Division of labor

[oneday]

Marx seems to have the view that the division of labor will be reduced substantially during communism. How does it follow that this will happen given that with capitalism, the division of labor has continuously grown. If we see communism as a tendency within and a result of the conditions of capitalism, how could there be this radical break? With the reduction of the division of labor, it would seem that communism would be an idealistic rearrangement of all that came before, instead of being a consequence of it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Is it really the case that the division of labour has grown within capitalism? It seems to me that technological advancement has eliminated many kinds of work. We no longer, for example, have (human) calculators, or milkmen, etc. Of course, technological advancement has also created other kinds of work - programmers and so on. Whether this amounts to a net increase or decrease in the division of labour is something I don't know. I'm just saying it's not immediately obvious.

Of course, the division of labour remains profitable for the capitalist - and it has other benefits. But it's not true to say that there are no forces within capitalism that will lead to an end of the division of labour in socialism. Education and the general raising of the cultural standard of the workforce is one such powerful tendency. So is the disappearance of guild and family secrets. It is quite plausible to imagine a modern metalworker, for example, undergoing additional training and becoming a locksmith or welder or nurse. Whereas in the mediaeval and ancient world, this would not even be legal in certain periods and places, and the worker would not possess the skills necessary to absorb additional training. Today, there are of course still barriers related to wage-work, but communism dispenses with these.

[Rudolf]

Marx seems to have the view that the division of labor will be reduced substantially during communism. How does it follow that this will happen given that with capitalism, the division of labor has continuously grown.

I've not read much of what Marx said on the division of labour but i would agree with the claim.

To understand better you have to look at the division of labour and at social processes that affect its composition.

It's pretty obvious that some division of labour is necessary for complex production (if everyone's down the mine who's producing the mining equipment?) but within capitalist society the use of a division of labour is to maximise the production of surplus value. There is the easy way to do this: reduce wages. Yet in order to reduce the wages of skilled labourers it's often necessary to reduce the skills needed. You can increase the degree of the division of labour in a specific labour process in order to deskill.

Communism of course destroys this tendency which would result in a reduction in the division of labour to the degree that's necessary for the production of given use-values at the rate required to meet social need.





If we see communism as a tendency within and a result of the conditions of capitalism, how could there be this radical break? With the reduction of the division of labor, it would seem that communism would be an idealistic rearrangement of all that came before, instead of being a consequence of it.

You can come with the same argument but using whether social relations are direct or indirect and mystified. The serf's relation to their lord was direct. The prole's is indirect and mystified via exchange.

If we see communism as a tendency within and a result of the conditions of capitalism, how could there be this radical break? With the destruction of indirect and mystified social relations, it would seem that communism would be an idealistic rearrangement of all that came before, instead of being a consequence of it.

[Rudolf]

Is it really the case that the division of labour has grown within capitalism? It seems to me that technological advancement has eliminated many kinds of work. We no longer, for example, have (human) calculators, or milkmen, etc. Of course, technological advancement has also created other kinds of work - programmers and so on. Whether this amounts to a net increase or decrease in the division of labour is something I don't know. I'm just saying it's not immediately obvious.

I think we could identify a tendency to be the case if we look at a specific concrete labour process. Looking at the labour process in aggregate can give different results.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Like I said, I don't have any concrete data. And I have two contradictory intuitions about what the data are like: on one hand, whenever we invent a thingamajig we also invent thingamajig fitters and thingamajig repairmen and... and on the other hand, capitalism radically simplified the craft and guild structure of feudal society. So, like I said, I don't really know.

I do think we should be careful to distinguish between the division of labour as permanent and the temporary division of tasks within the production process. Marx didn't want to say that huntsmen and critics will cease to exist (although both might), but that the division of labour where Geoff is a huntsman and that's all he does his entire life will disappear.

[oneday]

You can come with the same argument but using whether social relations are direct or indirect and mystified. The serf's relation to their lord was direct. The prole's is indirect and mystified via exchange.

If we see communism as a tendency within and a result of the conditions of capitalism, how could there be this radical break? With the destruction of indirect and mystified social relations, it would seem that communism would be an idealistic rearrangement of all that came before, instead of being a consequence of it.

I'm not sure I agree with that substitution though because the orthodox line is that capitalism actually decreases this mystification though the education of the proles and the development of communication between them, which are byproducts of the development of capitalism. The proletariat develops class consciousness because of capitalism itself, and it's role is no longer mystified.

[Rudolf]

I'm not sure I agree with that substitution though because the orthodox line is that capitalism actually decreases this mystification though the education of the proles and the development of communication between them, which are byproducts of the development of capitalism. The proletariat develops class consciousness because of capitalism itself, and it's role is no longer mystified.


I meant the worker in relation to the capitalist not other workers. Seems i didn't make that as clear as i should have. Exploitation is more mystified in capitalist society.