The Division of Labour

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

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!

  I agree with you wholeheartedly about the nature of universities under capitalism.  I went to uniperversity late in life, and was horrified by the almost total lack of critical thinking that went on, even amongst 'professors'.  Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of 'professors' that I encountered during those three wasted years were complete and utter fuckwits who were nowhere nearly as widely-read as I am.  And there are huge gaps in my reading!  But look.  This is an important debate that we're having here, and I don't think it's well-served by your attributing positions to me that I simply do not hold.  I have said nothing until now about 'professors' or 'IQ', and I have nothing to say about 'IQ'.  My time at uniperversity exposed me to the greatest concentration of ignorance I've ever witnessed.  I expect far higher standards on the SPGB website, comrade!

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

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.

Whoever's 'logic' you're talking about, J, it's not mine. I haven't mentioned 'quantified' or 'quantifying'.

JC wrote:

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.

But… are 'abilities' mainly 'socially' or 'materially' determined?I think 'socially'. Their 'best' is a social product.

[Anonymous]

Some interesting stuff but only addressing one side of the coin –  the removal of the division of labour discribed by Smith, Marx et al will lead to greater freedom from alienation and for humans to realise their full potential but will it also lead to a reduction in productivity and society's ability to produce abundance: An ability enabled by the division of labour?If there is no opinion on this, then fair enough but I would have thought it central to our case

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

…will it also lead to a reduction in productivity and society's ability to produce abundance…

You'd need to define and contextualise both 'productivity' and 'adundance', Vin, to answer this 'central' question.Reduced 'productivity' doesn't necessarily lead to lack of 'abundance'.They are both socially-determined concepts, not absolutes.And we can't assumed that the 'removal of the division of labour' will lead to 'reduction in productivity'.

VM wrote:

If there is no opinion on this, then fair enough but I would have thought it central to our case

Oh, there's always 'opinions', comrade!

[Anonymous]

Hi LBird

LBird wrote:

And we can't assumed that the 'removal of the division of labour' will lead to 'reduction in productivity'.

I am assuming a simple cause and effect. Cause = D of L. effect= increased productivity. If the cause is removed ?As I said earlier I am not sure about this – just exercising my brain cells but I am sure some members will have gone over this before.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Reduced 'productivity' doesn't necessarily lead to lack of 'abundance'.

Hmm.  Don't lose sight of the possibility that a reduction in the division of labour will necessarily lead to a reduction in 'productivity' – never mind abundance.    I think its safe to assume that the division of labour will continue whatever measures are taken to offset/alleviate alienation. For instance, any industies will reduce their volumes of production i.e. motor vehicles. And with many industries and occupations no longer fit for purpose, this will mean there will be a total reduction in the division of labour but the remaining industries and occupations will by necessity continue the practice.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

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.

Whoever's 'logic' you're talking about, J, it's not mine. I haven't mentioned 'quantified' or 'quantifying'.

JC wrote:

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.

But… are 'abilities' mainly 'socially' or 'materially' determined?I think 'socially'. Their 'best' is a social product.

  Well, of course I wasn't talking about your logic.  Your petulant response didn't contain any.  The only possible explanation I can come up with for such a response is that you didn't comprehend what I said.  Is it not the case that the form that society takes is a product of material circumstance?

[steve colborn]

Well the material circumstance is all in favour of Socialism. Wait, looks behind himself, to each side, in front, nope, Socialism nowhere to be seen. Must be summat else involved! Oh yes, a class conscious majority that both understands the reason for a new society and actually works to bring it about. Hey presto, Socialism. Now the hard part, getting that majority of self-aware, class-conscious individuals. The ineluctable,Stevie C.

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Your petulant response didn't contain any.

Christ, you have got an attitude problem, haven't you?I'll leave it to the other comrades to explain to you in small words.

[ALB]

I'm afraid he won't be able to reply for a week as he's been suspended.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid he won't be able to reply for a week as he's been suspended.

Why doesn't that come as a surprise?But I hope you didn't use the word 'suspension' to him, it's a bit big.He's probably able to cope with 'ban', though, if spelt slowly. Buhh, ahh, nuhh.Wonder if he'll ever stretch to 'manners', both the word and the concept?

[ALB]

I don't think we should be kicking somebody when they're down so let's get back to discussing the topic of the thread, where there seems to be a lack of clarity as to what is meant by the word "labour" in the phrase "division of labour". Does it mean division of the work or of the worker's (producer's) time?I would have thought that it was obvious that work processes will continue to be divided in socialist/communist society (that's the basis of the modern technology that can provide plenty for all). But a producer's worktime will be able to be divided between different work processes instead of being tied to one as is the case today under capitalism (unless, that is, he or she wants to stick to one job).I can't see that the "abolition of the division of labour" can mean anything but this. I don't think it implies either that everybody will be able to any job, only that they will be free (if they so choose) to work at different jobs in the same day or week or month or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Smith and Marx referred to the process in which tasks are broken down and specialised, leading to monotony and the absence of  skill and creativity; but also an increase in productive capacity , leading to the possibility of abundance and socialism. We criticise capitalism for its D of L but will socialism continue with it?  I am probably not making myself clear which is why I ask for clarity. 

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

We criticise capitalism for its D of L but will socialism continue with it? I am probably not making myself clear which is why I ask for clarity.

Surely some sort of natural D of L exists in the desires of every individual?By that, I mean that we all have our own strengths, weaknesses, aptitudes and inclinations, so that no-one wants to do or be everything.But a better society would try to extend our interests and inclinations, and challenge us to develop into areas of which we are initially reluctant, and to build upon our weaknesses so that new doors are opened to all.After all, most of us don't know if we'll be good at brain surgery, for example, and this society doesn't try to open up that particular field to all, with the necessary education and training. That doesn't mean that all will have to study this field, but that it will be open to exploration for all.Perhaps what we want is a chosen D of L, rather than a compulsory one, as we have now under capitalism, where square pegs are forced into round holes.Square pegs in square holes, round pegs in round holes, and the choice to migrate from one's 'squareness' to a new 'roundness', and vice versa!

[Anonymous]

Here is a post I found on the WSM forum. “At the core of the highest phase of communist society, as described in Marx’s early writings, is the abolition of labour. The more famous abolition of private property, the well-known abolition of the state, and the lesser-known abolition of the division of labour are all conditional upon the abolition of labour itself.” http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/can-we-completely-abolish-labor-right-now-final/ "According to my calculations, today anywhere from 92% to 98% of all labor performed in our economy is now superfluous and can be abolished" "society could operate entirely on voluntary productive effort alone were it not for capitalist relations of production. The amount of socially necessary labor required at this point is so insignificant there is effectively no need for labor at all." "the greater part of the social work week can be done away with even as the consumption of the working class increased to a civilized level." "The reason why creating jobs has become the over-riding imperative of state policy since the Great Depression is to be explained by the fact that, as Marx explained in the 1850s, that capitalism “posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary.” It is a life or death question for the capitalist mode of production that superfluous labor must constantly increase."      

[Author]

Posts