Division of labor?

[Ostrinski]

I have a harder time understanding economics as opposed to philosophy, so don't rip me apart, but why exactly are we against the division of labor? I don't see how increased dexterity and productivity are necessarily bad. I guess the argument is that it "spiritually depresses" the worker, but I don't know about you all, but any type of situation where I have to exert myself for extended periods of time spiritually depresses me. I'd much rather sit back and smoke cigars all day. Our task isn't necessarily to liberate the proletariat, but to install them in power because they're the most productive force in society, and by consequence, liberate them. Isn't it possible to have a democratic economy while still having each trade subdivided into many tasks to increase productivity? Please don't restrict me if I sound capitalist or something, I'm still trying to figure this shit out.

Also, staff, move this to economics if you feel like it belongs there.

[Blake's Baby]

...Our task isn't necessarily to liberate the proletariat, but to install them in power because they're the most productive force in society, and by consequence, liberate them...

No it isn't.

Your task is to work out what your role is as a proletarian, and what the proletariat's role is as an historic class, not to substitute yourself or your group for the proletariat, stage a coup, and hand the state or the world over to the proletariat on a plate. We'll make our own revolution thanks, and please be aware that if you attempt any shenanigans we'll crush you along with all the other self-proclaimed leaders who attempt to take control of the revolution.

[Ostrinski]

No it isn't.

Your task is to work out what your role is as a proletarian, and what the proletariat's role is as an historic class, not to substitute yourself or your group for the proletariat, stage a coup, and hand the state or the world over to the proletariat on a plate. We'll make our own revolution thanks, and please be aware that if you attempt any shenanigans we'll crush you along with all the other self-proclaimed leaders who attempt to take control of the revolution.Easy there killer, don't be pedantic. And this has nothing to do with what I asked.

[Tim Cornelis]

Socialists oppose a "division of labour" in the sense that one part of the population ends up doing all the shitty jobs, and one part of the population does not.

There should be no profession of cleaners, trash collectors, and so forth, this should be down cooperatively, collectively, or on a rotating basis.

I don't think this means there should be no full-time doctors or whatever.

[Rooster]

It's more about how this labour is divided. You should read The German Ideology for this topic but basically, Marx is arguing against the forced division of labour (what I think he calls the natural division of labour) that happens when you have privately owned means of production. This division of labour isn't voluntary. I think that's what you're talking about, division of labour in the work place, but there's also other divisions of labour that are often not taken into account such as intellectual and manual division, division based on ownership of means of production and such.

[Blake's Baby]

Easy there killer, don't be pedantic. And this has nothing to do with what I asked.



Where you're going has some relevance to how you get there.

'Division of labour' is inherent in what you were talking about. You see the role of ... intellectuals? ... as a new elite to lead the proletariat. So much at least seems evident from what you say. If that's the case, I disagree.

[Ostrinski]

Where you're going has some relevance to how you get there.

'Division of labour' is inherent in what you were talking about. You see the role of ... intellectuals? ... as a new elite to lead the proletariat. So much at least seems evident from what you say. If that's the case, I disagree.No. I don't. I would like for this to be a discussion on division of labor, not a tendency war.

[StalinFanboy]

I have a harder time understanding economics as opposed to philosophy, so don't rip me apart, but why exactly are we against the division of labor? I don't see how increased dexterity and productivity are necessarily bad. I guess the argument is that it "spiritually depresses" the worker, but I don't know about you all, but any type of situation where I have to exert myself for extended periods of time spiritually depresses me. I'd much rather sit back and smoke cigars all day. Our task isn't necessarily to liberate the proletariat, but to install them in power because they're the most productive force in society, and by consequence, liberate them. Isn't it possible to have a democratic economy while still having each trade subdivided into many tasks to increase productivity? Please don't restrict me if I sound capitalist or something, I'm still trying to figure this shit out.

Also, staff, move this to economics if you feel like it belongs there.

capitalism isnt a system that has some people in charge of it. thats a complete misunderstanding of it. it is a network of social relations that drive everyone, workers and capitalists alike. the latter are in as much control of the economy as the former.

communism isnt about putting a new class in control of the means of production. its about destroying classes. this means that the proletariat as a material relation and condition of life needs to be destroyed. sure, maybe workers that work in self-managed enterprises arent exploited and maybe they produce more. maybe they are even happier (happy slaves doesnt justify the existence of slavery). but they are still alienated and still very much controlled by the economy.


something being democratic does not mean its not capitalist. democracy is merely a form of management. capitalism uses democracy just as much as it uses fascism. in fact, i would argue that councilism is capitalisms last stand.

increasing production is a very capitalist mode of thinking. to be honest, i feel like productivity will go down a lot in communism as people arent forced to produce beyond what they need (collectively and individually), and because economic competition will be nonexistent (because the economy will be nonexistent).

[StalinFanboy]

It's more about how this labour is divided. You should read The German Ideology for this topic but basically, Marx is arguing against the forced division of labour (what I think he calls the natural division of labour) that happens when you have privately owned means of production. This division of labour isn't voluntary. I think that's what you're talking about, division of labour in the work place, but there's also other divisions of labour that are often not taken into account such as intellectual and manual division, division based on ownership of means of production and such.
and the division between productive and reproductive labor.