Can we have a discussion about Marx and division of labor.

[campesino]

Can someone please link me to writings of Marx and/or Engels, where they most talk about division of labor.

Or give me the Marxist analysis of division of labor.

[Hit The North]

Marx defines the social division of labour as 'the totality of heterogeneous forms of useful labour, which differ in order, genus, species and variety.' (Capital vol 1, ch 1) Although he argues that such a division of labour is necessary for commodity production, the converse is not true: commodity production is not a necessary condition for a social division of labour to exist. He points out that many primitive communities have had a division of labour without producing commodities. But there is a different form to the social division of labour identified by Marx which is the division of labour in production; which rather than being shaped by differentiation in human abilities and skills, is shaped by the division between capital and labour and is an exclusive feature of capitalism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

'the totality of heterogeneous forms of useful labour, which differ in order, genus, species and variety.'

And the average proletarian is supposed to understand that?

[Hit The North]

And the average proletarian is supposed to understand that?

Yeah. Why, are you struggling with it?

[citizen of industry]

The German Ideology and On the Division of Labour in Production from Engels'
Anti-Duhring

[Hit The North]

This article (http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/01/frederick-engels-on-duhringian-vs-marxian-socialism-production/) is also a good overview of Engels presentation of these issues of the forced division of labour and illustrates how revolutionary his and Marx's conception of the kind of transformations necessary for socialist society were in comparison to proto state capitalists like Duhring and those who have proceeded him, who think that either a change in government or the usurpation of the individual capitalist by a centralised state power constitutes actually existing socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah. Why, are you struggling with it?

No they are not. You're just trying to make people feel stupid.

[Hit The North]

No they are not. You're just trying to make people feel stupid.

Fuck off. I'm giving a straight answer. Now you may pride yourself on having greater intellectual capacity than the "average proletarian" or you may not understand the passage yourself. If it's the latter then the vanity which informs the former is surely misplaced.

Nevertheless, this is a distraction from what the OP wants to know, and this is a Learning thread, so why don't you lend a hand in the discussion of the division of labour instead of whining at me?

[piet11111]

Yeah. Why, are you struggling with it?

It doesn't make much sense to me.


order, genus, species and variety

Biological terms as a way to describe different sorts of labor ?
I guess i could use a chart for this one.

[campesino]

Marx defines the social division of labour as 'the totality of heterogeneous forms of useful labour, which differ in order, genus, species and variety.' (Capital vol 1, ch 1) Although he argues that such a division of labour is necessary for commodity production, the converse is not true: commodity production is not a necessary condition for a social division of labour to exist. He points out that many primitive communities have had a division of labour without producing commodities. But there is a different form to the social division of labour identified by Marx which is the division of labour in production; which rather than being shaped by differentiation in human abilities and skills, is shaped by the division between capital and labour and is an exclusive feature of capitalism.

I guess social division of labor(electricians, plumbers, bricklayers) is something Marx did not want to eliminate, but division of labour in production was something he wanted to eliminate. What is division of labor in production? I understand it originates from capitalism, but what is its definition.

[piet11111]

What is division of labor in production? I understand it originates from capitalism, but what is its definition.

1 guy puts on the wheels while the other tightens the bolts etc assembly line production for faster creation of products as opposed to the craftsman that made a product from raw materials and worked on it until a finished product is made.

[campesino]

1 guy puts on the wheels while the other tightens the bolts etc assembly line production for faster creation of products as opposed to the craftsman that made a product from raw materials and worked on it until a finished product is made.

will the assembly line be done away with in communism? that would be a step backwards in my view.

[robbo203]

Andre Gorz has something to say about this which Ive written about in my blog. Marx accordng to him , anticipated the emergence of the all-rounded polytechnic worker and pinned his hopes for a communist/socialist society on such a development

[The_Red_Spark]

And the average proletarian is supposed to understand that?
I have to say that I agree with you. I understand it but much of the written material is not written in a simplified way that it is easily understood by someone who does not have a background in economics or that has a limited vocabulary due to less education or due to not being a heavy reader where the vocabulary is further developed.

Marx wrote much of his material in a very scientific form which I feel makes it hard for a layman to understand and comprehend.He is good about providing several examples to further illustrate the point and concept though.

I think the best material is written in a simplified manner using basic terms and that is worded on a much simpler level. I try not to use terms and words that laymen won't understand when discussing the subject or writing material for my blog. If I do I try to illustrate the point and fully define the word.

[The_Red_Spark]

Andre Gorz has something to say about this which Ive written about in my blog. Marx accordng to him , anticipated the emergence of the all-rounded polytechnic worker and pinned his hopes for a communist/socialist society on such a development
Does that mean someone, or all workers in a given production process, who know the ins and outs of the whole production process, that can physically do any position of the labor which is divided in the production process, whilst the division of labor would remain in production? I am unfamiliar with this term and idea. Could you please elaborate for us?

[Catma]

I assume the argument is that assembly-line type work is alienating. Most of it can be automated, so that productivity still increases and people are freed to work how they choose.

[RedMaterialist]

Marx defines the social division of labour as 'the totality of heterogeneous forms of useful labour, which differ in order, genus, species and variety.' (Capital vol 1, ch 1)


I think this is the quote you were referring to:

"To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour. This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour..." Capital, vol 1, chapt 1, section 2.

I think the average proletariat would understand this fairly easily: there are all kinds of useful products created by all kinds of useful labor. Mass production of commodites depends on this division of labor; however, this social division of labor existed long before capitalism and commodity production.

[RedMaterialist]

will the assembly line be done away with in communism? that would be a step backwards in my view.

What will be changed is the ownership of the assembly line and its products.

[Lucretia]

I guess social division of labor(electricians, plumbers, bricklayers) is something Marx did not want to eliminate, but division of labour in production was something he wanted to eliminate. What is division of labor in production? I understand it originates from capitalism, but what is its definition.

Their critique of the division of labor is really a criticism of how it is determined. It's not against specialization per se. However, with the democratic allocation of tasks, and the far greater amount of leisure time people will enjoy in a socialist society, people will not do one and only one activity (and aren't likely to want to do so, anyway).

In Sean Sayers' new book, he has a good chapter on "The Division of Labour and Its Overcoming."

[citizen of industry]

I guess social division of labor(electricians, plumbers, bricklayers) is something Marx did not want to eliminate, but division of labour in production was something he wanted to eliminate. What is division of labor in production? I understand it originates from capitalism, but what is its definition.

You've got it backwards. Read the two pamphlets I suggested. Marx's most famous quote I think on division of labor in a communist society comes from The German Ideology. He stresses that nobody has to be an electrician, bricklayer or plumber, as we can do all. In the Engels's pamphlet I suggested he discusses the shortening if the working day and the mobility of workers. I can't quote text now because I'm using my phone. Basically, imagine a 4 hour workday where you can change jobs frequently so it doesn't get boring and you don't have a set occupation. Division of labor still exists in the factory.

[campesino]

You've got it backwards. Read the two pamphlets I suggested. Marx's most famous quote I think on division of labor in a communist society comes from The German Ideology. He stresses that nobody has to be an electrician, bricklayer or plumber, as we can do all. In the Engels's pamphlet I suggested he discusses the shortening if the working day and the mobility of workers. I can't quote text now because I'm using my phone. Basically, imagine a 4 hour workday where you can change jobs frequently so it doesn't get boring and you don't have a set occupation. Division of labor still exists in the factory.


changing jobs all the time seems wasteful, especially when changing jobs with a geologist or lumberjack. Most people are completely satisfied, working their job as long as they get decent pay and especially more in communism when a man has stability, security and isn't being overworked and underpaid to create private profit.

To be honest i haven't read the pamphlets yet.

[citizen of industry]

changing jobs all the time seems wasteful, especially when changing jobs with a geologist or lumberjack. Most people are completely satisfied, working their job as long as they get decent pay and especially more in communism when a man has stability, security and isn't being overworked and underpaid to create private profit.

To be honest i haven't read the pamphlets yet.

The geologist has the benefit of education, an opportunity denied or restricted to most workers under capitalism. With equal opportunity education and more time to study, more people can learn geology. Lumberjacking is very hard work and one shouldn't have to do it, and only it, for their entire lives at the expense of other skills. One can be a geologist sometimes, a lumberjack sometimes, a cook the next, and an office worker as well.

Most people are not satisfied with their jobs, because they are boring and they have to do the same simple routines day in and day out for their whole lives, job security and decent compensation or not. I, for one, would appreciate more variety.

[piet11111]

will the assembly line be done away with in communism? that would be a step backwards in my view.

I don't think so but it might be automated as much as possible.
Going to a craftmanship production mode would throw us back into the middle ages as most of our stuff is so highly sophisticated that nobody on his/her own could recreate it something like a PC.

[citizen of industry]

changing jobs all the time seems wasteful, especially when changing jobs with a geologist or lumberjack. Most people are completely satisfied, working their job as long as they get decent pay and especially more in communism when a man has stability, security and isn't being overworked and underpaid to create private profit.

To be honest i haven't read the pamphlets yet.

Here are the passages I was referring to:


The German Ideology: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while 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, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#2)
Anti-Duhring: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch25.htm

In making itself the master of all the means of production to use them in accordance with a social plan, society puts an end to the former subjection of men to their own means of production. It goes without saying that society cannot free itself unless every individual is freed. The old mode of production must therefore be revolutionised from top to bottom, and in particular the former division of labour must disappear. Its place must be taken by an organisation of production in which, on the one hand, no individual can throw on the shoulders of others his share in productive labour, this natural condition of human existence; and in which, on the other hand, productive labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will become a means of their emancipation, by offering each individual the opportunity to develop all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions and exercise them to the full — in which, therefore, productive labour will become a pleasure instead of being a burden.
Today this is no longer a fantasy, no longer a pious wish. With the present development of the productive forces, the increase in production that will follow from the very fact of the socialisation of the productive forces, coupled with the abolition of the barriers and disturbances, and of the waste of products and means of production, resulting from the capitalist mode of production, will suffice, with everybody doing his share of work, to reduce the time required for labour to a point which, measured by our present conceptions, will be small indeed
The technical basis of modern industry is revolutionary. ”By means of machinery, chemical processes and other methods, it is continually causing changes not only in the technical basis of production, but also in the functions of the labourer, and in the social combinations of the labour-process. At the same time, it thereby also revolutionises the division of labour within the society, and incessantly launches masses of capital and of workpeople from one branch of production to another. Modern industry, by its very nature, therefore necessitates variation of labour, fluency of function, universal mobility of the labourer... We have seen how this absolute contradiction ... vents its rage in the incessant human sacrifices from among the working-class, in the most reckless squandering of labour-power, and in the devastation caused by social anarchy. This is the negative side. 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 makes it a question of life and death to replace the monstrosity of a destitute working population kept in reserve at the disposal of capital for the changing needs of exploitation with the absolute availability of man for the changing requirements of labour; to replace what is virtually a mere fragment of the individual, the mere carrier of a social detail-function, with the fully developed individual, to whom the different social functions are so many alternating modes of activity”

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yeah. Why, are you struggling with it?

You expect to gain support from the average proletarian, yes?

Then why do you write in a way that is difficult to understand?

At least anarchists write things simply so that they can be understood by anyone, same content, just simpler.

[Hit The North]

You expect to gain support from the average proletarian, yes?


Um, no, I don't expect to get support from anyone. What do you take me for, a politician?


Then why do you write in a way that is difficult to understand?
Marx wrote it, take it up with him :glare:

[Comrades Unite!]

Can someone please link me to writings of Marx and/or Engels, where they most talk about division of labor.

Or give me the Marxist analysis of division of labor.

Besides Capital I don't think they're is any, I could be wrong but I can't remember.

Fuck The Clock put it best so I won't repeat him.

EDIT: Why are people giving him shit over the way he put it? That's not far off at all how Marx described it in the first Chapter of Capital.smh.