Page - 211 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the ‘thirdway’ to socialism 211 as insisted upon byMarx as a condition for the development of a socialist economy. Rather, he sharedwithHilferding andWeber the belief (later also passionately defended by Popper) that state socialismwould reinforce bur- eaucratic tendencies and exclude themain component of true socialisation, namelysocialcontrol.However,withregardstoBauer’s ideasontheroleofthe state in the socialisationprocess, it is paramount todistinguishbetween two different aspects. For Bauer, ‘the state’was ‘theworst economist’, and social- isationwasnot tobe confusedwithnationalisation (a thesis fully confirmed by the development of the economy under ‘really existing socialism’). Non- etheless,hedidnotentirely renouncethestateasa factor in thesocialisation process, but apportioned a concrete significance to it: itwas to liquidate big property, pay compensations, and, ultimately, act as amediator in the new system of productionmanagement. Thus, Bauer favoured democratic solu- tions over bureaucratic economic structures, yet without going so far as to advocate economic liberalism. It is from this perspective that he criticised syndicalism:hebelieved it representedasystemthatprioritisedtheambition of individual production firms to assert their own economic interests at the expense of producers. As an alternative to both state socialism and syndic- alism, he proposed a 3/3 principle for socialisedworkplaces andproduction co-operatives – i.e. the creation of collective administration boards consist- ing of an equal number of delegates from three interest groups: producers, consumers and the state.Commoneconomic interests andacomprehensive economicplanwouldguidethem.103Ratherthanrepresentingtheinterestsof the state in thesecollectiveboards, statedelegateswouldassumeamediator rolebetweenproducersandconsumers. Industrial councilswouldbe formed inallworkplaceswithmorethan20workersandcontroleachcollectiveadmin- istrationboard.Doubtlessly, itwasan interestingproposal–yet it hada flaw thatwentunnoticedbyitsfounder:theimpossibilityofreconcilingtheintrins- icallyopposinginterestsof thedifferentgroups.Workersarealwaysinterested inhighwages,consumersinlowprices,andthestatedemandsthebiggestrev- enuepossible. What expectationsdidBauer tie tohis socialisationprogramme?Before a response can be formulated, it is crucial to address the fact that, for Bauer, socialisationmeant transformationnotonlyofproperty relations,butalsoof theorganisational structure of production, theprocess of profit distribution, 103 Thisadministrativestructurewouldbearresponsibilityfordistributingtheincomeofthe socialisedworkplace:onethirdwastobepaidtoworkersandotheremployees,onethird wastocovercapitalexpenditure,andonethirdpaidovertothestatetreasury.