Linz/Upper Austria, 6 - 8 September 2018
The attempts to extend democracy from the political sphere to labour relations and the broader economy ( Self - Government in Industry , as G.D.H. Cole wrote in 1917) keep resurfacing in various forms and under different names throughout the existence of both modern industry and agriculture. Producer cooperatives have been an alternative form of enterprise organization in capitalist economies at least since the 19th century. Very differ- ent schools of thought supporting workers ’ “ associationism ” – socialist, anarchist, Christian – have seen work- er - run enterprises as the basis of a more egalitarian society. Communist revolutionaries envisioned workers ’ councils as the building block of post - capitalist political and social structures ever since soviets came to promi- nence in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions in Russia, but also a range of revolutionary stirrings in the aftermath of World War I (Germany and Austria 1918 - 19, Hungary 1919, Italy 1920, etc.). After the failed attempts of rev- o l u t i o n a r y c h a n g e i n E u r o p e , t h e G e r m a n , A u s t r i a n a n d C z e c h o s l o v a k i a n s t a t e s i n t r o d u c e d n e w l e g i s l a t i o n s enabling workers ’ participation and representation on the enterprise level to various degrees.
During the Cold War countries, such as Israel, Algeria, Peru and, most prominently, Yugoslavia, at- tempted to carve out a third way model of development by implementing workers ’ self - management structures in their economies. Many postcolonial state building projects in Africa and beyond fused the idea of workplace democracy with local communal traditions. Workers ’ self - management also served as an inspiration to dissi- dents in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland), while closely related terms such as autogestion and even operais- mo became leitmotifs within the 1968 movement in Southern Europe as a vision of a more democratic social- ism. Numerous welfare state models in the European countries, ascribed to the political “ West ”, developed partly far - reaching legal bases for workers ’ participation, often relying on the concepts introduced by the legis- lative reforms immediately after World War I.
In the 1980s, the self - management ideals of liberation in the most developed capitalist societies and in factories worldwide often metamorphosed into management tools within the framework of neoliberal politics. While many activists in (state - )socialist Eastern Europe envisioned workplace democracy as an opportunity to introduce economic democracy from below, notions of workplace autonomy were also used by the pro - market reformists inside the communist parties to decrease guaranteed workers ’ rights. During the 1990s, when it seemed that the ideas of workers ’ engagement in economic decision - making lost validity, a movement of fac- tory occupations emerged in Argentina and other countries in Latin America, provoking a new wave of interest and debates about the perspectives of workplace democracy in the 21st century.
State of the Art and Research Gaps
As this short historical outline shows, initiatives for democratization of labour relations were carried by vast- ly disparate social actors under diverse types of labour regimes and political rule in many different parts of the globe. Not surprisingly, a substantial research literature on these phenomena has developed. Yet, studies of workers ’ activation tend to have a narrow focus when it comes to the socio - economic complexity and the geographical scope of workplace democracy. Firstly, the topic has traditionally attracted left - leaning social scientists and heterodox economists inclined to look at the political organizing of the working class and eco- nomic performance of the enterprises respectively, thus overlooking labour relations and the inner workings of workplace democracy. Secondly, the studies were habitually framed in the context of individual nation states with the most illustrious historical projects claiming workers ’ emancipation attracting the greatest at- tention. The attempts to produce overviews on the history of workers ’ participation, control and self - management practices in different countries usually amounted to collections of individual case studies with moderate comparison, disregarding mutual influence, transnational exchange and transfers.
In order to contribute to closing some of these gaps, the 2018 ITH Conference poses the following two strate- gic goals (with some potential topics listed below):
1.) To unpack and categorise the often interchanging terms and conceptualizations of workplace de- mocracy such as self - management, control, participation, co - determination and autogestion (in different languages) by tracing their evolution globally and relating them to particular geographic locations, cul- tural contexts and historical conjunctures:
- Classifying various examples of workplace organization without conventional management. We want to approach the debates about terms and concepts not only from a theoretical point of view, but as a theme of historical enquiry through concrete case studies. The categorisations should account for the aspirations of the involved actors (autonomous coalitions, trade unions, employers/management, and the state), aim- ing to realize their interests within the existing order, going beyond the given boundaries or various in - between solutions.
- The circulation of ideas about economic democracy across the borders of nation states. Did individual enterprises, labour movements or states that adopted workplace democratization as an official part of their policies make conscious efforts to promote their models internationally and what impact did they make?
- Experiences of workplace democracy in the periphery. What were the peculiar challenges that advocates of workplace democracy in the Global South, yet also in economically underdeveloped societies and re- gions of the Global North, and in the state socialist countries had to face? Factors to be kept in mind in- clude the peculiar features of the working class, the lack of technical expertise for the daily running of the production process and the widespread informal economy.
- The inclusion and categorization of experiments to democratize and control the organization of agricultur- al work, service sector as well as the less known instances of workers ’ involvement in the industry, re- gardless of whether they portrayed themselves as revolutionary or not, such as the instances of coopera- tivsm linked to traditional communal forms of economic organization in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
- The prominence of workplace democracy as a topic inside the transnational institutions and initiatives, such as the United Nations, ILO, socialist internationalisms, Non - Aligned Movement, etc.
- The altered ways in which workers conceived of themselves, their enterprise and communities after the introduction of some form of workplace democracy. Was there an increased identification with the work collective, improved work efforts, appearance of voluntary labour, broadening of concerns for social or political issues, or different forms of inequalities within the enterprise?
- The main challenges associated with the collective participation in workplaces: mock involvement, con- tested decision - making processes, inefficiency, lack of accountability, parochialism, bureaucratization, clientelism, emergence of unofficial leaderships, etc.
- The new concepts and definitions of economic performance and individual work efforts: What were some of the ways in which workers ’ ran enterprises, defined ownership rights, measured and distributed net in- come, wages, social service funds, etc.?
- The relations between individual self - managed collectives and the broader economy and society: What were the models and difficulties of expanding democratic economic decision - making beyond individual enterprises, and connecting economic democracy to political institutions and everyday tasks in the sur- rounding communities? What effect does the market have on workplace democracy?
Proposed papers should include:
- abstract (max. 300 words)
- biographical note (max. 200 words)
- full address und e - mail address
The short CV should give information on the applicant ’ s contributions to the field of labour history, broadly defined, and specify (if applicable) relevant publications. For the purpose of information, applicants are invited to attach a copy of one of these publications to their application.
Proposals to be sent to Lukas Neissl : firstname.lastname@example.org
- Submission of proposals: by 28 January 2018
- Notification of acceptance: 9 March 2018
- Full papers or presentation versions: by 5 August 2018
Dario Azzellini , ILR School, Cornell University, Ithaca
Frank Georgi , Centre d ’ Histoire Sociale du XXème Siècle/Université Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne
Goran Musić , Central European University, Budapest
Lukas Neissl , ITH, Vienna
Brigitte Pellar , Vienna
Anne Sudrow , Centre for Contemporary History Potsdam
Marcel van der Linden , International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam
Susan Zimmermann , ITH, Vienna
THE ITH AND ITS MEMBERS
The ITH is one of the worldwide most important forums of the history of labour and social movements. The ITH favours research pursuing inclusive and global perspectives and open - ended comparative thinking. Fol- lowing its tradition of cooperating with organisations of the labour movement, the ITH likewise puts emphasis on the conveyance of research outside the academic research community itself. Currently ca. 100 member in- stitutions and a growing number of individual members from five continents are associated with the ITH.
- Information on ITH publications in the past 50 years: http://www.ith.or.at/publ_e/publ_online_e.htm
- Subscription to the ITH e - newsletter published twice a year: http://www.ith.or.at/rundb_e/r_index_e.htm
- Download of the ITH membership application form: http://www.ith.or.at/mitgl_e/mitglieder_e.htm