Hey comrades, I needed some help. I have been researching Lenin’s Taylorism: Man’s enslavement to the machine but Lenin’s opinion just a bit later seems to have changed on Taylorism which is bit weird given Lenin’s propensity to stick to his principles which haven’t been proven wrong by praxis. My thinking is that it might have been economic neccesity because Soviet Union was born in a completely dire form and he might have been advocating for it to get economic development at any cost in the back water nation that was Soviet Union founded in, Just like how worker’s democracy was curtailed later on by Lenin because of the fact that keeping an democracy meant keeping one self open to infiltration and sabotage so my thinking is it was a necessity instead of an ideological surrender. But if you have any resources, insights, and information on this then it would be much appreciated.
You are basically right. I would also add that there is a difference between principles, tactics and strategy. Lenin did change his tactics several times on different issues, but he always kept the vision of revolution in mind. I think taylorism for me counts as a tactic on a state level (as you pointed out) to increase productive forces and defend the revolution against external enemies (and internal famine / underproduction). Maybe I can recommend Left-communism (i recently read it so its on my mind), in it Lenin talks about compromises and what it means for a socialist.
Already researched that quite a bit, it is the work that led me to the conclusion I had.
Socialists adopted Taylorism because capitalists adopted Taylorism, capitalists adopted Taylorism because it increased industrial outputs, and if you let your opponent have advantages you don’t, you’ll lose.
