Alexei Gastev and the Soviet Controversy Over Taylorism, 1918-24

Soviet Studies

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 1977, Pages 373-394

  Bailes, Kendall E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84963386114     PISSN: 00385859     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09668137708411134     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. For the latter, see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York, (1958)), and R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (London, i960). For a comparative study of attitudes to work, see Reinhard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization (New York, (1963)).
2. So described in the poem ‘Gastev’ by Nikolai Aseev. (See his Sobranie sochinenii v 4 tomakh, (M. (1930)), vol. 1, p. 202.)
3. For an account of one such reading see Krasnaya gazeta (Petrograd), 23 February 1918. Poeziya rabochego udara was published in Petrograd early in 1918. It was reprinted in 1964 under the same title in Moscow, from the text of the sixth edition (M. (1925)), together with several of Gastev's later publicistic works, and two evaluations of his poetry and career by recent Soviet scholars. It also appeared in Polish, German, and Latvian translations after 1919.
4. ‘Introduction’ to the fifth edition (1924), republished in Poeziya. (1964), p. 26. For early reviews of this book, see F. Kalinin, ‘Put’ proletarskoi kritiki’, and ‘ “Poeziya rabochego udara” A. Gasteva’, in Proletarskaya kul'tura, 1918, no. 4;
5. V. Friche, ‘Poeziya zheleznoi rasy’, in Vestnik zhizni, 1918, no. 2, and ‘Torzhestvuyushchaya pesn’ kovannogo metalla’, in Tvorchestvo, 1918, no. 2. See also Valery Bryusov, ‘Vchera, segodnya i zavtra russkoi poezii’, in Pechat’ i revolyutsiya, 1922, no. 7.
6. Poeziya. (1964), p. 29.
7. See, for example, the volume Voprosy truda v SSSR (M. (1958)), a collection of historical essays on various labour problems in the USSR which mentions the work of the Central Labour Institute before 1938 but never mentions the name of its director. According to the article ‘Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda’, in the new Ekono-micheskaya entsiklopediya (M. (1964)), vol. 2, pp. 27-31, the State Committee on Problems of Wages and Labour issued a decree on 4 November 1957, declaring that the experience and methods of the former Central Labour Institute should be used in current efforts at scientific management and professional instruction of workers. Gastev, however, was not mentioned by name.
8. A. I. Berg, ‘Lenin i nauchnaya organizatsiya truda’, Pravda, 24 October 1962. This article is mentioned by S. Lesnevsky in the ‘Afterword’ to the 1964 edition of Poeziya rabochego udara (p. 305). Although Gastev was rehabilitated as a poet in 1958 when a selection of his work was published in the anthology Proletarskie poety pervykh let sovetskoi epokhi (M.), the significance of his role in Soviet industrialization was not formally recognized until the appearance of Berg's article. A collection of Gastev's works appeared in 1966, and a flood of articles and books which give prominent attention to his role as industrializer began to appear in 1965. Below is a list of those that have been announced or are already in print: scattered references in the journal of the Scientific-Research Institute of Labour, Sotsialisticheskii trud, 1965, no. 9, pp. 31, 38-39;
9. V. D. Banasyukevich, ‘V. I. Lenin i nauchnaya organizatsiya truda’, Istoriya SSSR, 1965, no. 2, pp. io8f;
10. N. V. Kuznetsov, K. E. Kuznetsova, and P. F. Petrochenko, ‘Osushchestvlenie leninskikh idei nauchnoi organizatsii truda’, Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1965, no. 8, p. 3ff;
11. Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda: materialy vtoroi vsesoyuznoi konferentsii po nauchnoi organizatsii truda (mart, (1924)) (M. (1965));
12. Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda dvadtsatykh godov: sbornik dokumentov i materialov (Kazan, (1965));
13. Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda v promyshlennosti: bibliografiya 1925-1964 gg. {Novosibirsk, (1965));
14. A. Shcherban (ed.), Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda (Kiev, (1965)).
15. In the words of A. I. Berg: ‘The attempt to apply the latest achievements of economic theory, mathematics, electronics, and cybernetics to the management of the national economy is the realization of V. I. Lenin's directives concerning scientific management. Modern cybernetics-the theory of the goal-directed management of complex processes-can be viewed in the USSR as the heir and successor of scientific management’ (Pravda, 24 October (1962)).
16. Vsesoyuznoe obshchestvo politicheskikh katorzhan i ssyl'no-poselentsev, Deyateli revolyutsionnogo dvizheniya v Rossii (M. (1934)), vol. 5, p. 1162.
17. For Lenins unfavourable views of the Taylor System see his ‘ “Nauchnaya” sistema vyzhimaniya pota’, Pravda, no. 60, 13 March 1913 (reprinted in V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (M. (1961)), vol. 23, pp. 18-19); and ‘Sistema Teilora- poraboshchenie cheloveka mashinoi’, in Put’ Pravdy, no. 35, 13 March 1914 (reprinted in Lenin, op.cit. vol. 24, pp. 369-71). Lenin published his revised view of Taylorism in ‘Ocherednye zadachi Scvetskoi vlasti’ (1918). See Lenin, Sochineniya (4th edn.), vol. 29, pp. 229-30. During a plenary session of the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh) on 1 April 1918, Lenin made the following remarks with regard to a proposed decree on labour discipline: ‘In the decree, we must definitely speak of the introduction of the Taylor System, in other words, of using all scientific methods of labour which this system advances. Without this, it will be impossible to raise productivity, and without that we will not usher in socialism’ (quoted in Banasyuke-vich, op.cit. p. 108). It is one of the curiosities of history that Taylorism, with its promises of class harmony, appealed not only to the leaders of bourgeois Europe after World War I, as Charles S. Maier has recently argued, but also to the leader of the most revolutionary regime of that period. (See Maier's article ‘Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European Ideologies and the Vision of Industrial Productivity in the 1920s’, Journal of Contemporary History, no. 5, 1970, pp. 27-61.)
18. See Organizatsiya truda, 1924, no. 2-3 (March-April), p. 67ff.
19. A. Gastev, ‘O tendentsiyakh proletarskoi kul'tury’, Proletarskaya kul'tura, 1919, no. 9-10, pp. 35-45. It is difficult to say how widely read this journal was. Although 15 different periodicals were issued at various times by local Proletcults, it was the only central Proletcult organ. Its circulation is unknown, but in 1920 the Proletcult movement as a whole claimed 400,000 members and 80,000 active in its artistic studios. Ten million copies of its publications were in circulation. (Gorbunov, Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1958, no. 1, p. 32ff; see also Jack Grossman, ‘Alexander Bogdanov and the Ideology of Proletarian Culture'-Master's essay, Slavic Languages and Literatures, Columbia University, 1965. Grossman concentrates on the literary aspects of the Proletcult and Bogdanov's activity.)
20. Gastev, ‘O tendentsiyakh proletarskoi kul'tury’, p. 36.
21. Bogdanov, O proletarskoi kul'ture. p. 315. Fedor Kalinin expressed a similar criticism of Gastev's article (see his ‘Proletarskaya kul'tura i ee kritiki’, Proletarskaya-kul'tura, 1919, no. 9-10 (June-July), pp. 1-4).
22. Mariya Fal'kner-Smit, a Soviet labour statistician and a follower of Bogdanov, also criticized Gastev and his attempt to generalize from data limited to the metal-working industry. She emphasized the importance of the mining, chemical, and electro-technical industries. (See her critique, ‘Ob izuchenii trudovykh protsessov (Otvet A. Gastevu)’, in Proletarskaya kul'tura, 1919, pp. 38-47.)
23. ‘O tendentsiyakh proletarskoi kul'tury (Otvet A. Gastevu)’, Proletarskaya kul'tura, 1919, no. n-12. This article was republished in Bogdanov's anthology O proletarskoi kul'ture igo4-ig24 (M. (1925)), and the page numbers in the footnotes which follow refer to the latter text.
24. Bogdanov, O proletarskoi kul'ture. p. 324. For earlier detailed discussions of industrialism and the direction of proletarian culture, see A. A. Bogdanov, Kul'turnye zadachi nashego vremeni (M. (1914)); and Elementy proletarskoi kul'tury (M. (1920)). In a pamphlet published in 1913, Bogdanov, like Lenin at the same period, expressed an unfavourable view of Taylorism, -with the prophetic reservation that its only possible progressive application might be in an underdeveloped economy with a plentiful supply of unskilled labour (Mezhdu chelovekom i mashinoi, St. Petersburg, I9t3)- S3 Bogdanov, O proletarskoi kul'ture. p. 324.
25. See Vestnik inzhenerov, October 1915, pp. 933-6; no. 2, 1916, pp. 553-64, 575-80, 585-95;
26. June-July 1917, pp. 265-72, 288-92, 302-8;
27. January-February 1924, pp. 3-4;
28. I. Rabchinsky, O sisteme Teilora (M. (1921)).
29. See the highly favourable treatments of Taylorism by M. V. Piolunkovsky, O sisteme Teilora’, Organizatsiya truda, 1921, no. 1 (March), pp. 26-30, and S. F. Glebov, ‘F. Teilor i ego raboty’, ibid. 1922, no. 3, pp. 5-31.
30. The discussion of Taylor's views which follows is drawn from the following sources: Hugh G. J. Aitken, Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal: Scientific Management in Action zgo8-igiS (Cambridge, Mass. 1960), pp. 4-48;
31. Georges Friedmann, Industrial Society: The Emergence of the Human Problems of Automation (New York, (1964)), pp. 37-67;
32. Reinhard Bendix, op.cit. pp. 274-81. Taylor set forth his basic views in Shop Management (New York, (1911)) and the Principles of Scientific Management (New York, (1911)).
33. Organizatsiya truda, 1922, no. 3, p. 163;
34. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochiineni, vol. 45, pp. 206, 366, 395.
35. Gastev's account was published in Organizatsiya truda, 1924, no. 1 (March), pp. 11-13. It was no doubt part of his campaign to prove the legitimacy of his claims and the Central Labour Institute against the attacks of its critics. For Lenin's note to Al'sky see Banasyukevich, Istoriya SSSR, 1965, no. 2, p. no.
36. Organizatsiya truda, 1922, no. 3, p. i67ff. The Chairman of the Institute's Scientific Council in these early years was S. G. Strumilin.
37. ‘Nashi zadachi’, ibid. 1921, no. 1 (March), pp. 7-17.
38. Numerous editions of Kak nado rabotat’ were published in Moscow, Odessa, Perm, Arkhangelsk, between 1922 and 1924; first published in Organizatsiya truda, 1921, no. 1, pp. 18; quotations are from the latter. Kak izobretat’ was published together with the above pamphlet in 1924 and 1927; republished in the 1964 edition of Poeziya rabochego udara. References here are to the text as published in the 1964 edition.
39. Poeziya rabochego udara, p. 18.
40. Yunost’, idi (M. (1923));
41. Vosstanie kul'tury (Kharkov, (1923)). The latter was first published in a series of articles in Pravda (no. 122, 3 June 1922, no. 128, n June 1922, no. 1, 3 January (1923)). Other books and pamphlets by Gastev in this period, a text of which this writer has not been able to obtain, were Trudovye ustanovki, Metodika obucheniya (M. (1924)) and Novaya kul'turnaya ustanovka (M. (1924)).
42. From Kak izobretat’ (in Poeziya. 1964, p. 273).
43. From Yunost’, idi (as published in Poeziya. (1964)), p. 206.
44. Vosstanie kul'tury (in Poeziya. 1964, p. 236).
45. Pravda, n January 1923.
46. See Kommunisticheskiiput'’, 1923, no. 2.
47. Ya. Shatunovsky, ‘Nauchnaya organizatsiya truda i ee anarkhistskoe vyyavlenie’, Krasnaya nov\ 1923, no. 6, pp. 53-64. Another reaction to Gastev's views of 1923 was that of Lunacharsky, Commissar of Education, who by and large approved, but feared that the emphasis on ‘American business sense’ might eventually detract from revolutionary goals. (See A. V. Lunacharsky, ‘Novyi russkii chelovek’, in Idealizm i materializm (M. (1924)), pp. 146-51.)
48. Vosstanie kul'tury (Kharkov, (1923)), p. 21, quoted in Shatunovsky, op.cit. p. 259.
49. An earlier conference had been held in January 1921. For an account of it see Organizatsiya truda, 1922, no. 3, pp. 156-62.
50. A. Gastev, ‘Shatunovshchina kak metodika’, Krasnaya nov’, January-February, 1924, pp. 230-8.
51. Quoted by Gastev, ibid. p. 236.
52. Pravda, no. 229, 11 October 1922, quoted in Gastev, ‘Shatunovshchina kak metodika’, p. 237.
53. Trud, no. 106, 1923, quoted in Gastev, ‘Shatunovshchina.>.’, p. 237.
54. Andreev in Izvestiya, no. 6o, 1924;
55. Zinoviev ibid. 18 February 1924; Rozmirovich in Pravda, no. 42, 21 February 1924.
56. Trud, 5, 6 February 1924. This platform was signed by Gastev, Gol'tsman, Kolesnikova, and Lavrent'ev.
57. Pravda, 13, 14 February 1924, p. 5.
58. M. 1924. Kerzhentsev, whose real name was Lebedev, also wrote a book on proletarian culture: K. novoi kul'ture (M. (1921)). A Soviet journalist and diplomat in Western Europe, he later wrote a popular biography of Lenin during the 1930s and a book on Ireland. He is said to have died in 1940, in unknown circumstances. (See the note on Kerzhentsev in L. Trotsky, Sochineniya, vol. XXI (M. (1927)), p. 472.)
59. ‘Vsesoyuznaya konferentsiya ligi “Vremya” ‘, Trud, 16 March 1924.
60. ‘Dve platformy po NOT’, ibid. 20, 22 February 1924.
61. The Conference, held from 10-16 March 1924, was composed of 383 delegates, two-thirds of whom were non-party members. The break-down according to occupation showed that 87% were intelligenty (here, no doubt, meaning as much white-collar workers as intellectuals, since only 72% of the delegates indicated that they had received any higher education); 10% of the delegates were registered as workers, and 2% as peasants. The vast majority (70%) were from Moscow (Trud, 18 March 1924, p. 5). The deliberations and resolutions were published in three documents: Byulleten’ 2-oi vsesoyuznoi konferentsii po NOT (M. (1924));
62. Vtoraya vsesoyuznaya konferentsiya po NOT (M. (1924));
63. Rezolyutsii 2-oi vsesoyuznoi konferentsii po NOT (M. (1924)). This writer has not been able to locate copies of the above documents, and has relied, for the account which follows, on the articles in Trud, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 March 1924, and on the extensive coverage in Organizatsiya truda, 1924, no. 2-3, pp. 3-7, 32-85.
64. Trud, ii March 1924, p. 2.
65. See e.g. A. Shitikov, Voprosy truda, 1924, no. 1, p. 72.
66. Organizatsiya truda, 1924, no. 2-3, pp. 56-57.
67. Jean Trepp McKelvey, AFL Attitudes toward Production 1900-1932 (Ithaca, N.Y. (1952)), pp. 114-26;
68. Milton J. Nadworny, Scientific Management and the Unions 1900-1932 (Cambridge, Mass. (1955)), pp. 142-54.
69. For Gastevs role in the Stakhanovite movement, see A. K. Gastev, Organizatsiya truda v stakhanovskom dvizhenii (M. (1936)), and his article in Organizatsiya truda, 1935, no. 11, p. 6ff. For his earlier contacts with the Gilbreths and with the Ford Motor Co. see ibid. 1924, no. 4, pp. 51-52;
70. his article ‘Marks i Ford’, in Ustanovka rabochei sily, 1927, no. 9-10, pp. 4-7 and letters exchanged with the Ford Company in Organizatsiya truda, 1928, no. 2, pp. 55-57.
71. See ‘Ekonomicheskaya politika KPSS i nauchnaya organizatsiya truda’, in Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1966, no. 12, pp. 2-16. For a fuller analysis of the reasons and the revival of interest in Gastev and the NOT movement in recent years, see Samuel Lieberstein, ‘Technology, Work, and Sociology in the USSR: The NOT movement’, Technology and Culture, January 1975, pp. 61-64.