The Division of Labour

[Anonymous]

 

This interview with Marx stimulated my interest and is well worth a read:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1983/no-943-march-1983/interview-marx

Marx wrote:

“In a higher phase of communist of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and herewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, have vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Marx wrote:

“.. in communist society, where no­body has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accom­plished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general pro­duction and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, with­out ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.^”

 

Is Marx here envisioning the complete abolition of the division of labour?

 

 

 

[ALB]

Isn't Marx saying here that socialism/communism will end not the division of labour, i.e there being different work tasks, but the "subordination of the individual" to it, i.e. someone having to perform the same task all the time? He would seem to be envisaging a rotation of work tasks. I can't see that he would have envisaged the impossible idea of abolishing different work tasks.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Isn't Marx saying here that socialism/communism will end not the division of labour, i.e there being different work tasks, but the "subordination of the individual" to it, i.e. someone having to perform the same task all the time? He would seem to be envisaging a rotation of work tasks. I can't see that he would have envisaged the impossible idea of abolishing different work tasks.

yes, I believe Marx distinguished between the economic and social division of labour, the latter being technically necessary and the former imposed by capitalism.  But if“.. in communist society, where no­body has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accom­plished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general pro­duction and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, with­out ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” then the increased productivity produced by the  the econimic division of labour and alienation described by Marx will be lost and the precondition for socialism ie potential abundance – would not exist.You have probably gone over this a thousand times. Just exercising my brain cells.

[Anonymous]

 Except that Marx was wrong about human potential, at least insofar as he expresses it here.  Not everyone can become a scientist, a doctor, an astronaut, a mountaineer, a writer, a poet, a musician or even a chef.  The notion that in socialism anyone can be anything they want is at once both stupid and dangerous.

[Brian]

Surely Jon, in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community?   But having said that society will also put safeguards in place to ensure you don't harm yourself, or others.  Also this quote by Marx is when put into its historical context seems to be deliberately ambigious in respect of him being determined not draw up a blueprint on how future society actually  "regulates the general production".I think  the last part of the quote is telling in this respect  "…. ….. …. just as I have a mind, with­out ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."  In short, projecting his thoughts on how alienation, brought about by the division of labour, could be offset/alleviated by offering a variety of human activity related to becoming conscious of the individuals direct involvement in the general production.The other angle I tend to take is that having a choice on your personal activity also means society is by definition democratic.

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? 

 Of course.  But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.

[alanjjohnstone]

Nothing wrong with having such as an aspiration and in the future who can tell what will be possible or not when we reach a stage in human development of generations born and raised in socialism, with all manner of technological innovations to assist and enhance human abilities. We already reached the stage where no-one will require the skill of driving a car since it can be done using sensors and computers. But i agree with both you and Brian that socialism it is not a matter of carte blanche to do anything and everything but little harm in saying that there exists within us all,  the poet and painter, even if right now most of us cannot honestly say we possess such talents. 

[Brian]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Brian wrote:

…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? 

 Of course.  But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.

And it will be upto society in general not only to recognise and identify those limits by imposing safeguards, standards, rules and regulations on specific activity but also to ensure candidates become engaged in investigating and assessing their true potential  in fields of activity which they find enjoyable and interesting.

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Brian wrote:

…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? 

 Of course.  But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.

The real issue is:'Who or what determines what 'potential' consists of and how it is realised, and who or what determines its 'limits'?'For example, the answer could be 'genes' or could be 'society'. And if 'society', it could be a 'minority social authority' or a 'majority social authority'.

[Anonymous]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

 Not everyone can become a scientist, a doctor, an astronaut, a mountaineer, a writer, a poet, a musician or even a chef.  

Well, not all at the same time and in one lifetime! But the point I am making is that we argue that capitalism creates the possibility of abundance, but it does this with the aid of the capitalist mode of production, capitalist economic division of labour and the resulting alienation.   Growth, under capitalism, according to people like Adam Smith,(for example) is rooted in the increasing division of labour: The specialization of the labor force, essentially the breaking down of large jobs into many tiny tasks. Look at the production of cars, for example.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Brian wrote:

…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? 

 Of course.  But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.

The real issue is:'Who or what determines what 'potential' consists of and how it is realised, and who or what determines its 'limits'?'For example, the answer could be 'genes' or could be 'society'. And if 'society', it could be a 'minority social authority' or a 'majority social authority'.

There's also the limitations of the circumstances we will find ourselves in regarding the reorganisation of the present authoritive institutions.  Do we let them continue with their agreed procedures and processes when in most cases they are geared towards filtering and selecting subjects of a capitalist nature?  Or does the review and assessment of these civic bodies take place during the run up to the revolutionary transformation of political power, or after the social relationships of capitalism have been abolished?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

The real issue is:'Who or what determines what 'potential' consists of and how it is realised, and who or what determines its 'limits'?'For example, the answer could be 'genes' or could be 'society'. And if 'society', it could be a 'minority social authority' or a 'majority social authority'.

  Interesting points.  I don't think that anyone needs to determine what, precisely, 'potential' either is or consists of.  That smacks of authoritarianism, it seems to me.  So far as the limits of potential are concerned, well, the material world will sort that out soon enough.Not sure about the genes/society question.  Hard to separate one from the other, but it seems clear to me that humanity is far from homologous in terms of abilities and aspirations.  Which is good news for a socialist society.

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

I don't think that anyone needs to determine what, precisely, 'potential' either is or consists of. That smacks of authoritarianism, it seems to me.

So, if no human 'needs to determine' it, then 'potential' can't be socially-based.Which thus leads to the question 'what does determine potential?'.

JC wrote:

So far as the limits of potential are concerned, well, the material world will sort that out soon enough.Not sure about the genes/society question.

Hmmmm… seems to be 'genes', or some other 'Borisian' material (as opposed to socially malleable) factor, is what you have in mind, Jonathan.On the contrary, though, I think potential is mostly social, and certainly social is of more importance than 'genes' or an unchangeable 'material world'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

There's also the limitations of the circumstances we will find ourselves in regarding the reorganisation of the present authoritive institutions. Do we let them continue with their agreed procedures and processes when in most cases they are geared towards filtering and selecting subjects of a capitalist nature? Or does the review and assessment of these civic bodies take place during the run up to the revolutionary transformation of political power, or after the social relationships of capitalism have been abolished?

If by 'authoritative institutions' and 'civic bodies', Brian, you mean 'educational structures', I think that new ones will begin to emerge 'during the run up'. It's becoming clear that the present bourgeois universities are no longer fit for purpose, even for the bourgeoisie, never mind us! Critical thinking is no longer taught, and there seems to already be some resistance by students and academics to this loss. Of course, the managers and financiers within the universities are presently happy, but it can't last.I would imagine that the emergence of proletarian educational structures would mark a big step on the path to 'revolutionary transformation'. I think that there is already a growing demand by students for critical thought, and perhaps the only way they are going to get it is through non-formal, non-state, bodies.Democracy within education would of course play a central part in these new structures. Unless Jonathan is right about the 'material basis' of the IQ of professors!I don't think so!

[Anonymous]

 No, L, there's a false step in your logic, there.  The notion that 'potential' doesn't need to be quantified doesn't preclude it from being – to a lesser or greater extent – socially determined.  What I'm suggesting here is two things.  First of all – and probably most importantly – there is no way of quantifying potential with any kind of accuracy; secondly, there's no way of knowing whether someone might have been better at something if they'd experienced different material circumstances.  So what are we left with? Conjecture is what we're left with, and not much else.  The important point for socialists, however, is that a society such as the one that we envisage will allow people to flourish to the best of their abilities.  Were it the case that I had some seriously delicate sensibilities to be trodden on, and were it not the case that I had long since run out of fucks to give about what people call me, I'd now be getting severely cross about being compared to a calculated and calculating clown who is stupid at a fundamental level.  As it is, I think that what you've done with this comparison is nothing short of throwing what might have been a strong,developing argument away.  I think that the error in your thinking is predicated upon the assumption that when it comes down to what people are capable of it's either genetically or socially determined.  Like it can't be both.  That is a simplistic and reductionist position to adopt, and it does neither you nor the party any kind of favour at all.  It also leaves you with all of your work ahead of you and the looming impossibility of you being unable to make your case.  Tell you what, L, go out and try to convince anyone who's had more than one child that genetics doesn't make a difference when it comes to aptitude and ability, which attributes together appear to make up what constitutes 'potential'.

[Author]

Posts