Control of labour¶
Core Argument¶
In this chapter, the author defends the demand for trade union control over sackings against a critic’s jibe that this would logically lead to unions controlling labour exchanges. Rather than retreating, the author embraces the charge, arguing that such control is neither novel nor utopian. The core argument is that the struggle over who controls the flow of labour—capitalists or organised workers—is a direct expression of class conflict and a necessary preparation for dual power.
The key claim is that trade union control of hiring and firing is not a negative, defensive measure against other workers, but a revolutionary step that shifts power away from capital. The author draws on a resolution from the first All Russian conference of factory and shop committees on the eve of October 1917, proposed by the Bolshevik faction. This resolution explicitly states that employment bureaux must be placed under the control and management of the trade unions as class organisations. The author uses this historical precedent to counter the charge that the demand is extreme or unprecedented.
The chapter also provides a concrete analysis of capitalist practice during lay-offs: employers deliberately sack the most militant and organised workers to weaken collective resistance. Control over sackings is therefore a terrain of conflict, not a bureaucratic detail. The author distinguishes between the immediate tactical task—organised workers deciding who goes—and the strategic goal of a society where the boss, not the worker, must leave. The polemic is directed at critics who see only the negative function of such control and fail to grasp its revolutionary significance as a measure of dual power. The author insists that dual power does not arise spontaneously but must be prepared through such struggles, and that a conscious leadership must face the tactical details at every stage, not merely the general strategic aim.