Would you oppose the Division of Labor on principle?

[Havet]

Henry Ford once said:

"Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs."

"There are no big problems, there are just a lot of little problems."

That said, would communists here, amidst their commune (and let's imagine, for heaven's sake, that a high level of automation was not yet achieved), necessarily oppose dividing tasks among workers so as to make each task more manageable and in the end save more time for each worker individually?

Would you oppose that, for the manufacture of food, some workers only planted the seeds, while others harvested the products, others distributed it, etc?

Or should every single worker experience the "fullness of production", as Marx explained it?

[RGacky3]

democratic process and mutual consent, no point in forcing it either way, whatever needs to get done needs to get done the best way possible, and its up to whoever is involved (the community) to decide the best way to do it. Remember unlike Capitalism, you don't need to just produce and produce and produce, (theres no profit motive), you only need to produce what needs to be produced, everything else is just what you enjoy, or what the community would enjoy, i.e. its extra.

[Havet]

democratic process and mutual consent, no point in forcing it either way, whatever needs to get done needs to get done the best way possible, and its up to whoever is involved (the community) to decide the best way to do it.

Yeah, exactly. I thought that was the answer that made most sense.

[革命者]

A labourer should be able to make a complete product, but the product might be part of a bigger whole, as long as the labourer preserves his pride of workmanship and is not alienated from the complete production process.

It has been proven that this makes factories (at least) more productive and lowers the costs, in Japan.

For an example, try searching e.g. Wikipedia for 'the Toyota way', 'quality circles' or 'TQM'. All principles have been tried in the US, but they are not brought-up and educated to co-operate, but only to compete, so most efforts have failed.

Asia does understand co-operation.

Regardless; of course Marx was right. And you don't need Marx for that; most labourers in the bigger Western companies are completely alienated; money has to make it right, but it never does.

[ComradeMan]

Well as usual I think it depends just exactly what, when and where. I think it is too broad a term- especially in the modern world.

I don't condemn division of labour as long as it is within the framework of democratic delegation of tasks with a common end and equal rewards for all- if you see what I mean. Anyway, Jack-of-all trades is master of none as they say.

[革命者]

Do you want to make the conditions for continuation of misery more democratic or do you want to alleviate the misery?

The division of labour is a division of responsibility. Any such division destroys human dignity; people should have the freedom and responsibility to produce something of their own. They should have that freedom within limits set democratically (not majority rule, but unanimity) to keep things manageable, but they should have that relative freedom and will feel pride if they have used that freedom to create a better product. That is the strongest and most long-lasting incentive. Not monetary incentives.

All people should be able to be proud of what he or she produces. That's the only real incentive to work and it works better than the alernatives (money and status) that capitalism has thus far relied on.

Now that capitalism is incorporating this given, it's getting closer to what it will eventually become when it stops to stretch; socialism.

[StalinFanboy]

People should what they want to do and what they feels need to be done. In a truly communist society, there won't be division of labor or specialization because people aren't naturally like that.

If someone wants to do a certain thing for a while, that's his decision, but I highly doubt they'll do that task forever.

[革命者]

If people'd acted upon feelings (or intuition) we'd have communism in a heartbeat. The problem is that people don't always want what they feel is best.

Division of labour makes people miserable.

[Skooma Addict]

Division of labour makes people miserable.

No it doesn't. There is something called comparative advantage.

[革命者]

There's also something called elephant.

What's your point?

[Havet]

There's also something called elephant.

What's your point?

In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), the law of comparative advantage refers to the ability of a party (an individual, a firm, or a country) to produce a particular good or service at a lower opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) than another party. It is the ability to produce a product most efficiently given all the other products that could be produced.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#cite_note-uslabor-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#cite_note-econbook-1) It can be contrasted with absolute advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_advantage) which refers to the ability of a party to produce a particular good at a lower absolute cost than another.
Comparative advantage explains how trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade) can create value for both parties even when one can produce all goods with fewer resources than the other. The net benefits of such an outcome are called gains from trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade). It is the main concept of the pure theory of international trade.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[Havet]

If people'd acted upon feelings (or intuition) we'd have communism in a heartbeat. The problem is that people don't always want what they feel is best.

Yeah, too bad they fucking think for themselves, heh?

[革命者]

Yeah, too bad they fucking think for themselves, heh?Yes, they don't think straight. Supposed rationality is the worst form of irrationality.

[革命者]

Elephants are large land mammals in two genera of the family Elephantidae: Elephas and Loxodonta. Three species of elephant are living today: the African Bush Elephant, the African Forest Elephant and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). All other species and genera of Elephantidae are extinct, some since the last ice age: dwarf forms of mammoths may have survived as late as 2,000 BC.[1] Elephants and other Elephantidae were once classified with other thick-skinned animals in a now invalid order, Pachydermata.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant

[Havet]

Yes, they don't think straight. Supposed rationality is the worst form of irrationality.

And you think "relying on one's feelings" is a better option?

[革命者]

And you think "relying on one's feelings" is a better option?I think checking your rationality against your intuition is the best option, i.e. if you feel your rationale is sound.

If you only conclude it, but your intuition says differently (gauged by your feelings), you should check the validity of your reasoning and the truthfulness of your propositions.

Both are essential for ethical conduct.

[Havet]

I think checking your rationality against your intuition is the best option, i.e. if you feel your rationale is sound.

If you only conclude it, but your intuition says differently (gauged by your feelings), you should check the validity of your reasoning and the truthfulness of your propositions.

Both are essential for ethical conduct.

I disagree.

Einstein did not revolutionize the world's understanding of physics by trusting his "intuition" or his "feelings". He arrived at his conclusions and others accepted because it made sense, because it was rational.

Trusting on one's feelings and intuitions when it comes to analyzing and studying important matters is bound to fuck up the conclusions.

[革命者]

I disagree.

Einstein did not revolutionize the world's understanding of physics by trusting his "intuition" or his "feelings". He arrived at his conclusions and others accepted because it made sense, because it was rational.

Trusting on one's feelings and intuitions when it comes to analyzing and studying important matters is bound to fuck up the conclusions.Pioncaré would most-certainly disagree. And Einstein as well, probably (but he could not have done what he did was it not for Pioncaré).

[Havet]

Pioncaré would most-certainly disagree. And Einstein as well, probably (but he could not have done what he did was it not for Pioncaré).

So are you saying that Henri Poincaré's work on relativity was a hunch, an intuition, a feeling? That he never followed the scientific method?

[IcarusAngel]

Many scientific discoveries indeed come from pure intuition mixed with rationality; even serendipity plays a role. The claim that there is one scientific method and every scientist follows it is ridiculous. different scientists have different paths that they deploy.

Again, hayenmill shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Havet]

Many scientific discoveries indeed come from pure intuition mixed with rationality; even serendipity plays a role. The claim that there is one scientific method and every scientist follows it is ridiculous. different scientists have different paths that they deploy.

Again, hayenmill shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Idiot

He was NOT talking about that sometimes feelings or intuitions are what drive the pursuit of scientific knowledge, but that the "testing" (so to speak) of scientific theories and knowledge has to go through feelings (it has to "feel" right)

[Skooma Addict]

There's also something called elephant.

What's your point?

That comparative advantage explains why the division of labor is a good thing.

[革命者]

That comparative advantage explains why the division of labor is a good thing.No, it doesn't explain that, nor does it explain why the industralised cotton industry started in England and the best-performing car manufacturer is based in Japan.

As you could have read I didn't refer to diversification in global markets or specialisations per se, in society. What I am talking about is people being alienated from their produce because they have only a partial responsibility for any product.

Diversification is more about the impoverishment of people in other countries to keep the people in our own country and the ruling elites there wealthy enough not be overthrown or overthrow, respectively. We steal their resources, whether we bring the natural resources here first or whether we make a product there and import it. Nonetheless it's misery for many people, but not the one caused by what I had described.

[ComradeMan]

Elephants are large land mammals in two genera of the family Elephantidae: Elephas and Loxodonta. Three species of elephant are living today: the African Bush Elephant, the African Forest Elephant and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). All other species and genera of Elephantidae are extinct, some since the last ice age: dwarf forms of mammoths may have survived as late as 2,000 BC.[1] Elephants and other Elephantidae were once classified with other thick-skinned animals in a now invalid order, Pachydermata.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant

LOL!!!!
:D

One of my favourite animals...

Hummingbirds are birds comprising the family Trochilidae. They are among the smallest of birds, and include the smallest extant bird species, the Bee Hummingbirds. They can hover in mid-air by rapidly flapping their wings 12–90 times per second (depending on the species). They can also fly backwards, and are the only group of birds able to do so.Their English name derives from the characteristic hum made by their rapid wing beats. They can fly at speeds exceeding 15 m/s (54 km/h, 34 mi/h).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg/180px-Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humming_birds