Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 05:05:34 -0500
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: 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!)

Christ Leo has a sense of humour! Since my arrival I thought he was the sour 
grape of the list..Anyhow he claims;
>
>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.

I do not denounce Proyect on principle but for specific reasons. Foremost 
his liquidation to the so called anti-imperialists, Green and Stalinists 
leaderships. Because what is vital in this debate is in fact the political 
superstructure in transitional states like the former USSR.. In fact Proyect 
like the LM and Jim have the same position on this stuff along with the 
Stalinists and the Mensheviks. That is you are looking for alien class 
forces in one way or another albight for different reasons to at best reform 
society as it is. Because the popular front always in the final analisis 
wheter for the dam in India or against the political formular for not 
overthrowing capitalist rule in the interests of the poor and working class 
but handing the poor and working heads on a platter for continued slavery. 
Todays arguement is quite hysterical in that the propenents of the Greens 
say class struggle has become obsolete! Surew for them it might be so. But 
for the millions upon millions who live under the oppression of this system 
with war, starvation and poverty and all the restthe new left has deserted. 
And mostly in the core countries of the west. 

Let's take the Indian dam. Both sides claiming that the poor were on their 
side! Ha, bit sides presented middle class spokesman who claim to represent 
the poor! And both sides had arguements in order to trick the poor as seeing 
this issue as a singlec issue green problem. But the real problem in India 
today is hardly whether a dam is produced or not. But who will lead the 
millions of Indians in the years to come..Both sides ignore the political 
superstrucyure in order to capitulate to single issueism mainly for middle 
class consumption. Snd for the leftists trying to put some sort of left 
popular front cover on this stuff...
>
>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?

Leo continues!
>
>So which one is it?
>
>Leo Casey 

Well Leo,

Maybe the point is that Lenin was correct on seeing "Taylorism" as something 
positive. Take a look at how thinks were produced before Taylorism and we 
could start doing Polish lightbulb jokes in regards to this. The production 
lines was in fact superior to the early handicraft stuff. It also played a 
key role in the creation of the modern industrial proletariat. Under 
capitalist relations it worked the way it did and does so that capitalism/ 
imperialism could get richer. Under Lenin this system was used in and 
entirely different manner. And the tendency to managerial bureaucratization 
is unfortunately always their becausae of the uneven development of the 
proletariat and especially so in backward Russia. 

In fact today the bourgeoisie hardly have changed their position on this 
stuff. If Taylorism is not used in the same extent as the past as hardly to 
do with the ruling class wanting to make it better for the working class. 
They have just given the system a face lifting by putting robots on line and 
throwing out workers from the factories. So this brings into consideration 
all kinds of tactics for Communists like the recent transport strike in 
France which showed that despite modern technology and just in time delivery 
and all the rest. Taylorism has not disppeared but just changed face. And 
that the key sectors of the proletariat are also changing face. 

The mine workers is a good example of this. But the real point is that the 
miners strike in Great Britain was the instrument used to smash the unions 
and workers moral and it was the leadership of the labour party which sold 
them down the drain. Nothing can bring back what was lost in those days. But 
the public sector workers just as other layers and industies and branches 
will be the key in the future.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason for the Green debate is the lack 
of faith that the left has in the industrial proletariat. For the 
progressive bourgeoisie it is a question of population control and for the 
anti-green bourgeoisie it is the line of let them starve to death. But the 
whole debate centers around technical advances in the hands of 
capitalism/imperialism and getting rid of the axcess baggage like the 
growing lumpen prolo elements and immigrants in the core country which are 
no longer needed in the production process. Not to mention the millions upon 
millions of mouths to feed in the third world. What better way then a big 
war to solve the over-population problem! But the truth of the matter is 
that the whole debate about development is a fluke! In fact the overwhelming 
majority of humanity not only can and will be put to useful work to raise 
the general living standard to acceptable levels, but would be grateful for 
a system of Taylorism in order to accomplish these goals. It is only the 
western "new" left who have experienced everything that could come with such 
absurd ideas as Proyect and Jones on the Green stuff and you with your 
anti-Taylorism arguements.. By the way how are the NIKE sneakers produced? 
Who can afford them! And who is getting all the surplus value? This is the 
questions that communist address and tactically orientate to on the entire 
question of production and distribution. And our politics are connected to 
the DOP and workers rule to replan the International economy along the lines 
of those who work eat in the transitional period and each according to 
his/hers abilities, each according to their needs later on.. Without linking 
this debate to the question of superstructure and who rules goes always 
along the lines of capitulating to the extending forms of production and 
distribution with endless discussions about reforming the system with a lot 
of maral garbage coming from the revisionists and reformists of all colors..

And you still did not answer my question about Vietnam and Taylorism..What 
about Cuba? Proyect who can't get any technical equipment to produce the 
goods. Are you going to send then Green condoms to solve their problems. And 
Jones what about the entire ex-Soviet State Run industries? Is the 
capitalist counter-revolution qualitively better? And what about China who 
these days are smashing workers and peasants heads to "modernize" industry 
along capitalist and green solutions?

And Nigeria? How about this stuff!
But before we go into that, let us go back to the black man from Nigeria that 
I mentioned earlier. He was a very angry man. He was a very angry man because 
the environmentalists were pushing for the idea of forbidding the production of 
refrigerators with freon systems. He was saying to me that for the first time 
in history, this was the nineties, Nigeria has a factory which produces 
refrigerators with the freon system. There very own factory. He was so angry 
and he was laughing at me. I have in my two room apartment a refrigerator and 
a freezer, (this is standard here in Sweden and many other advanced industrial 
countries). He said that "here in Sweden the climate six months a year is so 
cold you don't even need a refrigerator" and in the equatorial countries, where 
the temperature is really warm year round, we have been to poor to have 
refrigerators. And in Africa it is really hot, refrigerators are a necessity 
because food rots! He was saying that now that the Nigerians finally have the 
means of production, to produce our own refrigerators for the people, you in 
the advanced countries want to forbid us from producing them! Now are you 
willing to give the industrial capacity to produce non neon based systems? 
Obviously the answer is no, the advanced industrial countries have never given 
third world countries anything except colonialism, oppression, and slavery.
	

The point being in transitional societies Communists take the tools that are 
historically at hand in order to march forward towards Socialism through the 
DOP on and International basis. what was lacking was the fact that the 
Russian Revolution was isolated from the core industrial countries. And the 
lack of a revolutionary leadership in these countries was the decisive 
factor Internationally in the middle twenties and onwards and hardly the 
forms of production like Taylorism which at this time was a gigantic step 
forward.

I can honestly say that I think it would be great to work in a factory 
producing toilets so that everyone on this planet could take a decent shit 
and have clean water to wash their hands with afterwards. That does not 
mean working in a factory to produce, space designed, futuristic, gold 
plated toilets, for the rich and powerful. However, the gist of your piece 
is that you won't work in a factory at all! Work for you is a burden, a 
matter of priorities, the opposite of freedom, etc. I have a question for 
you. Would you be willing to work in a factory who's goal was to 
produce a decent toilet for humanity to take a shit in? Naturally, a 
factory owned and run by the same humanity in their interest and not 
profit...? I would! In fact I think that production of the necessities 
of life should be produced in a very organised and rational way. A factory 
producing hundreds of thousands of toilets in a rational way for people 
to take a shit in would be just great.

Probably still will be also in the future. Much depending on what happens 
and where.

By spellchecker and by to Explorer 4.0 and Outlook it just crashes my old 
computer. So its back to the old flistem without a shellchecker! 

Warm regards
Bob Malecki



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