Intended as a direct assault on management of blue-collar labor under capitalism,[3] Braverman's book started what came to be called, using Braverman's phraseology, "the labor process debate".[4] This had as its focus a close examination the nature of "skill" and the finding that there was a decline in the use of skilled labor as a result ofmanagerial strategies of workplace control. It also outlined workers' resistance to such managerial strategies.[5]
Specifically, Braverman subjectedFrederick Winslow Taylor to intense critique, describing Taylor's strident pronouncements on management's attitudes to workers as the "explicit verbalization of the capitalist mode of production". He argued that, in the present day, the 'successors to Taylor are to be found in engineering and work design, and in top management'.[1]
According to Braverman,Taylorism had not been superseded by more humanistic management methods, such as those ofHugo Münsterberg orElton Mayo (as most textbooks then argued). Braverman instead argued that these 'practitioners of "human relations" and "industrial psychology"' have supplemented Taylor's influence by forming 'the maintenance crew for the human machinery'.[1]
Braverman argued that knowledge ofTaylorism's profound impact on the twentieth century workplace, and management-labor relations, was poor due to a widespread misunderstanding of the historical development of the workplace. Indeed, Braverman's book was written in an accessible fashion precisely to make it easy for workers to comprehend the huge historical and structural changes which had taken place around them.[6]
According to one source, the book sold 120,000 copies between 1974 and its 1999 reissue.[7]
Labor and Monopoly Capital was read widely in many languages and had particular impact on scholarly debate in Britain, to the extent that one author described the phenomenon as 'Bravermania'.[8][9]
Despite being overtly hostile to academicsociology,[10]Labor and Monopoly Capital became one of the most important sociological books of its era. It revived academic interest in both the history and the sociology of workplaces setting the agenda for many subsequent historians and sociologists of the workplace.
Some authors includingDavid F. Noble thought Braverman was overly pessimistic about how subordinated to capital labor had become,[3] and produced case studies as to how workers had resisted management interventions at the point of production.[11][12]
Several historians have responded toLabor and Monopoly Capital by revealing through archival research that theTaylor Society had been far more liberal than Braverman suggested Taylor's long-term influence had been.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] The Taylor Society even included a small number of Marxists such asWalter Polakov.[21]
Amidst the aftermath of the Great Recession, onLabor Day 2009, theWall Street Journal declaredLabor and Monopoly Capital to be number one among the 'Five Best Books on Working'.[22]
Like Baran and Sweezy'sMonopoly Capital, Braverman's book made a comeback during theGreat Recession and debates on the composition of the contemporary working class[22] and 'Taylorism 2.0'.[23] Some commentators including theFinancial Times argued that digital technology afforded managers a new chance to subordinate labor to capital, but added that digital technology also offered workers new forms of organization and resistance.[24][25][26][27]
^Littler, Craig R., 'The Labour Process Debate: A Theoretical Review, 1974-88' in David Knights, and Hugh Willmott (eds.),Labour Process Theory (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press, 1990).
^Meiksins, P. (1994). "Labor and Monopoly Capital for the 1990s: A Review and Critique of the Labor Process Debate".Monthly Review.46 (6):45–59.doi:10.14452/MR-046-06-1994-10_4.S2CID144196954.
^On pp. 96–97, Braverman remarks that 'The cardinal feature of these various schools and the currents within them is that, unlike the scientific management movement, they do not by and large concern themselves with the organization of work, but rather with the conditions under which the worker may best be brought to cooperate in the scheme of work organized by the industrial engineer ... Most orthodox social scientists adhere firmly, indeed desperately, to the dictum that their task is not the study of the objective conditions of work, but only of the subjective phenomena to which these give rise: the degrees of "satisfaction" and "dissatisfaction" elicited by their questionnaires.'
^Noble, David F.Forces of Production: a Social History of Industrial Automation. Transaction Publishers, 1984.
^Rowlinson, Michael. "The early application of scientific management by Cadbury."Business History 30.4 (1988): 377-395.
^Nyland, Chris.Reduced Worktime and the Management of Production. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
^Schachter, Hindy L. FrederickTaylor and the public administration community: A reevaluation. Suny Press, 1989.
^Carlos Pabon, 'Regulating capitalism: the Taylor Society and political economy in the inter-war period' (University of Massachusetts Amherst PhD thesis, 1992) PDF onlinehere
^Nyland, Chris, and Tom Heenan. "Mary van Kleeck, Taylorism and the control of management knowledge."Management Decision 43.10 (2005): 1358-1374.
^Bruce, Kyle. "Henry S. Dennison, Elton Mayo, and human relations historiography."Management & Organizational History 1.2 (2006): 177-199.
^Brech, Edward, Andrew Thomson, and John F. Wilson.Lyndall Urwick, Management Pioneer: A Biography. Oxford University Press, 2010.
^Nyland, Chris, Kyle Bruce, and Prue Burns. "Taylorism, theInternational Labour Organization, and the Genesis and Diffusion of Codetermination."Organization Studies 35.8 (2014): 1149-1169.
^Kelly, Diana J. "Marxist Manager amidst the Progressives: Walter N Polakov and theTaylor Society." (2004).
^abJonna, R. Jamil, and John Bellamy Foster. "Braverman and the structure of the US working class: Beyond the degradation of labor."Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 26.3 (2014): 219-236.Link
^Michael R. Weatherburn,Scientific Management at Work: the Bedaux System, Management Consulting, and Worker Efficiency in British Industry, 1914–48 (Imperial College PhD thesis, 2014).Weatherburn, Michael (July 2014)."Download PDF from Imperial College, London".doi:10.25560/25296.{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)
Littler, Craig R.The development of the labour process in capitalist societies: a comparative study of the transformation of work organization in Britain, Japan, and the USA. Heinemann Educational Publishers, 1982.
Littler, Craig R., and Graeme Salaman. "Bravermania and beyond: recent theories of the labour process."Sociology 16.2 (1982): 251–269.
Littler, Craig R., 'The Labour Process Debate: A Theoretical Review, 1974-88' in Knights, David, and Willmott, Hugh (eds.),Labour Process Theory (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press, 1990).
Arlie Russell Hochschild.The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (1983).
Bryan D. Palmer, “Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers’ Movement,”Monthly Review 50, no. 8 (1999): 33
Dave Renton,Against Management: Harry Braverman's Marxism (n.d.) onlinehere.
_cover.jpg)
