What a lack of Marxism-Leninism and historical materialism does to a mf. Literal kindergarten level leftism. These are the same people who will argue that it's the Bolsheviks ackchually who made it possible for fascists to win the Spanish civil war by repressing anarchists (no sources provided)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Taylorism was embraced and made central to soviet understanding of communism before Hitler had become head of the nazi party.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But not before 15 different countries intervened in their civil war on behalf of their enemy.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean you can look at Lenin's justification for taylorism yourself if you want.

The Russian is a bad worker compared with people in advanced countries. It could not be otherwise under the tsarist regime and in view of the persistence of the hangover from serfdom. The task that the Soviet government must set the people in all its scope is—learn to work. The Taylor system, the last word of capitalism in this respect, like all capitalist progress, is a combination of the refined brutality of bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatest scientific achievements in the field of analysing mechanical motions during work, the elimination of superfluous and awkward motions, the elaboration of correct methods of work, the introduction of the best system of accounting and control, etc. The Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field. The possibility of building socialism depends exactly upon our success in combining the Soviet power and the Soviet organisation of administration with the up-to-date achievements of capitalism..

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The possibility of building socialism depends exactly upon our success in combining the Soviet power and the Soviet organisation of administration with the up-to-date achievements of capitalism..

Given that building socialism requires having the productive capacity to maintain armed forces capable of deterring the hostile foreign powers that want to strangle your movement in the crib, I'd say Lenin was right.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

At no point is his argument for taylorism built around the invasion of the allied and central powers.

We must organise in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system and systematically try it out and adapt it to our own ends. At the same time, in working to raise the productivity of labour, we must take into account the specific features of the transition period from capitalism to socialism, which, on the one hand, require that the foundations be laid of the socialist organisation of competition, and, on the other hand, require the use of compulsion, so that the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat shall not be desecrated by the practice of a lily-livered proletarian government.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Nonetheless, the outcome remains. Even if his reasoning was wrong, he arrived at the right answer.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The USSR is no longer around and the primary espouser of Taylorism in the USSR was purged in 1939.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are you seriously arguing that if the USSR had just never dabbled with Taylorism, it would still be around today?

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I have no way of knowing. I am merely telling you your utilitarian argument of justifying something solely by looking at the results is flawed. Given that the outcome was bad.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

justifying something solely by looking at the results

How else are we supposed to justify things?

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Is that a serious question? I don't want to sound condescending if it is. But it's just a very odd question. We are literally discussing a text now that is justifying something without a priori knowledge of the outcome. Or do you mean it in the broader sense of everything is justified solely by arguing for a potential outcome or looking to am achieved outcome? Because that's... i don't know man, like consequentialism is a fine enough philosophy but it's just odd to believe it's the only school of thought.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago

It is, as far as I know, a necessary part of materialist thought. It's why the common refrain of "that wasn't real capitalism" is laughable, because it appeals to some ethereal platonic ideal of capitalism rather than looking at how the system manifests itself in and impacts the real world.