Taylorism

[Yu Ming Zai]

I was recently reading into the subject of Taylorism and how it can psychologically oppress the working class and I was a bit perplex by its history. Taylorism begin to develop in the late 19th century in capitalistic America in order to find a way to cut down inefficiency in factories and maximize product production and profits. They do this by dividing labor into sub categories and individual units for specialized workers to be particularly skilled at, thus improving efficiency in that category and the overall production factory. However before then, when division of labor was not yet introduce, the working class had enough collective power to challenge management when they thought that they were being treated unfairly and such. Thus with the introduction of the division of labor, workers gradually became deskilled and was teached specific (and often times simple) aspect of a skill in order to maximize output in that specific area rather than the array of (complex) skills needed in order to operate factory as a whole before. The isolation of individual units in turn not only takes away the collective power of the workers that could pose a threat to the management but is also as a means of control. Workers lose their creative aspect and becomes in a way very mechanical.

Psychologically this mechanized way of working affects the behavior of an individual in which one may feel dissatisfy with their life or feel trapped in a routine that they cannot escape. This way of life contributes to generating low self esteem, feelings of helplessness, alienation, and mental illnesses. With the working class' mind in such disarray and impairment, the capitalists class knows that the working class will then less likely going organize any form of effective resistance or movement. An individual reduced to this capacity without any or much form of way to express oneself weakens the likelihood of a collective uprising.

Now what perplex me about this is that in the early days of the Soviet Union, Lenin instituted Taylorism in their industrial economy. Why would Lenin implement a capitalist economic doctrine on what is suppose to be a socialist state? Now some have argue that the revolutionary road to communism cannot come from Russia as it is a backward peasant state at that time. They say communism can only come through the most capitalist states in the world. And thus the reason for the establishment of the Vanguard Party was to force industrialization upon the Russian people until the time is right for the true revolution to come. But if Taylorism was meant to prevent the working class from having power by reducing their ability to form class consciousness, why did Lenin adapt that concept for the Russian working class? Wouldn't that be counterproductive to instituting the second revolution if that was indeed the plan? Plus would that have meant that the Soviet Union was some kind of state capitalism where the Vanguard Party pretty much dictated the production of the economy rather than the workers of the working class? I just dun see how the Soviet Union could be called a socialist state when such economic practices such as Taylorism in implemented in their society by Lenin and later carried out by Stalin. What are your views on this topic?

[citizen of industry]

I'd pin it down to economic scarcity. I don't think you can achieve communism in economic scarcity, or it would just be primitivism. After expropriation, every factory, office, etc. was built around the production of surplus value, so everything has to be reengineered, restructured, etc. It can't be done overnight. At the same time, the Russians were under economic strain and had to produce enough to feed and arm the population. How to do away with division of labor under those circumstances?

One thing that comes to mind is employing the unemployed and reducing working hours dramatically. Since capitalism already throws workers from branch to branch of industry during downturns, bankruptcies, competition, etc. a socialist society could easily facilitate workers moving from branch to branch of industry to achieve a greater variety of labor, without the lack of job security, long hours and unemployment of capitalism.

But as far as eliminating division of labor inside the factory, I don't see how it is really possible. Automation takes care of it to some extent, as workers mostly supervise machines in developed countries and automation under socialism can be used to reduce working hours even further, instead of being used to increase the hours of the employed while having an industrial reserve army that keeps down wages under capitalism.

So basically, what I envision is much less work, and a much greater variety of work, but not necessarily "fun" or "gratifying" work. I get a bit weirded out when people talk about labor being satisfying under communism. But since we're not there yet, who knows. I guess if we are producing a massive surplus and can afford to curtail production while simultaneously meeting everyone's material wants, then we can afford to implement a lower division of labor inside each factory.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was recently reading into the subject of Taylorism and how it can psychologically oppress the working class and I was a bit perplex by its history. Taylorism begin to develop in the late 19th century in capitalistic America in order to find a way to cut down inefficiency in factories and maximize product production and profits.While it certainly does increase demoralization and exacerbate subjective feelings of alienation from the productive process, it is not just a self-serving trick in the sense of class rule. I think the primary motivation is increasing the rate of exploitation as you state in the last sentence above; it's a scientific "speed up".


They do this by dividing labor into sub categories and individual units for specialized workers to be particularly skilled at, thus improving efficiency in that category and the overall production factory. However before then, when division of labor was not yet introduce, the working class had enough collective power to challenge management when they thought that they were being treated unfairly and such. Thus with the introduction of the division of labor, workers gradually became deskilled and was teached specific (and often times simple) aspect of a skill in order to maximize output in that specific area rather than the array of (complex) skills needed in order to operate factory as a whole before.Hmm, I'm not sure I agree here. The tendencies evident in Taylorism are not unique to this process, rather increasing or re-arranging the rate of exploitation is inherent in capitalist relations. Deskilling of workers - artisans to industrial workers had been going on for a while and there had already been massive and bloody working class struggles by the time Taylorism was even invented - and even then it didn't really become common until the early 20th century along with parallel developments in assembly-line production.

Second, as far as de-skilling, what workers are you talking about? Artisans and apprentices? This is certainty true, but the industrial process had been doing that for a generation before Taylor even began developing his ideas and techniques - Taylorism is really just a methodical approach to managing industrial labor. Mill workers and other workers in large factory type jobs were already de-skilled long before taylorism and while factories grouped workers together, they were often ridgedly controlled in their associations on the job.

Additionally, the unions through the time of Taylorism's adoption were by and large skilled craft unions who refused to organize "de-skilled" industrial workers - so it's more that the limitations of the unions and lack of industrial worker organization which made it harder to organize rather than Taylorism specifically - though I'm sure this compounded the problems.


The isolation of individual units in turn not only takes away the collective power of the workers that could pose a threat to the management but is also as a means of control. Workers lose their creative aspect and becomes in a way very mechanical. Like I said above, this is a condition of industrial labor in general, not specifically Taylorism, he just tried to figure out a way to manage this process efficiently from the point of view of bosses.


Now what perplex me about this is that in the early days of the Soviet Union, Lenin instituted Taylorism in their industrial economy. Why would Lenin implement a capitalist economic doctrine on what is suppose to be a socialist state? Well I don't know the specifics and context of the reasoning at the time, but in general, there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to make labor more efficient - we are not opposed to more advanced production techniques such as automation or assembly lines or breaking tasks down to simpler components, just the control of that process and decision-making by a small group of bosses for the purpose of exploitation.

I did a wikipedia search but there was no mention of the pre-mid 1930s justifications for this kind of scientific management in Russia. It did talk about the person who instituted it who was a Syndicalist originally and his reasoning was merely increased efficiency. But what is efficient? What's efficient for bureaucrats may not be "efficient" from the perspective of workers. Under Stalin "increasing efficiency" meant increasing production (and exploitation) so that the USSR could compete with the antagonistic European powers. And again, I don't think it was mainly a plot to weaken the working class's ability to organize - it was part of Stalinist Russia's production drive which was very top heavy and relied on an already weakened and powerless working class to even establish.

I don't think this was primarily a plot by capitalists to weaken the ability of workers to fight and I certainty don't think it was the case in early post-revolution Russia. And I don't think even under a revolution without the harsh conditions of post-Revolution Russia that it would be a bad idea - providing that workers themselves are the ones organizing and calling for it in their workplace to make production more efficient and less difficult. The problem comes with lack of worker's power from below - which Russia lost pretty shortly after the Revolution IMO.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Now what perplex me about this is that in the early days of the Soviet Union, Lenin instituted Taylorism in their industrial economy. Why would Lenin implement a capitalist economic doctrine on what is suppose to be a socialist state? Now some have argue that the revolutionary road to communism cannot come from Russia as it is a backward peasant state at that time. They say communism can only come through the most capitalist states in the world. And thus the reason for the establishment of the Vanguard Party was to force industrialization upon the Russian people until the time is right for the true revolution to come. But if Taylorism was meant to prevent the working class from having power by reducing their ability to form class consciousness, why did Lenin adapt that concept for the Russian working class? Wouldn't that be counterproductive to instituting the second revolution if that was indeed the plan? Plus would that have meant that the Soviet Union was some kind of state capitalism where the Vanguard Party pretty much dictated the production of the economy rather than the workers of the working class? I just dun see how the Soviet Union could be called a socialist state when such economic practices such as Taylorism in implemented in their society by Lenin and later carried out by Stalin. What are your views on this topic?

You're right, it can't. Lenin was arguing at this point that all that could be done was 'state capitalism made to serve the working class'. Whether that was even possible is open to debate. But the Soviet Republic was never 'socialsm', it was only ever a form of bureaucratic state capitalism.

[Yu Ming Zai]

I'd pin it down to economic scarcity. I don't think you can achieve communism in economic scarcity, or it would just be primitivism. After expropriation, every factory, office, etc. was built around the production of surplus value, so everything has to be reengineered, restructured, etc. It can't be done overnight. At the same time, the Russians were under economic strain and had to produce enough to feed and arm the population. How to do away with division of labor under those circumstances?

Economic scarcity throughout the Lenin and Stalin periods? If Taylorism was a means to provide efficient productivity of industries, then as a state whole program, its success would have eliminated any form of economic scarcity in the country. But the fact that Taylorism continued well into the Stalin period with tremendous economic growth shows the potential abuse of power by the party to continue exploiting its workers in a draconian manner despite periods of relative peace in the 20s and 30s... would you suggest that the party is still acting in the interest of the working class then?


Additionally, the unions through the time of Taylorism's adoption were by and large skilled craft unions who refused to organize "de-skilled" industrial workers - so it's more that the limitations of the unions and lack of industrial worker organization which made it harder to organize rather than Taylorism specifically - though I'm sure this compounded the problems.

I agree with all your points. I only suspect that the popularity of Taylorism and I suppose Fordism as well at that time temporarily increase the rate of workers being deskilled as oppose to a gradual decrease in the same time period as more and more factories implement such a system.


I don't think this was primarily a plot by capitalists to weaken the ability of workers to fight and I certainty don't think it was the case in early post-revolution Russia. And I don't think even under a revolution without the harsh conditions of post-Revolution Russia that it would be a bad idea - providing that workers themselves are the ones organizing and calling for it in their workplace to make production more efficient and less difficult. The problem comes with lack of worker's power from below - which Russia lost pretty shortly after the Revolution IMO.

The problem was that in the first place the workers werent the ones organizing and calling the shots in their workplace at all. Lenin wanted to implement Taylorism in order to increase industrial productivity in order ensure the survival of the state against domestic devastation and external threats. However, in order for Lenin to implement this policy, he had to override the worker's committee in the factories and trade unions who were actively opposed to Taylorism. The fact Lenin ultimately decreed the policy shows the betrayal of the party to the labor interests and union independence of the workers. The deterioration of working conditions in the workplace under Taylorism added to the turmoil of the post revolutionary period and set up the stage for the Kronstadt Rebellion to ensue. How can Lenin hope to achieve the transitions into communism when his party do not have the support of the working class?

[citizen of industry]

Economic scarcity throughout the Lenin and Stalin periods? If Taylorism was a means to provide efficient productivity of industries, then as a state whole program, its success would have eliminated any form of economic scarcity in the country. But the fact that Taylorism continued well into the Stalin period with tremendous economic growth shows the potential abuse of power by the party to continue exploiting its workers in a draconian manner despite periods of relative peace in the 20s and 30s... would you suggest that the party is still acting in the interest of the working class then?

I was referring to the Lenin period specifically. Conversaly, one might say had Lenin abandoned modern production methods, they would have most certainly lost the civil war. Despite its industrialization under Stalin, the Soviet Union was still plagued by economic problems, and could only be so without revolutions in the advanced countries. Hence why socialism in one country is absurd.

Regardless, seeking to roll back the clock and abandon modern production methods is reactionary. As I mentioned in the former post, using such technology to shorten the working day, employ everyone, and eliminate division of labor in the sense that nobody is chained to a single occupation is what we aim for. Not abandoning automation and division of labor in the workplace to turn factory production back into craft production.

[Geiseric]

No Blake's Baby is completely wrong. I read the lecture where Trotsky was talking about it, obviously they were taking out the slave labor aspects of it, however increasing the output of factories was kind of important when most of the factories were being re-built as it is. State Capitalism has nothing to do with it, Taylorism just means doing things like timing the amount of time needed to do something and assigning that many workers to do that task in order to meet a timed estimate for the next step, to replicate the commodified labor in a way that would mean that no time was wasted.

And i'm pretty sure that things like the "Militarization of Labor," were adopted unaminously at most union votes.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks to the OP and other contributors to the thread. Taylorism and its extensions are important to examine. Lenin's enthusiasm about it does bother me. There are a whole series of necessities which forced Bolsheviks/Communists to make very practical decisions about. None should automatically be made into virtues.

I'd highly recommend Harry Braverman's great book, Labor and Monopoly Capital for anyone interested in the topic of Taylorism and modern management. I think it should be read and discussed by every socialist. Like Marx's work, it was more true and more accurate AFTER it was written. Anyways...




Hmm, I'm not sure I agree here. The tendencies evident in Taylorism are not unique to this process, rather increasing or re-arranging the rate of exploitation is inherent in capitalist relations. Deskilling of workers - artisans to industrial workers had been going on for a while and there had already been massive and bloody working class struggles by the time Taylorism was even invented - and even then it didn't really become common until the early 20th century along with parallel developments in assembly-line production.

Second, as far as de-skilling, what workers are you talking about? Artisans and apprentices? This is certainty true, but the industrial process had been doing that for a generation before Taylor even began developing his ideas and techniques - Taylorism is really just a methodical approach to managing industrial labor. Mill workers and other workers in large factory type jobs were already de-skilled long before taylorism and while factories grouped workers together, they were often ridgedly controlled in their associations on the job.

....

Like I said above, this is a condition of industrial labor in general, not specifically Taylorism, he just tried to figure out a way to manage this process efficiently from the point of view of bosses.

Well I don't know the specifics and context of the reasoning at the time, but in general, there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to make labor more efficient - we are not opposed to more advanced production techniques such as automation or assembly lines or breaking tasks down to simpler components, just the control of that process and decision-making by a small group of bosses for the purpose of exploitation.

....

I don't think this was primarily a plot by capitalists to weaken the ability of workers to fight and I certainty don't think it was the case in early post-revolution Russia. And I don't think even under a revolution without the harsh conditions of post-Revolution Russia that it would be a bad idea - providing that workers themselves are the ones organizing and calling for it in their workplace to make production more efficient and less difficult. The problem comes with lack of worker's power from below - which Russia lost pretty shortly after the Revolution IMO.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Are you saying Taylorism is just more of the same and as such is a neutral approach to increasing industrial production? Sure jobs were de-skilled but to what degree? One would have to look at different industries in different places at different times to get a decent perspective, but aren't there substantive qualitative differences?

The basic project of Taylorism is to turn workers into machines and to micromanage to the point where they'll feel like machines. In recent decades this has led to capital intensive industries -- eg auto -- into forcing workers to work less efficiently, but in ways that could be studied so that the work could be done by robots.

Considering how capital intensive and lengthy these changes in the means of production are, isn't fairly probable that there are significant sections of the capitalist class who'll support these "efficiencies" to undermine working class solidarity? Russia in the 20s is a different question, but the truth might not be what it to be. A large portion of the youngest and most combative sections of the Russian proletariat came from peasant backgrounds, and often moved between city and country, factory and farm.