For worker control

Chris Dillow argues For worker control.

Neal Lawson is absolutely right. Social democracy is "hopelessly prepared for the 21st century."

This is because it is yet another example of an idea that has outlived its usefulness. Social democrats used to think that they did not need to challenge the fundamental power structures of capitalism because, with a few good top-down economic and social policies, capitalism could be made to deliver increased benefits for workers and the poor in terms both of rising real wages and better public services.

Emphasis Mine

Dillow goes on to argue that the harsher economic climate means that reformism can no longer deliver for the workers. Working within the system will not garner benefits for workers. He goes onto to say:

Times have changed. So the left must change. Neal says:

Instead of pulling policy levers, the job is to create the platforms so that people can collectively change things for themselves.

There's one context in which this is especially necessary — the workplace.

Both Dillow and Lawson think that the Left only consists of Reformists. Revolutionaries have been removed from the political discourse.

Dillow lists three (3) reasons why worker control of the workplace directly benefits workers:

1. Increased power for workers directly raises their well-being.…This points to a case for workers choosing their bosses, to increase the chances of them getting good ones.
2. There's a good body of evidence to show that worker ownership and control can raise productivity.
3. A feeling of control at work might have favourable cultural effects.…This could eventually improve the quality of our democracy generally.

But Dillow ignores the greatest obstacle to worker control—private ownership of the means of production. Until a substantial proportion of the economy is under the control of workers, it can be said that we have worker control. In other words, worker control can only start to exist under Socialism, and reach it mature form under Communism.

And Dillow ignores the political implications of worker control—the loss of power by the Capitalists. No ruling class has ever voluntarially relinquished power. Such contests are always violent.

Dillow concludes that:

My point here is a simple one. The days when the leftist politics could ignore the "hidden abode of production" because lightly modified capitalism would deliver the goods have gone. Our new times require new politics. The fact that the Labour party is ignoring the question (pdf) of how to empower workers is lousy politics as well as lousy economics

Emphasis Mine

Being left-wing used to mean that there was agreement about the economy benefiting people in general. Now, left-wing, in the authorised discourse, means making neoliberalism socially acceptable.