From: LeoCasey <LeoCasey-AT-aol.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:53:42 EST
Subject: M-TH: Taylorism & Class Struggle


My problem may very well be that I am a radical democrat and not a Marxist-
Leninist, as Louis P. complains, since I believe that the coziness of Lenin,
Trotsky and Stalin to Taylorism is not unconnected to their less than
praiseworthy attitudes toward political democracy. (Ah yes, get those
keyboards flaming with the replies which show what an ignorant, menshevizing,
reformist, bourgeois democrat I must be!) But since I have never pretended to
be anything but a radical democrat, I'll be damned if I know what pointing
that out adds to the discussion. Could this be a case of Louis engaging in
pink-baiting? (Look, all you dour Trots, that was a joke!)

Be that as it may, I do not believe that Louis' reply (or Malecki's
commentary, which mirrors Louis at every turn, but feel obliged to denounce
him on general principles nonetheless), once it lowers itself to answer my
ahistorical musings, provides a very satisfactory analysis of the nature of
Taylorism. As a matter of fact, it seems to zig and zag between two different
types of answers, which -- upon closer inpsection -- are incompatible with
each other. The first type of answer sticks to Louis' original answer,
suggesting -- in the terms of the classical Leninist position -- that
Taylorism was simply a matter of productive technique, and it could be applied
in production by capitalists or by communists, since it has no intrinsic class
nature. Ipso facto, if the communists of the Russian Revolution were to
successfully compete with the capitalist world, they must use the most
advanced productive technique, Taylorism. The second type of answer makes
reference to the historical circumstances of the Russian Revolution, and
attempts to locate Taylorism in the context of the NEP; the inference here is
that while Taylorism may be retreat from working class power and a concession
to capitalists and managerial elites, it was a necessary retreat and
concession, without which the revolution would have been unable to consolidate
itself.

My problem is that both arguments can not be true, since they are based on
contradictory assessments of Taylorism. References to historical circumstances
do not solve the problem, especially in the light of Justin's comments on the
historical context. (Paranthetically, I agree entirely with Justin on the
history; indeed, I also agree with him that Marx's analysis had great insight
into the labor process, and provided a solid foundation for Braverman and the
labor process theorists of the last two decades to build on. The problem was
that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin completely ignored Marx's insight here, in line
with an economistic view of the primacy of the productive forces over the
relations of production.) Now if the first view is to be consistently held,
then we must ask why neither Marx (in Capital) or Braverman and the labor
process theorists grasped this, and why they thought -- correctly IMHO -- that
the separation of skill and knowledge from the worker which was clearly part
of Taylorism was part of the class struggle. We also might ask why Gramsci,
writing at roughly the same time and understanding quite well the dire nature
of the Russian Revolution, understand Taylorism and Fordism quite differently?
If the second view is to be held, then we must ask how the imposition of
Taylorism was necessary for the recovery and advance of the Russian economy.
We must also ask why Lenin, who was not in the slightest bit shy about
describing the NEP as a strategic retreat and concession, did not use the same
terminology to describe Taylorism, instead characterizing it as positive,
scientific development?

So which one is it?

Leo Casey 


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---