Revolution Betrayed: An Observation

It can be difficult to apply post-Soviet Russia directly to present conditions, especially when considering how Trotsky identified the bureaucratisation of Soviet society—particularly its declining productivity—as a central contradiction of Stalinism. His advocacy for democratic control was never about formal political democracy, but about substantive workers’ democracy rooted in class power and direct control over production.

The idea that formal equality—equality before the law or in abstract rights—is sufficient has long been critiqued within Marxist theory. Thinkers like Comte, though pre-Darwinian and limited in scientific scope, already hinted at this inadequacy. Trotsky understood that without workers’ control, productivity became a managerial fetish, enforced from above through mechanisms like piecework and Stakhanovism. These methods pitted workers against one another and led to short-term gains at the cost of long-term exhaustion and alienation.

Today, many right-wing commentators draw a misleading contrast between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, as if the latter is the inevitable goal of communism. But in practice, capitalism engineers outcomes constantly—through wage repression, segmentation of the labour market, and institutional bias. Their critique thus ignores the top-down coercion inherent in their own system.

Workers’ democracy, by contrast, is grounded in the expansion of critical experience, debate, and pragmatism. It doesn't suppress initiative—it multiplies it by aligning production with the collective knowledge and motivation of the working class. This model offers a sustainable alternative to both bureaucratic command and capitalist alienation.

In my experience as a branch secretary, I have found that delegation is most effective when grounded in practical efficacy rather than formal credentials. This approach reflects a broader critique of capitalist notions of merit, which often rely on contrived variables such as qualifications or hierarchical status. These markers can obscure, rather than reveal, genuine competence.

The questioning of a worker’s capability based solely on formal qualifications presupposes an ideological framework, one that aligns with capitalist values and often excludes those who possess critical experience, emotional intelligence, or political insight. Within this system, the perception of competence is often constructed to reinforce the legitimacy of authority, rather than to serve the collective interests of the workplace.

In contrast, my approach to delegation is shaped by the value of lived experience and strategic capacity, especially in contexts where trust and communication are essential. For example, someone without formal qualifications may nonetheless demonstrate a deep intuitive understanding of workplace dynamics. They may be able to extract information or build rapport with colleagues who are otherwise distrustful of hierarchical authority—precisely because they are not seen as a direct extension of that authority. This capacity is not incidental, but a political and relational asset.

Effective delegation, then, is not about replicating management logic, but about subverting it—emphasising practical efficacy, political trust, and grassroots knowledge over abstract credentials. It is a form of democratic organisation in practice, grounded in solidarity, mutual respect, and the collective experience of the working class.