The Division of Labour

[robbo203]

I dont know if this helps but Ive written something on this subject   which appears on my blog page on Revleft herehttp://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1510It basically concerns Marx's idealised conception of the all-rounded polytechnic worker  who embodies within herself a " totality of capacities"  and was seen by him as an essential precondition for the collective appropriation of the means of production – communism..  I think the idea is nonsense, put in this starkly dogmatic  form, but that is not to say that relatively speaking, a greater degree of all roundedness skills-wise might not help to foster a greater sense of common identity between workers and of the feasiibility of taking over the means of production iin general and running them in the interests of everyone EDIT: Just tried the link and it doesnt seem to work. So if interested go to my homepage and click on blog at the top  http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13232

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

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" 

 Very interesting article, Vin, but I think the figure of 92-98% is a gross exaggeration.  Interestingly enough, it is similar to the figure of 95% cited by Marshall McLuhan many years ago.  A much more realistc estimate would be in the order of 50-60% Bear in mind that these figures relate to the official "white" economy with perhaps a passing nod at the unofficial "black" economy.  They do not refer to the very large grey economy which comprises all unpaid  work outside the market, of which the biggest component is the household sector followed by charitable work.  According to UN figures,  just over half of all work hours in both developed and developing countries pertain to the grey economy which is itself a kind of validation of the case for a non market world.  Come socialism,  we are certainly not going to be "liberated" from the need to carry on with such work – even given the accoutrements of a hi tech modern lifestyle available to us. Frankly speaking, the idea of being served breakfast in bed by a programmed robot is almost as appalling as going to bed with a robot.  Lets just hope "The Stepford Wives" will remain an entertaining work of fiction. Still,  the figure of 60% for the paid economy represents a very significant diminution of the social workload (or, alternatively, a massive boost in the productive potential of a socialist society in terms of the resources and labour power to be redirected towards socially useful production.  Of course , what goes with this also is a sharp contraction in the range of the social division of labour as we know it. Many of the jobs that are vitally necessary to a capitalist economy will, quite simply, no longer exist.   

[Anonymous]

Probably, the maximum percentage would be around 75%,  and maybe ,  it is also an exaggeration. In real statistical figure, it is around 60% . It  is a very  large amount of unproductive labor

[robbo203]

With regard to my earlier post (no 31) here is the crucial quote from "The German ideology" which bears out the point  I was making. The key sentence is in bold "We have already shown above that the abolition of a state of affairs in which relations become independent of individuals, in which individuality is subservient to chance and the personal relations of individuals are subordinated to general class relations, etc. — that the abolition of this state of affairs is determined in the final analysis by the abolition of division of labour. We have also shown that the abolition of division of labour is determined by the development of intercourse and productive forces to such a degree of universality that private property and division of labour become fetters on them. We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse." If Marx was right in thinking this what are the implications of such an insight for the establishment of socialism?  Is the nature of work under capitalism  being transformed in such a way as to foster the "all round development of individuals" that would allow them to appropriate the productive forces? In attacking the division of labour Marx might not have had so much in mind the social division of labour – the range of occupations necessary to the production and reproduction of existing society – as  the technical division of labour and the stultifying fragmentation of the work process into endlessly repetitive simple movements that this entailed   – something which inspired Ruskin  (I think) to comment along the lines that it is not work that is being divided but men.  Are we moving away from a society based on a pronounced technical division of labour.? If so how does this square with the phenomenon of deskilling? What of the growth of sweatshop  labour in many  Third world countries subcontracted to work for big brand names and under conditions as deplorable as anything to be found in Victorian England?  What of the increase in low paid service sector workers in the West,  flipping burgers in fast food outlets  or working from those depressing  call centres that have sprung everywhere lately? There does seem to be a marked polarisiation of work today with the movement towards highly skilled  and highly paid work being counterposed by an opposite  movement towards low paid low skilled work.  It is jobs in the middle of this spectrum that have been clobbered most,  leading to angst-ridden expressions of concern on the part of some commentators about the "hollowing out" and decline of the  so called middle classes., that bastion of bourgeois respectabilityThe psychological effect of what is a kind of  de facto divide and rule strategy in terms of promoting job consciousness at the expense of class consciousness,  would seem on the face of it, to be somewhat discouraging from a revolutionary socialist perspective. Or am I being unduly pessimistic? 

[LBird]

Marx, quoted and bolded by robbo203, wrote:

We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives. We have shown that at the present time individuals must abolish private property, because the productive forces and forms of intercourse have developed so far that, under the domination of private property, they have become destructive forces, and because the contradiction between the classes has reached its extreme limit. Finally, we have shown that the abolition of private property and of the division of labour is itself the association of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse.

robbo203 wrote:

If Marx was right in thinking this what are the implications of such an insight for the establishment of socialism? Is the nature of work under capitalism being transformed in such a way as to foster the "all round development of individuals" that would allow them to appropriate the productive forces?

Surely the task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'. Indeed, the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.So, it's not so much 'the nature of work under capitalism', but the criticism of 'the nature of work under capitalism' that is able to be developed only due to the prior existence of that 'nature'. Communism requires an active and critical proletariat to develop within capitalist relations of production.The 'all-round development of individuals' is our own task, and the fulfilling of that task itself will prove us to be fitted to move to Communism.

robbo203 wrote:

The psychological effect of what is a kind of de facto divide and rule strategy in terms of promoting job consciousness at the expense of class consciousness, would seem on the face of it, to be somewhat discouraging from a revolutionary socialist perspective. Or am I being unduly pessimistic?

Workers themselves have to see through the 'job consciousness'; surely it can't be long before students (many now from a proletarian background) start to see through the myth that the purpose of 'education' is to 'get a job', rather than its real purpose of 'teaching critical thought'. Indeed, there have been some straws in the wind recently, in 'economics' departments, at least. So, I don't think you're being 'pessimistic', just 'realistic' at the present. Time will tell, if workers will start to see through the 'work for shit wages, in a shit job, to consume shite' propaganda put forward by the ruling class.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Surely the task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'. Indeed, the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.So, it's not so much 'the nature of work under capitalism', but the criticism of 'the nature of work under capitalism' that is able to be developed only due to the prior existence of that 'nature'. Communism requires an active and critical proletariat to develop within capitalist relations of production.The 'all-round development of individuals' is our own task, and the fulfilling of that task itself will prove us to be fitted to move to Communism………….Workers themselves have to see through the 'job consciousness'; surely it can't be long before students (many now from a proletarian background) start to see through the myth that the purpose of 'education' is to 'get a job', rather than its real purpose of 'teaching critical thought'. Indeed, there have been some straws in the wind recently, in 'economics' departments, at least. So, I don't think you're being 'pessimistic', just 'realistic' at the present. Time will tell, if workers will start to see through the 'work for shit wages, in a shit job, to consume shite' propaganda put forward by the ruling class.

Hi L BirdI agree with what you seem to be saying or recommending  – that it is the criticism of the nature of work under capitalism  that needs to be developed but I dont think that is what Marx is saying.in this particular quote of his. Unless I have seriously misread him,  he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not ,  it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material  reality,  before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind  but an objective organbisational reality which Marx seems to be saying has to be changed before we can change over to communism. If that is what Marx is saying then I would  respond that I do not think this is the case and I would concur with you in stressing the importance of consciousness and criticism in the development of a class conscious outlook. However , while it is true to say, as you do, that " the proper reading of 'productive forces' includes humans and their skills, their technology, their labour organisation, their science, research and development.e,   I dont quite see how you can then say  the  task of producing 'an all-round development of individuals' is the task of an active, class-conscious, proletariat, rather than a mechanical product of physical 'productive forces'".  On the face of it , what you seem to be suggesting is that an active class conscious proletariat should itself proactively undertake the task of transforming workers into the all-rounded polytechnic ideal type sought after by Marx.. How would you propose to do that? The proletariat doesnt employ itself and cannot therefore dictate the terms under which it is employed or the form in which work is apportioned and allocated between the workers. It can only defensively nibble away at the corners of capitalism's diktats from above reinforced in – and by – an environment of rampant market competition. Even, then, if workers are able to gain some consessions from empoyers vis a vis the division of labour it is only  the technical division of labour we are talking about operating with a particular factory or office. It does nothing to advance all roundedness in term of the social division of labour for the reason that individuals workers are tied to particular jobs in capitalism and cannot freely move around from one workplace to another and engage in different kinds of production We live in a society in which work  and the  very nature of work is fundamentally subordinated and subservient  to the needs of capital and the capitalist class – which class, after all, owns and controls the means of production ands therefore has the capacity to imposes it own wishes on the producers. Technology is never neutral, it  organised and structured in accordance with those needs and this is reflected very much in the division of labour . So, for example,  a more complex elaborated  division of labour tends to  make for increased productivity per worker and  thus ultimately more profits. for the business concerned. Exactly what the capitalists want. and need To change that you would have to expropriate the expropriators to bring the productive resources and technological infrastructure of society  under common ownership. i.,e. establish communism. But Marx's  point seems to be that the establishment of communism presupposes the prior development of all-rounded multi-skilled polytechnic worker which,  I suggested,  is effectively blocked by present day capitalist control of the means of production .  You can see where the logic of this argument is going  – that Marx has kinda painted himself into a corner with this argument of his – that only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate the productive forces when, actually,  they first have to appropriate the productive forces in order to develop in the all rounded fashion they desire I might have misread you but you seem to be implying that Marx was right to stress the need for workers to develop in a polytechnic fashion but that it is up to a class conscious proltariat to promoite this developemtn since it will not be the "mechanical product of physical productive forcess". If so I think you are mistaken.  While the productive forces do indeed include human beings from the persectivwe oif capitalist political economy their humanity and their consciousness counts for nought.  They as as dispensable as the clapped out machinery that is written off. A bit of poetic licence perhaps but you get my drift. I take a different stance. The establishment of  communism does NOT depend on transcending the division of labour and the emrgence of Marx's  polytechnic worker – althrough it might well depend on a critique of the division of labour as part of a general critique of capitalism itself.  The establishment of communism wiould thus depend amongst other things on the desire to transforn the very nature of work itself and how it is organised  rather than the actual transformation of work which , while the means of production remain in the hands of a parasittic minority  will not become a reality and will only remain a quest

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Unless I have seriously misread him, he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not , it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material reality, before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind but an objective organisational reality…

I have the sinking feeling here, robbo, that your use of the philosophical categories 'materal' and 'objective' might be very different to those that I think that Marx used. Your usage suggests, to me, Engels' science, rather than Marx's. But we've had a number of recent discussions about these issues, and I'm sure that both me and everyone else has had enough of that debate, for now at least.Please take my absence of a longer reply, not as ignoring your reasonable post, but as current exhaustion about discussing this.If you feel compelled to resurrect this debate, could you read some of the other relevant threads first, to get some feel for my position, and then I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. Cheers, comrade.Apologies if I've misunderstood you.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Unless I have seriously misread him, he seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether you criticise it or not , it is the division of labour as a material fact of life that needs to be transcended or altered and it is the all rounded polytechnic worker that needs to be realised as a material reality, before we can ever hope to establish communism. The division of labour is not a state of mind but an objective organisational reality…

I have the sinking feeling here, robbo, that your use of the philosophical categories 'materal' and 'objective' might be very different to those that I think that Marx used. Your usage suggests, to me, Engels' science, rather than Marx's. But we've had a number of recent discussions about these issues, and I'm sure that both me and everyone else has had enough of that debate, for now at least.Please take my absence of a longer reply, not as ignoring your reasonable post, but as current exhaustion about discussing this.If you feel compelled to resurrect this debate, could you read some of the other relevant threads first, to get some feel for my position, and then I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. Cheers, comrade.Apologies if I've misunderstood you.

 Hi LBird No,  Im certainly not using  Engelsian philosophical categories of "material" and "objective". I did glance though the mega debates on this forum on dialectics , science and whatnot  and found it all fascinating stuff –  if perhaps a bit too much to keep up with.  As a matter of fact, by and large I found myself very much in agreement with the position you yourself expressed throughout. Perhaps, the expression "material fact of life" might be misleading or potentially misleading. But the point I wanted to convey from my reading of Marx in the passage I quoted is that he seemed to have envisaged the development of the polytechnic worker (as an ideal type) as being a precondtion for establishing communism and by polytechnic he meant someone who was multi-skilled and all rounded in a quite literal sense – that is someone who is able to quite lierally undertake a great variety of different task.  This is what I was getting at My point was that the division of labour under capitalism in fact prevents this from happening and is leading in the quite opposite direction of deskilling alongside excessive specialisation. It is therefore  denying  to us the very precondition set out by Marx himself  for the establishment of communism.  My argument  (in oppostion to what Marx is apparently saying) is that the abolition of the division labour should not be seen as a precondition of communism but rather as a consequence of conmunism but even then only to a limited extent. (more anon)  I think Marx was mistaken in his views and was led to this erroneous concluson by the rather abstract  line of argument he was bent upon pursuing. Somewhere along that line he lost touch with reality. I  hesitate to call it "material reality" for fear of offending but Im sure you get my drift I dont think in any case we should be talking in such stark absolutist terms of "abolishing  the division of labour". As has been poiinted out by others here, as far as the social division of labour is concerned  it is quite absurd to suggest that we could all turn our hand to being a nuclear physicis on monday , a structural engineer on tuesday and a concert hall painist on wednesday.   Clearly, there are some kinds of work  that require a very considerable degree of specialisation and focus to achieve an acceptable level of competence. One could also make out a case for retaining to some extent  a technical division of labour as I know  only too well in my own line of work as  landscape gardener who has someone else working with him..  I get Miguel to make the cement while I do the arty farty stuff. Well,  he's a lot younger than me so Ive got a good enough excuse! As in all things,  its a case of exercising moderation . What is the problem is not the division of labour as such as its extreme application which, in capitalism,  is compounded by the fact that we are not at liberty to just move from one workplace to another but are bound by contract and fear of life on the dole.  In socialism, I suggest, even the most  highly qualified specialist would benefit from the leavening experience of dabbling in a variety of different jobs now and then. Variety is, after all, the spice of life, innit? Robin

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Hi LBird No, Im certainly not using Engelsian philosophical categories of "material" and "objective". I did glance though the mega debates on this forum on dialectics , science and whatnot and found it all fascinating stuff – if perhaps a bit too much to keep up with. As a matter of fact, by and large I found myself very much in agreement with the position you yourself expressed throughout.

I could cry with joy at finding a sympathetic ear, and not having to go through all that science shit again, so soon!

robbo203 wrote:

But the point I wanted to convey from my reading of Marx in the passage I quoted is that he seemed to have envisaged the development of the polytechnic worker (as an ideal type) as being a precondtion for establishing communism and by polytechnic he meant someone who was multi-skilled and all rounded in a quite literal sense – that is someone who is able to quite lierally undertake a great variety of different task. This is what I was getting at.

Yes, I think you're right about what Marx meant, and I think that I agree with him. On the whole, I think that the 'preconditions of communism' will have to be largely built by workers within the womb of capitalism. The more time that workers have now, after their job, will have to be spent developing themselves in all ways: education, skills, hobbies, the 'polytechnic worker', rather than choosing the many meaningless 'diversions' that capitalism provides for us.If workers, by and large, can't start to reject the 'delights' of capitalism, and in their place start to develop themselves, then I think we'll never see Communism. These, of course, would have to be done outside the boundaries of bourgeois control. I'm thinking, initially, of the emergence of workers' study groups, to replace the crap being taught in the universities, for example.The rest of your post, about the D of L, I think I've already posted in agreement about. A voluntary D of L, rather than a compulsory one.The general tenor of my posts is based upon workers' conscious self-development; I don't believe that 'material forces' will compel anyone down a particular path. 'Consciousness' is as 'real' as a brick, and I think that we Communists need to find a way to propagandise and help to stimulate other workers. Workers themselves must want Communism, and must begin to think and act in ways which lay the 'preconditions for establishing communism'.I think that this stress on self-activity is closer to Marx's ideas, than is Engels' 'material forces' which in some way compel workers to communism. Put simply, more workers need to think critically and ask questions. We can't make them do this, and technology certainly won't.

[Brian]

For what its worth in my opinion the process for the workers coming to terms with the realities of the division of labour  has already started with the effects so apparent they are impossible to ignore.  Yet this process will only reach its completion in a socialist society with the citizens of the world being in a position to participate in the tasks which match their abilities.The use of the term 'polytechnic worker' does has its obvious drawbacks that's why I much prefer 'generalists' to describe the skills of the well rounded fully developed producer.

[ALB]

Whether or not Marx was right to make the development of a "polyvalent worker" a precondition of socialism/communism (and I'm inclined to favour his other speculation that it requires a collective workforce capable of applying science to production, which we've already got as, after all, workers now collectively run production from top to bottom),  I don't think it can be said that he thought that this was something that workers could choose to themselves become within capitalism.There is a long exposition of his position in section 9 (on the health and education clauses of the Factory Acts) of chapter 15 ("Machinery and Large-Scale Industry) of Capital in which the following passage occurs:

Quote:

But if, on the one hand, variation of work at present imposes itself after the manner of an overpowering natural law, and with the blindly destructive action of a natural law that meets with resistance at all points, modern industry, on the other hand, through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognising, as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, consequently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently the greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the mode of production to the normal functioning of this law. modern industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, grappled by life-long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.

It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society ! But then Engels too was the joint author of the German Ideology and part of the "we" in the less deterministic quote Robbo gave from it.In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of  any other socialist.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Whether or not Marx was right to make the development of a "polyvalent worker" a precondition of socialism/communism (and I'm inclined to favour his other speculation that it requires a collective workforce capable of applying science to production, which we've already got as, after all, workers now collectively run production from top to bottom),  I don't think it can be said that he thought that this was something that workers could choose to themselves become within capitalism.There is a long exposition of his position in section 9 (on the health and education clauses of the Factory Acts) of chapter 15 ("Machinery and Large-Scale Industry) of Capital in which the following passage occurs:

Quote:

But if, on the one hand, variation of work at present imposes itself after the manner of an overpowering natural law, and with the blindly destructive action of a natural law that meets with resistance at all points, modern industry, on the other hand, through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognising, as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, consequently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently the greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the mode of production to the normal functioning of this law. modern industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, grappled by life-long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.

It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society ! But then Engels too was the joint author of the German Ideology and part of the "we" in the less deterministic quote Robbo gave from it.In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of  any other socialist.

 This last point is true enough.  But I suppose one is compelled to address  what Marx and Engels had to say on account of the idolisation of them by the political Left with whom socialists are engaged in critical debate on a seemingly almost permanant footing.  So what  M & E had  to say on sundry matters has become a sort of standard reference within socialist discourse, almost out of habit. Here i will admit  that  I'm as guilty as the next person in seemingly attaching too much importance to what these two 19th century thinkers had to say, even if a lot of what they had to say is still sound and relevant today. But, as i say,  it is because the Left is seen by socialists as our most promising target constituency that we are compelled to talk to them in terms of the langauge they speak and the idols they worship. On the specific issue of the division of labour, Im more  interested in the actual argument  behind the proposition that capitalism's demise is dependent upon bringing to an end the division of labour than the fact that Marx put forward this proposition. I can sort of see the logic behind what Marx was saying and it goes back to this idea of workers being able to identify with each other sociologically and culturally as a class rather than limit themselves to a mere "job consciousness" Im reminded here of Durkheims distinction between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.  Durkheim argued that in so called primitive traditional societies, a mechanical form of solidarity prevailed.  This was based on principle of homogeneity of outlook, experience  and character. So,  in a hunter-gatherer society for example, almost everyone engaged in roughtly the same kind of activity subject to a crude sexual division of labour (although even this was not an absoiute since there are ethnographic cases of societies where females fully participated in hunting expeditions, for example). Organic solidarity by contrast was based on differentiation, interdependence and above all , of course, the division of labour.  Along with this went the idea that, rather than taking a direct and personal form as in the case of mechanical solidarity where you identify/empathise  with someone else because he or she bears a close similarity to you,  social interactions came  instead to be increasingly mediated by the abstract forces of the market.  Implied in this view of society, which validates the existence of a market as a kind of social glue to bind individuals together, is the idea that it would be very diffluclt to get rid of such a society without catastrophic consequences.  Society would simply break up into a multitude of isolated disconnected atoms with nothing much  to hold them together or mediate between them  by way of a market. In short society as we know it would collapse and we would all go to the dogs (one might note in passing that  nationalist mythology might represent an attempt to address this concern by imputing to individuals an essential  national identity toi be shared with others and it is no concidence that nationalist thinking coincided with the rise of capitalism to complement the latter and to provide the conforting certainty- cum-safety net of an "imagined community" – to use Benedict Anderson's term) This is pure speculation of course but I wonder whether Marx's musings on the division of labour were unwittingly intended to address this problem?.    There is that wonderful,  almost lyrical, passage from the Communist Manifesto that suggests he might haveThe bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.  So here's the point Im trying to make:  could it be that Marx's preoccupatiuon with the abolition of the division of labour was  based on a tacit acceptance of the argument that the division of labour necessitated the existence of a market to mediate between otherwise disconnected and dissimilar individuals  and that consequently his hatred for the market and all other expressions of human alienation forced him to embrace that most primordial form of solidarity – mechanical solidarity – which in modern form would be represented by his ideal of  the polytechnic polyvalent  worker?Robin

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society !

No, you're quite right about Marx also having a 'positivistic' tendency, and I've made this point before on other threads. But this isn't the place to resurrect that debate.

ALB wrote:

In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of any other socialist.

I couldn't agree more. The sooner Marx is subjected to the same level criticism that Engels has been, the better for us all. Marx and Engels are 'suggestive' rather than 'prescriptive', and we must learn to select what we now consider correct after 130 years of further critical thought, and reject the 19th century guff that both of them accepted to different degrees (although, IMO, Engels was far more culpable in this).Workers must have the final say, not Marx, Engels, Lenin, Pannekoek, or any other supposed 'scriptural authority'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

So here's the point Im trying to make: could it be that Marx's preoccupatiuon with the abolition of the division of labour was based on a tacit acceptance of the argument that the division of labour necessitated the existence of a market to mediate between otherwise disconnected and dissimilar individuals…

I don't think the the D of L 'necessitates a market' robbo. All sorts of societies have had a D of L but no market to mediate between 'individuals'.I think 'individualism' is an ideology, not biology.Once all workers, when asked 'Are you an individual?', reply 'No, I'm a worker', then we'll know that we're getting somewhere.The real relations of the market and its ideological excuse both need to be criticised and smashed.We can have a voluntary D of L and still meet the aims of Communism, the building of a society of 'social individuals'. The development of any individual is dependent upon the development of all.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

  but I think the figure of 92-98% is a gross exaggeration.   

 I agree, Rob, it was the other part of the quote I was interested in. Personally, I have no idea how much useless work there is in capitalism, but I know it's a lot   

[Author]

Posts