree establishing the Supreme Economic Council (December 1917) gave it authority over all existing economic bodies, including the All-Russian Council of Workers’ Control.
