SOVIET STUDIES, vol. XXXIII, no. 2, April 1981, pp. 246-264
SOVIET TAYLORISM REVISITED
By ZENOVIA A. SOCHOR
TAYLORISM was introducedinto the Soviet Union in the 1920's with
A numberof analysts,
guardedoptimism,ambivalence,and controversy.
nevertheless,charge that Taylorism was adopted without sufficient
forethought
and withonlya cursoryMarxistcritique.' A recentstudy,in
fact, suggeststhat the terms of the debate were largely between a
narrowlytechnicistTaylorismand a Taylorismmodifiedby industrial
psychologyand protectionforthe worker.2
This raises the question whether Marxist input was indeed so
negligible, and if so, why? Given the highly charged ideological
atmosphereof the time, how did the adoption of Taylorism escape
ideological introspection?Who were the defendersof the 'communist
point of view' and why was theirprotestlimitedto a modificationof
Taylorism?
A second question which arises is whetherTaylorismwas simplya
transplantor did it containan autonomousrationale?Did Taylorismin
the Soviet Union respond to indigenous needs and was it as a
consequence markedlydifferentfrom that of the West? Was Soviet
Taylorismsomehowunique?
These questions are of considerableimportancebecause theyrelate
Taylorismto the largerissues of the 1920's, namely,how to implement
ideological goals underadversepoliticaland economicconditions,how
to learn and borrow from the capitalistswhile constructinga noncapitalistpath of development.
This article will focus on the controversywhich these questions
engenderedand, in particular,on theattemptsto formulatea critiqueof
Taylorism.It should be noted that the critiquewas marredfromthe
outsetby a moregeneralideologicalambivalencetowardscapitalism.To
Marxists,capitalismembodiedall thingsevilbutat thesame timecreated
forsocialism.This potentialtensionwas accentuated
the pre-conditions
under the circumstancesof underdevelopedRussia-should capitalist
inroadsbe welcomedor by-passed?Lenin,inDevelopmentof Capitalism
(1896-98), left no doubt that capitalismshould be welcomed. In the
post-1917 USSR the question became more complex. Given that the
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
247
capitalist stage was unevenly developed and had produced only
incompletepre-conditionsfor socialism, what was the ideologically
correct attitude? Clearly, socialists under the dictatorship of the
proletariatwere not simplyreplacingthe capitalists.The political and
economic equation had been fundamentallyaltered. But had the
functionof capitalismbeen played out? This was the far more vexing
questionand led to a decided ambivalenceon the partof even the most
ideologicallycommitted.
In morespecificterms,therewas confusionon whatattitudeto adopt
towards selectedaspects of capitalism. It was not difficultto discard
but whatwas to be done with
anythingwhichsmackedof profit-making
the technologicalor scientificelementsof capitalism?This underlying
cast thetermsof thedebate overTaylorism.Two
ideologicaluncertainty
distinctpositionsemerged,whichwe shall examinein greaterdetail. One
was a self-proclaimeddefence of the 'communist point of view',
representedby Platon Kerzhentsevand his organization, the Time
League (Liga Vremya).3 The otherwas a moreavowedlyTayloristpoint
by AlekseiGastevand his organization,theCentral
of view,represented
Labour Institute(Tsentral'nyiInstitutTruda-TsIT). 4 For the purposes
of thisarticle,the firstgroup may be called 'ideologues' and thesecond
'pragmatists'.
While theyclashed on manyissues, the two groupscoincidedin their
assumptionthatSoviet Taylorism,thatis, the scientificorganizationof
labour (Nauchnaya Organizatsiya Truda-NOT) was linked to the
culturalneeds of the system.In fact,theNOT movementwas to a large
degreea consciousresponseto Lenin's dictum'learn to work'. The task
and moreambitiousthan
prescribedforNOT was both moreelementary
the more typicalefficiency
goals of industrializedsocieties,i.e. to help
essentialto thedevelopmenteffort.More
erecttheculturalinfrastructure
thanthat,SovietTayloristsdiscernedin NOT tracesof the 'new culture'
indicativeof thetransitionto socialism.These enthusiasticexpectations,
abundantin the Soviet Union of the 1920's, endowed Soviet Taylorism
witha unique character.
Since it was inevitablethat Lenin's attitudeshould be a factorin the
controversyover Taylorism,we shall firstreviewLenin's position and
5
thenturnto the debates betweenGastev and Kerzhentsev.
Leniinand Taylorism
To the extent that Lenin conveyed an ideological message on
one. Taylorismwas exploitativebut it
Taylorism,it was a contradictory
and
was at thesame timea usefulmechanismforincreasingproductivity
instillingefficiency.Although some analystsdraw a sharp distinction
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TA YLORISM
248
betweenLenin's pre-1917censure and subsequentespousal,6 it seems
more accurateto say that Lenin echoed a dual note towardsTaylorism
fromthestart.As earlyas 1914 he contendedthatTaylorismwas at once
a way of extractingthe last ounce of sweat fromthe workerand of
securing'an enormousgain in labour productivity'.7
Of particularinterestis Lenin's suggestionthat Taylorismwas not
entirelysuccessfulbecause it was 'confinedto each factory'and ignored
the 'distributionof labour in societyas a whole'. In otherwords,it was
not so muchtheinherentmethodsand principlesof TaylorismthatLenin
rejectedas theiruse and application. He impliedfurtherthat socialists
would make betteruse of the instrumentdevised by capitalists. 'The
Taylorsystem-withoutitsinitiatorsknowingor wishingit-is preparing
the time when the proletariatwill take over all social productionand
appoint itsworkers'committeesforthepurposeof properlydistributing
and rationalizingall social labour.'8 Thus, to Lenin, Taylorismwas
linked with the general advance of capitalism,which was positively
interpreted
since it paved the way for socialism.The essentialquestion
forLenin became a politicalone: who would controland use Taylorism.
Lenin's positionwas not substantiallyalteredin the post-1917period
when he reiteratedcriticismof Taylorism as 'refined brutality'but
advocated its adoption as the 'last word of capitalism'. Again the key
question was one of political control: 'The possibilityof building
socialism depends exactlyupon our success in combiningSoviet power
and the Soviet organization of administrationwith the up-to-date
achievementsof capitalism'.9
The propositionwhichemergesfromLenin's discussionof Taylorism
is that capitalistmethodscould be employedto build socialism. In a
sense, this was Lenin's response to the residual ambivalencetowards
capitalism, carried over into the post-revolutionary
period. Indeed,
Lenin arguedthatworkers,withinthe frameworkof the dictatorshipof
the proletariat,werein a unique positionto take advantageof capitalist
workmanship.'For thefirsttimeaftera centuryof labour forothers...
thereis the possibilityof workingfor oneself,and withthe work based
on all the achievementsof the latesttechnologyand culture."'
An interesting
contrastto Lenin's positionis providedby Bogdanov,
who opposed Lenin on a wide arrayof questions,includingTaylorism.
AlthoughBogdanov also spoke approvinglyof theefficiency
aspects of
Taylorism,he diagnosed several potentialproblems. Since Taylorism
was gearedto thesuperior,not theaverageworker,it would createa rift
in theworkingclass, withthebestworkersextolledforheroiceffortsand
the averageones dismissedas idlersand loafers.Moreover,theconstant
repetitionof the same task would lead to a dullingof the sensesand be
to the needs of advanced industrialism.Finally,
counter-productive
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RE VISITED
249
Bogdanov suggestedthat Taylorismcould resultin a large increaseof
managerialpersonnel,the requisitetime-keepersarid overseers,with a
concomitantdecrease in the actual productivityof labour. Bogdanov
thusdrewtheconclusionthatundesirableconsequences-of a politicalas
well as economicnature-could be expectedfromTaylorism."
AftertherevolutionBogdanovchallengedLeninon thelargerpropositionthatthecapitalistachievementscould servesocialistends. Although
he too believed that capitalism was the necessarypre-conditionfor
socialism, he was not convinced that adoption of bourgeois science,
technologyand culturewas themain task duringthetransitionalperiod.
Rather, he argued that the theoreticalpremiseswould have to be reworked and a proletarianscience and cultureconsciouslydeveloped.
Only this effort,and not politicalcontrol,would ultimatelysecurethe
transitionto socialism. Essentially,in modern terms,Bogdanov was
assertingthatthe 'latestachievementsof capitalism'werenot value-free
and requireda fundamentalalterationbeforetheycould serveworkers'
12
interests.
Lenin, of course,also said thatTaylorismwould have to be adapted
'to our own ends', but his specificproposalssuggestedhedgingcapitalist
techniqueby politicalmeans ratherthana theoreticalrevamping.As we
shall see, the unsettledcontroversybetweenLenin and Bogdanov over
whethercapitalistmeans could be used to achievesocialistends formed
the background of the debates between the pragmatistsand the
ideologues on Taylorismand contributedto ideological ambiguity.
The FirstNOT Conference
AlthoughLenin had urged the adoption of Taylorismimmediately
aftertherevolution,thereal impetusforTaylorismdid not come during
the ideologicallyferventperiodof war communismbut duringthemore
equivocal period of NEP. The severe deteriorationof the economic
situationdrew a crescendo of calls for disciplineand greaterlabour
productivity.
In January1921theFirstAll-RussianInitiatingConference
on the ScientificOrganizationof Labour was convenedby Trotsky.13
The moreideologicallyinclined,however,offeredsharpresistanceto a
wholesale resortto Taylorismand to capitalistmethods. Of the 200
participantsat the conference,two discerniblegroups emerged,one
comprisingthe 'engineers-Taylorists'
and the otherthe 'social-minded',
as one observerlabelled them.14 The formerfoundthat Taylorismhad
'by and largejustifieditself'and proposed its use in the Soviet Union
'almost withoutreservation'.The latternot only proposed 'a special
approach to Taylorism(as a systemof capitalistexploitation)'but also
came close to 'completelyrejectingall of Taylor's works and his
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
250
TA YLORISM
school'. 15 Moreover,the 'social-minded'insistedon a strictdistinction
betweenthe 'scientificorganizationof labour', whichtheysupported,
and Taylorism,which harboured 'unscientificaspects', such as the
'excessiveincreasein the effortsof labour withouttakinginto account
the generalbalance of the energyof the worker'.16
These twopointsof view,voicedby disparatefactionsat thefirstNOT
Conference,took a more concrete shape in the Kerzhentsev-Gastev
debates. WithLenin's backingforTsIT, Gastevtook thelead in defining
and elaboratinghis concept of NOT. When his ideas became more
publicized, however, they were subjected to increasing scorn and
criticism,culminatingin a campaign by Kerzhentsevto end Gastev's
predominancein NOT affairs.The ideologuesaccusedthepragmatistsof
a crude, technicistapproach to NOT, while the pragmatistscountered
and overly
withthe chargethat the ideologues were 'literary-muddled'
bookish.17
Definitionand Scope of NOT: Pragmatistsvs. Ideologues
Gastev's positionon Taylorismwas essentiallya blanketendorsement.
To him the questionsof exploitationor of ideologicaldiscrepancywere
largelyirrelevant.His basic premisewas thatpolitical-ideological
matters
wereunderthepurviewof thedictatorshipof theproletariatand thathis
assignmentwas a technicalone, i.e., promotionof productionthrough
NOT. Indeed, he feltthatNOT could reach its fullpotentialonlyin the
employof socialists.Under capitalism,Taylorismwas submittedto the
distortingeffectsof a profitorientation.Under state capitalism, 'the
juncture between capitalist and socialist economies', the scientific
organizationof labour would be guided solelyby efficiency,
not profit,
criteria.Moreover,GastevpredictedthatNOTunder socialismwould be
firmlyanchored in production needs because productivityand the
productionenterpriseformed 'the basis of the whole economic and
politicalorganism'.18
In keepingwiththisutilitarianapproach,Gastev offereda simpleand
definitionof NOT. NOT was the 'processof organizing
straightforward
labour in a preciseand calculatedway'. Althoughthefactorsof timeand
cost had previouslybeen takeninto account, theylacked the exactitude
which a scientificmethod could bring. To expressit in Gastev's own
words:
The timehas comeforus to submitall methods
of workto
preliminary
study,
afterwhich,everywayand everymethodwe
divideintoseparateparts,
thesepartswe compareto one anotherand outof themwe choose
thebest.
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
251
REVISITED
Afterthat,fromthesepartswe forma special
series
be the
theseseriesin sucha way,so thatworkmight
and,finally,
we arrange
most
economic,
so thattheleasttimemightbe spent,theleastfatiguemightbe felt,and
ultimately,
so thatworkitselfmightbe themost
precise.
of labour.19
Thatis theessenceof thescientific
organization
Gastev'swas essentiallya buildingblock conceptionof NOT-only on
thebasis of modestorganizationaldesignsand soliddata could generalizations be made about larger organizational units. The pragmatists
of workon a 'narrowbase'.
withtheTsIT orientation
identified
strongly
Rather than startingwith 'far-fetchedschemes', TsIT proposed to
concentrateon a singleoperation,the lowestunit,and thenproceedto
scheme will
the whole. 'The organizationalnetworkor administrative
develop spontaneously,tied closely and organicallyto the work units
and arisingout of them.'20
througha mass of inter-connections,
As an example of theirapproach to NOT, the pragmatistsrecommended focussingon the lowest level of production-the workshop.
What could be more effectivethan to take a basic work operation,
reorganizeit, streamlineit, and therebydemonstrateimmediatelyand
directlythe ability of NOT to save time, effort,and materials. In
contrastto the bookish approach of the ideologues, therewould be
'absolutely no need for any meetings,long discussions,no need for
various factoryand cell conferences'.If therewere any meetingsto be
held, they should be only for purposes of demonstration.The 'best
propaganda and agitation' was simply for the workers to see and
organizedwork-placewitha chaotic,unorganized
comparean efficient,
one. The resultscould be extendedto the restof the factorysimplyby
order'.2'
'administrative
In keepingwith this approach, Gastev proposed to investigatethe
simplestworkmotionsto determinethe mostefficientmodus operandi.
as his focus.Throughtheuse of
He chose blacksmithsand metalworkers
the cyclometer,he attemptedto eliminateall superfluousgesturesand
of energy.Gastev's detailedstudiesof strikinga chiselwith
expenditures
a hammer(rubkazubilom),quicklybecame thehallmarkof TsIT and an
object of notoriety.
Whiletheideologuesconcurredon thebasic premisethatthescientific
organizationof labour should inject efficiencyand promote greater
theydivergedsharplyon thedefinitionand scope of NOT.
productivity,
To their way of thinking,Gastev's definitionof NOT and his
preoccupationwithworkon a 'narrowbase' werepicayuneand myopic.
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252
TA YLORISM
a wide base, encompassingthe organizationalcreative
'Only on
activitiesof man as a whole', could the multi-dimensional
and scientific
principlesof the organizationof labour have any substantialimpact.22
Essentially,the ideologues dismissed Gastev's endeavours as being
tangentialto NOT. As Kerzhentsevexplained, 'the main task of the
scientificorganizationof labour consists not of eliminatingseparate
defects,found here and there,but preciselyin establishingstandards,
that is, models and norms, which, under similarconditions,may be
applied throughout'.To remainblind to the distinctionbetween'preparatorywork' and the 'actual work' of NOT was to 'vulgarizetheideas
of NOT'.23 Given this standpoint,the ideologues concluded thatNOT
could not be confinedto questions of production;its sphereof action
was societyas a whole. 'To a Marxist', NOT refersto 'all aspects of
production',to technology,process, labour, and management,that is,
'to the organizationof thingsas well as of people'. 24 Principlesderived
fromthe rationalizationof productionwould eventuallybe applied to
everyorganizationalactivity,be it schools, the state apparatus, or the
Red Army.25
To the ideologuesNOT was directlyrelatedto ideological concerns.
The mostcharacteristic
featuresof NOT wereat thesame timefeaturesof
fullydevelopedcommunism.Both involvedthedevelopmentof scientific
methods, organization,and planning. Similarly,NOT constitutedan
importantdimensionof thetransitionalperiodbecause it 'preparedthose
indispensableelementsfrom which the society of the futurewill be
created'.26
Preciselyfor this reason the ideologues chargedthat it was grossly
misleading to treat NOT as a 'purely technical' problem as the
pragmatistsdid. NOT was firstand foremosta 'class problem', and
involvedan ideological clash betweencapitalistand socialistpremises.
NOT had penetratedinto Russia as 'a productof advanced capitalist
culture',withits methodsand principlesdeveloped 'in thelaboratoryof
capitalism'.It expressedthe 'ideologyand practicalvalues' of bourgeois
culture.As such, it was unacceptableto Marxistswithouta thorough
27
ideologicalre-working.
When the pragmatistsofferedtheirown criticismof Taylorismas a
'productof a formalmentalcreation,not based on economicrealities',28
the ideologuesimmediately
counteredwiththeargumentthatTaylorism
a productof capitalism,its functions,and requirements.
was eminently
To divorceTaylorism,thecapitalistNOT, fromitseconomicbase was an
indication of 'elementarymistakes' of theory and displayed 'an
enormousilliteracyin Marxism'.29
At the same timethe ideologues admittedthattherewas an inherent
contradictionin NOT itself:it threatenedmaximumexploitationof the
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVISITED
253
workerwhilepromisingmaximumeconomizingof workerstrengthand
upgradingof workers'skills.30 Thus NOT was at one and the same time
'an alluringweapon forthe refinement
of exploitationand a methodologicalpreconditionforthecompletionof thesocialisttransformation
of
society'.31 Herein lay the seeds of ideological ambivalence,makingit
difficultto rejectTaylorismout of hand. Rather,the ideologues chose
the alternativeof modifyingTaylorism.
Accordingto the ideologues, a 'class point of view' towardsNOT
would includethe followingfeatures:
1) workerswere the main focus of NOT and should become its
principal impetus. Through a process of education, agitation and
propaganda, workerswould grasptheutilityof NOT and implementits
principles. Normative incentivesand appeals would furtherattract
to NOT. 32
workers
2) the pointof departureforNOT effortsshould be the protectionof
of labour. Thus NOT
workerinterestsratherthan the intensification
should not concentrateon individualexertionbut should orientitself
toward production processes, efficientutilizationof machines, and
rationalizationof plant. Ultimately,advanced technologyand automation would transfer'slave labour' to machinesand liberateman.33
3) the existingfragmented,piece-mealapproach to NOT should be
replaced by a comprehensive,systemicapproach, withNOT expanded
fromthe productionenterpriseto societyas a whole. Planning of the
parts and the whole, under socialism, would guarantee harmonyof
interestsbetweenlabour and production.
4) thecommunistpartyshould exertleadershipin thefieldof NOT to
ensure a 'communistapproach' and a 'class point of view'. The XII
partycongresswas a stepin therightdirection.It signalledthegrowthof
NOT beyondthecapitalistframeworkin so faras 'organizationwas for
thefirsttimerecognizedas a centralgovernmental
problem',not limited
to the discretionof separate enterprises,as was more commonlythe
case.34
The pragmatistswere not reluctantto jump into the frayand defend
theirown point of view. If therewere any problemswithNOT it was
because the 'non-productionintelligentsia',who understoodNOT in a
'purelyideological' way, weremeddlingin NOT affairs.The leaders of
NOT cells werenot 'productionelementsbut propagandistsin a factory
and knew nothingabout its operations'.35 Imprecisionand slownessin
implementingNOT were the main impedimentrather than 'faulty
planning' or still largertheoreticalschemes.36 In order to correctthe
situation,the managementhad to be approached and persuadedof the
of NOT. Finally,the 'most realisticmeans' of attracting
effectiveness
workersto NOT was an improvement
in theirmaterialwelfare,although
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TA YLORISM
254
the trade unions could also play an importantpart in mobilizing
workers.37
The pragmatists'pointof view was ultimatelyadopted, largelyowing
to thepressureof theeconomicsituation,althoughthiswas not thesole
reason.38 There were severa! weaknesses in the ideologues' position
whichunderminedtheireffort.From the starttheyexhibiteda certain
amountof equivocationtowardscapitalistmethods,labellingTaylorism
the epitomeof capitalismas well as thekeyto the future.They failedto
offer a clear-cut alternativeto Gastev's own straightforward
and
uncomplicatedapproach. In particular,they did not suggest fundamental changes in the work process nor in authorityrelationsat the
work-place; they fell short of devising a scheme for a 'socialist
organization of labour' which would differ substantiallyfrom a
'scientificorganizationof labour'. The ironyof theirpositionwas that
theyproposed to safeguardworkers'interests,not by rejectingor even
radically altering Taylorism, but by expanding its principles to
encompassthe entiresociety,a NOT writlarge. Moreover,theydid not
relate their 'scientificorganization of society' to the political and
economic setting,a serious gap in theirorganizationalanalysis. They
emphasizedthe 'class pointof view' and workers'interests,but ignored
the actual power structureand potentialpower conflicts.In a fundatheimplicitassumptionsof
mentalway,theysharedwiththepragmatists
the transitionalperiod that class conflictwas being superseded by
scientificmanagement,and remainingtensionswould be resolved by
scientificarbitration.
Implementationof NOT: Tsentral'nyiInstitutTruda vs. Liga Vremya
and theideologues
The theoreticaldifferences
betweenthepragmatists
reverberatedin the organizationswhichtheyestablishedto implement
theirideas. TsIT, foundedin 1921,compriseda seriesof laboratoriesto
develop a 'new industrialpedagogy' and a trainingprogrammefor a
designated group of workers. Liga Vremya,founded in 1923 as a
reactionto and protestagainst TsIT, consistedof a broad agitational
campaign to build a base of support for NOT and to encourage a
programmeof self-help.
The organizationof TsIT into a range of bio-mechanical,physiolaboratoriesconformedwithGastev's
logical, and psycho-physiological
emphasison thehumanfactoras theunknowndimensionin thescientific
organizationof labour. Gastev readily contrastedTaylor's focus on
machinesand work processes to his own concern for developing'an
exactscienceof organizinga plantfilledwithlivepeople'. 19Man was the
critical factor to be studied and to be changed by applyingNOT
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
255
REVISITED
principles.Althoughthe 'human machine' was capable of producing
miracles,not one-tenthwas known about this live machine,lamented
Gastev. For thisreason TsIT was dedicatedto examiningthe 'separate
mechanisms[of the human machine]in operation'.40
Based on his studyof musclemovements,elementaryworkmotions,
and rationalizedconditionsof work,Gastevdeviseda courseof instruction forworkerrecruits.Duringa periodlastingthreeto six monthsthe
traineewas taughtthe basic skillsof his tradein a carefully-monitored
setting.The work-place,equipment,and programmeof trainingwereall
as well as
strictlystandardized,withexplicitand detailed instructions,
continuouscontroland verification."4To Gastev,theseeffortsreflected
the 'new science' of social engineering,an entirelynew approach to
produce 'new people'."
AlthoughGastev declaredthe 'renovationand creationof the labour
force. . . themosturgenttask',43his immediateaim was nottrainingon
a mass scale. Rather,he hoped to createa nucleusof workerswho would
serve as 'instructorsof production'. Accordingto Gastev, it was far
better to 'educate and prepare a smaller number of good workerthan a large number of inexdirectors (rabotnikov-pravyashchikh)
of theorganizationof labour
pursuit
the
periencedpersons,discrediting
further:
explained
He
masses'.
working
in the eyes of the
theirown,evenifverysmall,
to perfection
knowing
workers,
Experienced
wheretheywere
shouldenterproductionfromthe institutes
profession,
trained.Theywillserveas an exampleof a fullymodernworker,an older
masses.
of thefactory
and a civilizer
brother
in production'be paid an
Gastev also suggestedthatsuch 'instructors
encouragingwage (which would act as a material stimulusto more
backwardworkers),attendspecial seminars,and be sentabroad periodically to study'foreigntechniquesof managementand organizationof
had been trained.45
labour'.44By the end of 1923, 100 such instructors
In contrastto TsIT, theLiga Vremyahoped to attracta wide audience
on thebasis of a simpleappeal, 'strugglefortime'. The League's charter
stated its goal succinctly:'To strugglefor the correctutilizationand
economyof timein all of itsvestigesin publicand privatelife,is thebasic
conditionforthe realizationof the principlesof NOT in the USSR'.46
theLeague boasted 120 cells
Withinthreemonthsof itsestablishment,
in Moscow withan averageof 33 membersper cell, thatis, about 4,000
membersin all. Of these,62Wowerepartymembers.47By theend of 1924
about 800 cells were in operation, 4001oof the membersof which
belongedto the partyand the Komsomol.48Of the 800 cells, 20Wowere
attached to enterprises,35% were in state institutions,25W/oin
A good numberof cells were in the Red Armyand were
universities.49
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TA YLORISM
256
'the most active and cohesive' of all the cells.50Kerzhentsevhimself
of 25,000 withinthefirstyearof existence.5'Cells
claimeda membership
wereestablishedin 75 cities.52As a resultof theincreasein cells and the
League's influencein theNOT movement,itsnamewas changedto Liga
Vremya/LigaNOT in March 1924 and then in Julysimplyto Liga
NOT.53
Activities in the 'strugglefor time' varied between regions and
organizations.Many cells simplyheld agitationalmeetingsand waged a
measures'intotheir
presscampaign. Some triedto introduce'efficiency
offices or places of work. A few instituted'penalty stamps' for
latecomers.Othersstarteda campaign (whichproved to be one of the
mostpopular) againsttheendlessqueues typicalof the Sovietscene. All
were encouragedto wear a medal inscribedVremya.
Kerzhentsevfavouredsimpleand broad-basedmeasuresto develop a
of work
'feelingfortime'and to pave theway fora 'smoothfunctioning
and life'. In thisspirit,he proposed thatwatchesbe givento 'heroes of
labour' and thatwhistlesor sirensmarkthetimeof day.5 He suggested
the use of 'chrono-cards' and appointmentbooks. He attacked the
Russianpredilectionfor'an endlessquantityof meetings':thenumberof
meetingsshould be reduced; meetingsshould be carefullyprepared; a
time for the end as well as the beginningof the meetingshould be
designated beforehand,and all speeches should be limited to 5-10
minutes.5
Indicativeof the campaignmood was the followingset of guidelines:
Instead of 'perhaps'-a precisecalculation.
Instead of 'anyhow'-a well-thought-out
plan.
Instead of 'somehow'-a scientificmethod.
Instead of 'sometime'-on 15 October,at 20.35 hours.56
While Kerzhentsevadmittedthat the 'strugglefor time' was in itself
only a simplifiedaspect of NOT, he believed it could serve as a
preliminarystep towards greater organization and better planning
throughoutsociety.57 If nothing else, Kerzhentsevcontended, the
league's campaignwould at least removeNOT fromthe confinesof the
laboratoriesand prevent'chronometricbarbarism'frompervadingthe
NOT movement.
Soviet Taylorismand theNew Culture
between
Althoughtheideologuesattemptedto drawsharpdistinctions
themselvesand the pragmatistsand to lay claim to a Marxistposition,
they were consistentlyhampered by a lack of a clear alternativeto
Taylorism. Indeed, they considered the adoption of NOT, that is,
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
257
REVISITED
Taylorismin itsSoviettranslation,to be urgent.As Kerzhentsev
insisted,
NOT was morecriticalfortheSovietUnion thanforAmericabecause it
furnishedprinciplesof 'how to organizework even in the presenceof
scarce resources'. NOT could secure the 'maximum effectwith the
minimumloss of strength
and means'.58
Scarceresourceswerein facttherealimpetusforembracingTaylorism.
In contrastto American Taylorism which arose in response to the
problem of 'systematicsoldiering' among an industrializedlabour
59 SovietTaylorismwas spurredbytheproblemof an unskilledand
force,
barelyliteratelabour force.60 Lenin complainedmorethanonce thatthe
Russian was a bad workerin comparisonto his Germanor American
61 Preobrazhenskyoffered an even broader diagnosis,
counterpart.
tracingthe dearthof a work ethic to the Russian national character,
whichcut acrossclass lines. Peasants shirkedsteadyworkhabitsbecause
theirlife rhythmswere governedby seasonal spurtsof effort.At the
same time the intelligentsiaobstinately preserved 'haughty-pettyto productionneeds.
relations'whichwereirrelevant
bourgeois-oblomov
In its currentstate the Russian national characterwas too laggard to
respond to the needs of the new economy and new technology,
Preobrazhenskylamented.62
The remedysuggestedwas a good dose of Taylorism.Everycomplicated task could be subdividedinto its simplercomponentparts and
organizedin a scientificfashionto producemaximumresultsin relation
to effort.Workerswith relativelylittleskill and even untestedwork
habits could then be fittedinto this schemewithoutloweringproductivity. What counted was the superior organization of the work
process-not thelevelof skillof theworkers.To Lenin,who was already
a firmbelieverin thepowerof organization,thiswas boththegeniusand
the promiseof scientificmanagement.
Krupskayavoiced a similarlysanguineappraisal of what Taylorism
could achieve in the midstof culturalbackwardness.'The divisionof
functionsand the introductionof writteninstructionsallow for the
placementof less qualified people in any given job'. She expressed
irritationwithadministrators
who simplycomplainedabout the lack of
qualifiedpersonnel.'Only poor administrators
say that. A knowledgeable administrator
can use people withsecond-ratequalificationsif he
instructsthem properlyand divides the work among them in an
expedientfashion'.63
If therewas littledisagreement
on theutilityof NOT in circumventing
therewas farmorediscordon therole of NOT in
culturalshortcomings,
fosteringcultural traits of socialism. That NOT was indeed an
'indispensableelementof thenew culture'was not questioned,64 despite
ideological misgivings towards procedures emanating from the
G
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TA YLORISM
258
'laboratory of capitalism'. Preobrazhenskyspecificallyendorsed a
widespread,voluntarygrowthof Liga Vremya cells to instil a 'new
culture'of industriousness,
punctuality,
and accuracy.65 Protestserupted
only when Gastev went a step furtherand intimateda coupling of
productioncultture
withthe forthcoming
proletarianculture.
To Gastev,theSovietNOT would involvea 'reorganizationof life' and a
creationof a 'new productionculture',thussurpassingtheAmericanor
Germanexperience. In thisvein,and in keepingwithTsIT principles,
of culture,meaningin the firstinstance
he predicteda re-definition
suitedto
'technicaland social skill'.67 TsIT, Gastevnoted,was eminently
instilling
sucha labourculture.Its programmewas designedto teachnew
recruitsbasic workmotions,familiarisethemwithtools and machines,
To Soviet
and almost imperceptibly
transformpeasantsinto workers.68
youthhe offeredthe followingprescription:
Labour-is yourstrength
skill
Organization-your
Regime-yourwill
Thisthenis thepresent
culturalaim
it equalsthe
Andaltogether
culturalrevolution69
Looking intothefuture,Gastev forecasta societywhichwould boast of
'strikinganonymity',itscommonnormsand rhythms
pervadinglifeand
shapingthe new proletarianculture.70
These venturesinto the theoreticalspherewere more than the ideologues could tolerate.Althoughthe effortsof TsIT wereby themselves
possibly useful, probably innocuous, Gastev's pronouncementson
culture made a mockery of the concept of 'proletarian culture'.
Bogdanov, as the foremosttheoreticianon proletarianculture,took
Gastev to task forequatingworkhabitsand productionbehaviourwith
culture.'Proletarianlifeis a whole', comprisedof various dimensions,
not just work; it was wrong 'to break off one piece, even if it is very
important,basic'. Gastev's image of the futuresociety recalled a
'militaristdrill' ratherthan workers'collectivism."7 Almost ten years
later, at Gastev's zenith, similar criticismswere echoed. One critic
conceded that Lenin himselfhad tied the cultural revolutionto the
technologicalrevolution(i.e. his statementson electrification),but
affirmedthat only a 'vulgarizationof Marxism' could assume a direct
relationshipbetween technologyand culture. Moreover, the culture
whichGastevdescribedwas merelya 'cultureof muscles',not a 'culture
of the mind'; hence it could not encompassproletarianculture.72
Yet anotheraspect of Gastev's heraldedcultureagitatedhis critics.
Accordingto Bogdanov, Gastev's schemelentitselfto the riseof a new
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVISITED
259
'social group' of educated engineerswho would performcreative,
originalfunctionsagainsta backgroundof mass uniformity.73 Similarly,
Kerzhentsevwarned that the emphasis placed by TsIT on a selected
groupof workerswouldlead to 'an aristocracyof theworkingclass, high
priestsof NoT. At thesame time,he rejectedtheidea of TsIT as a selfordained centrefor 'civilizing' workers.
7 If a new man were to be
fashioned,he would have to be a 'conscious participantin the production process and in the national economy' ratherthan an object for
5
laboratoryexperimentation.
In a sense, Gastev made himselfan obvious targetfor derision. He
sought simple, perhaps simplistic,trainingmethods because he was
stunnedby the difficulty
of transforming
the peasant into a worker.
Accordingly,he chose Robinson Crusoe as 'the patron of the new
cultural movement'because the 'new man' should exhibitskill and
underadverseconditions.76 His call for'trainingof character'
dexterity
was elementary
and basic: 'if thereis no steel,turnto wood. Do not beg,
and do not wait'.77 Ultimately,he was mesmerised,and not he alone by
any means, by technology,its promise,and its impact on governing
values.
Those who hastenedto Gastev's defencedrewon Lenin's arguments
against proletarianculture,namely,that the proper focus of 'culture
workers'was to instildiscipline,promoteliteracy,and eliminate'prebourgeoishabits'. Ratherthan rhapsodizingabout an ideal proletarian
culture,'revolutionary
tactics' dictatedborrowingelementsof Western
culture.Withinthis context,NOT was above all 'a means for raising
culture in general and a method of struggleagainst remnantsand
survivalsof the peasant,Asiatic cultureof old Russia'. 78
Confrontedwith the scene of 'unculturedmasses', the ideologues
could not readilycondemn any effortat enlightenment.
Indeed, the
'strugglefor time' campaign relied on measureswhich were as rudimentaryas any of those advocated by Gastev. Nevertheless,the ideologues pleaded for recognitionof the largergoal. It was not simplya
question of raising the cultural level-'any bourgeois specialist can
expedite this task without communistleadership'-but of building
socialism at the same time.79For this reason, Taylorismcould not be
pressedintoservicein an undiscriminating
fashion.If theroleof NOT in
the new culturewas to instilthe 'necessaryhabits and customs' for
industrialization,it was also to avoid 'external pressure and
compulsion'. Herce socialist traitswere the necessaryconcomitantto
'learningto work': 'to work well, to reflecton one's productionand
ways of improvingit, to bear in mindthe whole of the plan of socialist
construction-alltheseshould become habits'.80
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TA YLORISM
260
Beyond the more facile Marxist exhortations,the ideologues were
stymiedby the vaguenessof what actuallyconstituted'socialist traits'
and how thesewerebestinculcated.Proletarianculture,in eithertheory
or practice,was stillverymuchin itsinfancy.As a commondenominator,
both the ideologues and the pragmatistssupporteda normativeorder
based on technicalrationalityand collectivism.They welcomed automation, standardization,and rationalizationas the antidotes to the
alleged anarchyof capitalistsocietyand as signpostsof the new socialist
order. The resultwas an uneasy ambiguitytowardsTaylorismand the
culturalvalues it represented."'
Conclusion
It is clear thatTaylorismdid not elude ideologicalscrutinyand thata
'communistpointof view' was expressed,at timesvociferously.It is also
clear thattheideologueshad littlereal impact.Theirweaknessstemmed
fromthe followingfactors:
1) given Lenin's endorsementof Taylorism, it was politically
untenable to reject Taylorism outright.For all practical purposes,
thetermsof
modificationbecame the onlyreal choice, thusinfluencing
the debate.
2) doubts on the feasibilityof using 'capitalist means' to build
socialismremainedunresolved.Althoughthe ideologuesdid not accept
the premisethat technologywas 'value-free'once removed from its
capitalistmilieu,theydid not provide adequate guidelineson how to
excise the 'capitalistelements'.
3) the vision of a rationalizedsocietyinspiredby generalTaylorist
concepts was not vividlydistinguishedfrom the vision of the new
socialist society.This confusiontended to underminethe ideologues'
effortsto castigateTaylorism.
In the final analysis, the ideologues sufferedfromtheirfailureto
defineclearlythe socialistfoundationsof the scientificorganizationof
labour, with specificreferenceto productionrelationsand the work
process, as well as theirreluctanceto tie the scientificorganizationof
of the system.
labour to the largerpoliticaland economicstructures
Clark University,Worceste,;MA.
The authorwrotethisarticleas a VisitingScholar at the Russian Instituteat Columbia
Universityand would like to acknowledgethe assistanceextendedby the Institute.
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
261
REVISITED
I See HarryBraverman,Labor and Monopoly Capital (New York: MonthlyReview
Press, 1974),Introduction,
and Daniel Bell,End of Ideology(New York: FreePress, 1962),
chap. 15.
2 Kendall E. Bailes, 'Alexei Gastev and the Soviet Controversyover Taylorism,
1918-24' SovietStudies,vol. XXIX, no. 3 (July1977),pp. 373-94. For earlierreferences,
see E. H. Carr, TheBolshevikRevolution,1917-23, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan,1952),pp.
105-20, and Socialismin One Country,1924-26,vol. 1 (London,Macmillan,1958),chap. 7.
3 The Presidiumof the Liga VremyaincludedP. M. Kerzhentsev
(chairman),A. K.
Gastev, A. Kaktyn',and Rogachev; Lenin and Trotskywereelectedhonorarychairmen.
(The appearance of Gastev's name on the Presidiumsuggestsan attemptat compromise,
whichdid notprovesuccessful).The enlargedBureauincludedPreobrazensky,Meyerhold,
Kosarev, Shpil'rein,and Dange. Additional sources of supportcame fromBurdyansky
(head of the Kazan' Instituteof Labour), Esmansky(head of the Taganrog Instituteof
Labour), and Shatunovsky(associated withNKPS and Gosplan). Articleswrittenby the
ideologueswerevariouslysigned,including'Bureau of Moscow Communists,Workersof
NOT' and 'Group of Seventeen'.
I The Presidiumof TsIT consistedof thefollowingmembers:A. K. Gastev(chairman),
L. B. Granovsky,G. A. Berkhovsky,and M. B. Piolunkovsky.In addition to Lenin's
endorsement,importantsources of support came fromthe Council of Trade Unions,
Tomsky,Dzerzhinsky,and Zinoviev.
I For a fuller treatment,see Zenovia A. Sochor, 'Modernization and Socialist
Transformation:Leninist and Bogdanovite Alternativesof the Cultural Revolution'
(unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Columbia University,1977), chap. 8.
6 For an exampleof thisargument,
see Bailes, 'Gastevand theSovietControversy
op. cit., p. 376, and Technologyand SocietyunderLenin and Stalin(Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress, 1978), p. 50.
7 V. I. Lenin, 'The Taylor System-Man's Enslavementby the Machine', 13 March
1914, Collected Works,vol. 20, p. 153. For an unequivocal condemnation,see Lenin,
'Nauchnaya' sistemavyzhimaniyapota', 13 March 1913, Sochineniya,4th ed. (1948) vol.
18: pp. 556-57.
8
Lenin, 'The Taylor System . . .' op. cit.
Lenin, 'ImmediateTasks of theSoviet Government',28 April 1918,Selected Works,
One-Volumeed. (New York, 1971), p. 417.
10Lenin, 'Kak organizovatsorevnovanie?'24-27 December1917,in Lenin,0 literature
i iskusstve(Moscow 1969), p. 399.
ll A. A. Bogdanov,Mezhdu chelovekomi mashinoi(o sistemeTeilora),(St. Petersburg,
1913).
'1 For summariesof Bogdanov's views, see Alexander Vucinich, Social Thought in
Tsarist Russia: The Quest for a General Science of Society, 1861-1917 (Chicago:
of Chicago Press, 1976), chap. 8, and S. V. Utechin,'Philosophyand Society:
University
AlexanderBogdanov', in Leopold Labedz, ed., Revisionism(New York: Praeger, 1962),
pp. 117-25. The debates betweenLenin and Bogdanov are treatedmore extensivelyin
Sochor, 'Modernization and Socialist Transformation',and are the subject of a
book by the author.
forthcoming
13 For briefsummaries
of theconference,see Pravda, 26 and 28 January1921. Speeches
deliveredat theconferencewerepublishedin TrudyI vserossiiskoi
initsiativnoi
konferentsii
po nauchnoi organizatsiitruda i proizvodstva(Moscow, 1921). Some of the resolutions
may be found in P. P. Kovalev et al., Nauchnaya organizatsiyatrudaproizvodstva i
upravleniya:Sbornikdokumentovi materialov,1918-30 (Moscow: Ekonomika, 1969).
It is interesting
to notethatcontemporary
literature
avoids all mentionof Trotsky'srole
in callingthisconference.EitherDzerzhinsky,who succeededTrotskyas head of NKPS, or
simplyNKPS, is creditedwith calling the conference.See N. S. Il'enko and K. Sh.
Shamsutdinov, eds., Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda dvadtsatykhgodov: Sbornik
dokumentovi materialov(Kazan', 1965), p. 8 or Kovalev, p. 113. In comparison,sources
of the 1920s specificallystate that Trotskycalled the conference.See I. N. Shpil'rein,
'Nauchnaya organizatsiyatruda', in Obshchestvennye
nauki SSSR, 1917-27, ed. V. P.
Volgin et al. (Moscow: Rabotnikprosveshcheniya,
1928), p. 62.
14
Sphil'rein,'Nauchnaya organizatsiyatruda', p. 63. Also see M. Rubinshtein,'Novye
tendentsiisovremennogoteilorizma',Vestniktruda,no. 6 (June 1921), pp. 35-39.
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262
TA YLORISM
'5 Kerzhentsev,NOT-nauchnaya organizatsiya truda (1923), reprintedin P. M.
Kerzhentsev,Printsipyorganizatsii:Izbrannyeproizvedeniya,ed. I. A. Slepov (Moscow:
Ekonomika, 1968), pp. 304-05.
16 This distinction
is made in thegeneralresolutionof theconference.See Kovalev,pp.
125-26.
17 Despite thesedifferences,
Lenin expressedapprovalof bothGastevand Kerzhentsev.
main
He advocatedfinancialassistanceforGastev's Institute,and he praisedKerzhentsev's
work,Printsipyorganizatsii,as a textworthstudying.For Gastev's accountof his meeting
with Lenin, see Organizatsiyatruda, no. 1, 1924, p. 11, reprintedin Il'enko and
Shamsutdinov,p. 147. For Lenin's commentson Kerzhentsev,see 'Better Fewer, but
Better',2 March 1923,Selected Works,p. 705.
18 'Organizatsiyatrudai upravleniya',Trud, no. 29, 6 February1924, p. 4. The article
was signedby Gastev, Gol'tsman, Lavrent'ev,and Kolesnikov.
'9 Gastev, 'Chto takoe NOT?' fromGastev, Kak nado rabotat' (Moscow, VTsSPS,
1927), reprintedin A. K. Gastev, Kak tiado rabotat', N. M. Bakhrakh(ed.) (Moscow:
Ekonomika, 1972), pp. 160-61. This passage is typicalof Gastev's writingstyle,i.e. very
succinctand staccato-like.His sentenceswere carefullystructuredand key phraseswere
oftenunderlinedor offsetforvisual impactand emphasis.
20 M. Piolunkovsky,
'S chego sleduetnachinat'v provedeniiv zhizn' organizatsiitruda,
osnovannoi na nauchnommetode?', Pravda, 17 May 1923, p. 4.
21 Gastev, 'Soyuz i proizvodstvo',Vestniktruda,no. 1 (January1924), pp. 73-74.
22 'NOT v SovetskoiRossii', Pravda, 25 April 1923.
23 Kerzhentsev,
'NOT v nashikhusloviyakh',Vestniktruda,no. 1 (January1924), pp.
81-83.
24 'Nasha platformav oblasti NOT', Pravda, 11 January1923, p. 2. The articlewas
signedby Kaplun, Torbek, Shpil'rein,Burdyansky,Esmansky,and Shatunovsky.
25 Kerzhentsev,
NOT, pp. 283-84.
26 Kerzhentsev,
'NOT v nashikhusloviyakh'.
27 G. Torbek, 'Pervaya popytka', Voprosytruda,nos. 5-6, 1923, pp. 73-77.
28 Gastev,et al., 'Organizatsiyatrudai upravleniya',Trud,no. 28, 5 February1924,p.
2. The 5 and 6 Februaryissues of Trud constitutedthe 'TsIT platform'prior to the
conveningof the Second NOT Conferencein March 1924.
29 Kerzhentsev,
'Dve platformy
po NOT', Trud,no. 4, 20 February1924,p. 2. This was
the counterpartto the Gastev-Gol'tsman'platform'citedabove.
30 I. Kan, 'O klassovompodkhode k problemenauchnoiorganizatsiitruda', Voprosy
truda,no. 4, 1923, pp. 37-39.
31 'PlatformaKhar'kovskogoInstitutaTruda v voprosakhNOT', Voprosytruda,no. 4,
1923, pp. 39-40.
32 The question of normativevs. materialincentiveswas particularly
disputed. For a
rangeof views,see Kerzhentsev,'O tsitovskoiplatformepo NOT', Pravda, 8 March 1924,
p. 7; Gol'tsman, 'O platformepo NOT gruppe17 kommunistov',Pravda, 7 March 1924,
p. 4.
Pravda, 25 May 1923, p. 1; Ya.
33 Ya. Shatunovsky,'Molotok ili elektrifikatsiya',
Shatunovsky,'Nauchnaya organizatsiyatruda i ee anarkhistskoevyyavlenie',Krasnaya
nov', 1923, no. 6, pp. 53-64.
is at least partlytied to their
34 The ideologues' espousal of 'communistintervention'
predominancein the Council of ScientificManagement(Sovnot) of the Commissariatof
Workers'and Peasants' Inspection(RKI).
35 Gastev, 'Soyuz i proizvodstvo',Vestniktruda,no. 1 (January1924), pp. 73-74.
36 Gastev, 'Strogayaispolnitel'nost'',Pravda, 9 April 1924, p. 1.
3 Gastev, 'Soyuzy i organizatsiya
truda', Trud, no. 36, 14 February1924, p. 2.
38 Despite some criticism
of TsIT and an attemptat reconcilingthe 'two platforms',the
Second NOT Conferenceessentiallycame out in favourof thepragmaticapproachof TsIT.
3 Gastev,'Chto takoe nauchnayaorganizatsiya
truda',Pravda, 13 December1922,p. 5
40 Gastev, 'V Tsentral'nomInstitute
Truda', Vestniktruda,no. 1 (January1924), pp.
85-87.
41 By 1928, the numberof 'control laboratories' included the following:production
control (quality controlof the product); bio-engineering
(controlof the 'organizational
bio-chemistry
(to study
behaviour' of the studentat his workplace); psycho-technology;
fatigue); 'functionaldiagnostics' (to studythe 'energybalance' of the organism); and
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
263
REVISITED
dispensary (medicinal and anthropometriccontrol). 'Tsentral'nyi Institut Truda',
Revolutsiyai kul'tura,no. 2, 1928,pp. 68-69. Interestingly,
Yu. A. Gastev(possiblya son)
drawsa comparisonbetweenGastev's 'programmatic
training'and B. F. Skinner's'linear
programmes'.He also claimsthatthe TsIT methodswerean earlyprototypeof cybernetics.
See Yu. A. Gastev, 'O metodologicheskikh
voprosakh ratsionalizatsiiobucheniya', in
Kibernetika,myshlenie,zhizn', ed. A. I. Berg (Moscow: Mysl', 1964), pp. 459-72.
42 Gastev, 'Novye sily', Pravda, 14 July 1923, p. 5. See also Gastev, Nashi zadachi
(Moscow: Instituttruda, 1921), reprintedin Kak nado rabotat', pp. 29-30.
trudav proizvodstve:TezisyTsentral'nogoInstituta
43 Gastev, 'O nauchnoiorganizatsii
Truda', 16 January1923, in Koval'ev, p. 142.
44 'Organizatsiyatrudai upravleniya',(6 February).
45 Followingresolutions
by the Commissariatof Labour (Narkomtrud)and theCentral
Committeeof the Partyforacceleratedmass training,thenumberswentup considerably.
In 1926, Gastev reportedthat 1,000 instructorshad been trained,and by 1929, 15,000
drive
workers.See 1l'enkoand Shamsutdinov,pp. 47, 721-23. Duringtheindustrialization
TsIT claimed to have trained half a million workers in all (Gastev, 'Nauchnaya
organizatsiyatruda', Organizatsiyatruda, no. 9, 1935, reprintedin Gastev, Kak nado
rabotat', p. 371). A breakdownof figuresis not available. Between1921-38, therewere
1,700trainingstations.Duringthistime,0 5 millionworkersweretrainedin 200 different
specializations,and 20,000 'instructorsof production'werealso trained.A. V. Smetanin
(formermemberof staffof TsIT), 'Nauchnaya organizatsiyatruda metodom TsITa',
Ekonomicheskayagazeta, no. 11, 16 March 1923, pp. 16-18 of special section.The 0-5
millionfigureis also quotedin Bol'shayasovetskayaentsiklopediya
6 (thirded., 1971),p. 138.
46 'Bor'ba za vremya',Pravda, 31 July1923,p. 3. For theexpandedcharter,
see Pravda,
5 August 1923,p. 3.
4
Il'enko and Shamsutdinov,NOT, p. 683.
48 Ibid., p. 15.
49 L. Pamillaand V. Chukovich,
NOT-velenie vremeni
(Minsk:izd. Belarus',1973),p. 35.
50 Kerzhentsev,
Bor'ba za vremya(Moscow: izd. Krasnaya nov', 1924), reprintedin
Printsipy,p. 370. Kerzhentsevnotes that the firstVremyacell originatedin the War
Academy. See Kerzhentsev,'Liga Vremya',Pravda, 25 July1923, p. 1.
5' Kerzhentsev,
NOT, p. 303. Pamilla and Chukovichisubstantiatethisfigure,quoting
fromarchivalsources,p. 35.
52 Koval'ev, p. 97. For league activities
in Moscow, see Il'enko and Shamsutdinov,pp.
683-84.
53 Ibid. The downfallof the league was not long in coming.In December1925,the RKI
issued a resolutionwhichstated that the league had fulfilledits tasks of agitationand
propagandaand was accordinglydissolved.See 1l'enkoand Shamsutdinov,p. 685. Among
otherreasons, Kerzhentsev'sattemptsto maintain'organizationalautonomy' may have
proveduntenable.Kerzhentsevinsistedthatthe league was neither'directlya stateorgan'
nor 'organizationallyamalgamatedwiththe party,'even thoughit was in 'an extremely
association' withtheparty. He resistedeffortsto mergetheleague with
close and friendly
RKI, arguingthatit was more usefulto have variousnon-governmental
organizationsto
encompass the differentstrata of the population, similarto the civic organizationsin
England. Kerzhentsev,Bor'ba za vremya,pp. 372-74. Bukharin had also advocated
'voluntaryassociations'as intermediaries
betweenthegovernment
and theindividual,and
consideredthe Liga Vremyaan organizationof this 'new type'. See N. I. Bukharin,0
rabkorei sel'kore: Stat'i i rechi(Moscow: Pravda and Bednota, 1926), pp. 14-21.
5
Kerzhentsev,'Chasy', Pravda, 22 September1923, p. 3.
For the fullrangeof Kerzhentsev'ssuggestions,see Kerzhentsev,Bor'ba za vremya,
5
pp. 335-82.
56 Ibid.,p. 376.
5
Kerzhentsev,'Bor'ba s organizatsionnoibezgramotnost'yu',
Pravda, 8 May 1923, p.
1; Kerzhentsev,Bor'ba za vremya,pp. 362-65, 379-81. Also see I. Shpil'rein, 'O
prakticheskoirabote Ligi Vremya',Pravda, 22 August 1923, p. 5.
5
Kerzhentsev,Bor'ba za vremya,p. 338.
For studies dealing with Taylorism,see Bell, chap. 11, Braverman,and Nicos P.
5
Mouzelis, Organizationand Bureaucracy(Chicago: Aldine, 1968).
60 Soviet Taylorism's unique cultural and educative role is discussed in Samuel
Lieberstein,'Technology, Work, and Sociology in the USSR: the NOT Movement'.
Technologyand Culture,vol. 16, no. 1 (January1975), pp. 48-66.
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264
TA YLORISM REVISITED
61 Lenin, 'ImmediateTasks', p. 417. In responseto this problem,Lenin offeredthe
followingprescription:'To learnhow to workis now the main,the trulynationaltask of
the Soviet Republic.Our primaryand mostimportanttask is to attainuniversalliteracy,
but we should in no circumstanceslimitourselvesto thistarget.We mustat all costs go
beyondit and adopt everything
thatis trulyvaluable in European and Americanscience.'
Leninmade thisstatement
whilerecommending
0. A. Ermansky,Nauchnayaorganizatsiya
trudai proizvodstvai sistema Teilora (Moscow: Gosizdat, 1922) as a 'standardtextbook
forall tradeunionschools and forall secondaryschools in general'. See Lenin, 'A Fly in
the Ointment',10 September1922,Lenin on the UnitedStates(New York, 1970),p. 513.
62 E. Preobrazhensky,
'Davno pora', Pravda, 28 July1923,p. 1.
63 N. Krupskaya, 'Sistema Teilora i organizatsiyaraboty sovetskikhuchrezhdenii',
Krasnaya Nov', vol. 1, 1921, pp. 140-46.
P. Kerzhentsev
and A. Leont'ev,Azbuka leninizma(Moscow: Gosizdat;. 1930),p. 128.
65 Preobrazhensky,
op. cit.
66 Gastev, 'Pod znakom organizatsii',Pravda, 13 December 1923, p. 2.
67 Gastev,Novaya kul'turnaya
ustanovka(Moscow: VTsSPS-TsIT, 1924), reprintedin
Kak nado rabotat', p. 111.
68 Accordingto a visitorat TsIT, 'anyone entering
the frontdoor of thisinstituteas a
normallivingman,issuesfromtheback door afterpassingthroughcountlesslaboratories,
as a completelyperfected,workingmachine.' The authoralso-notesthatthe Institutewas
in America,butwiththeidea thatthenew
based on the 'Taylorexperimental
investigations
Bolshevikman of the futurecan be producedhere.' Rene Fulop-Miller,Mind and Face of
Bolshevism:An Examinationof CulturalLife in SovietRussia (New York: Harper& Row,
1965), pp. 210-11.
69 Gastev. Novaya kul'turnayaustanovka,p. 95.
70 Gastev, 'O tendentsiyakh
proletarskoikul'tury',Proletarskayakul'tura,nos. 9-10,
1919, pp. 35-45.
71 Bogdanov, '0 tendentsiyakh
proletarskoikul'tury(ovtetA. Gastevu)', Proletarskaya
kul'tura,nos. 9-10. 1919,pp. 46-52.
72 L.
L. Averbakh, Spornye voprosy kul'turnoi revolyutsii(Moscow: Moskovskii
rabochii, 1929), pp. 104-24.
7
Bogdanov, op. cit.
Kerzhentsev,'Dve platformypo NOT'.
Kerzhentsev,'Nasha platforma',p. 2. The ideologues claimed that the league was
based on 'self-management
and self-organization'ratherthan imposed directivesand
programmes.See Kerzhentsev,NOT, p. 304, and A. Vasil'ev, 'Nashi dostizheniya',
Pravda, 9 February1924,p. 7.
76 Gastev, 'Vosstanie kul'tury',Pravda, 3 January1923, p. 3.
7 Gastev, 'B'et chas', Pravda (no. 122, 3 June 1922), in Kak nado rabotat', p. 40.
Gastev seems to have fancied himselfas such a 'Robinson Crusoe'. In describingthe
difficultearlyyearsof TsIT, he remarked,'we startedto assemblewhatevertherewas by
way of incidentalequipmentand created our own apparatus on the spot'. Il'enko and
Shamsutdinov,p. 147.
78 E. Rozmirovich,'NOT v perspektive
dal'neishegorazvitiyarevolyutsii(po povodu
platformypo NOT gruppykommunistov)',Pravda, 20 and 21 February1924,pp. 2 and 4
respectively;Rozmirovich,'Kto zhe zatushevyvaeti kto putaet?' (ovtett. Kerzhentsevu),
Pravda, 9 March 1924,p. 4.
79 Gruppa Sverdlovtsev,'Neskol'ko spravok t. Rozmirovich',Pravda, 24 February
1924, p. 4. Althoughthe Sverdlovgroup was not aligned with Kerzhentsev'sGroup of
Seventeen,theyadopted similarpositions.
8" Kerzhentsev,
Azbuka leninizma,pp. 127-28. Suggestionsfora 'self-help'programme
were offeredin Kerzhentsev,Organizuisamogo sebya (1925), a pamphletreprintedin
Printsipy,pp. 415-35.
81 This mixtureof hope and fear of Taylorismwas also expressedin Europe, with
Taylorismappealing to diversepolitical groups, rangingfromthe radical rightto the
radical left. See Charles S. Maier, 'Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European
in the 1920's', Journalof Contemporary
ideologiesand thevisionof industrialproductivity
History, vol. 5, no. 2 (1970), pp. 27-61. Also see Gramsci's favourable outlook on
Taylorism, Antonio Gramsci, Selectionsfrom the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans.
QuintinHoare and GeoffreyNowell Smith(New York: InternationalPublishers,1971),
pp. 277-318.
7
This content downloaded from 147.213.131.2 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:50:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions