Rationalization (was: Middle Class)

Gar Lipow lipowg at sprintmail.com
Tue Jan 19 12:04:58 PST 1999


On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:54:22 -0500 d-m-c at worldnet.att.net typed:


>What Gar and others have been typing about is the *division of labor* about which Marx and Engels wrote: "the division of labor implies the possibility, nay the fact that intellectua l and material activity--enjoyment and labor, prodution and consumption--devolve on different individuals..." The paradigmatic d.o.l is in the family "where wife and children are the slaves of the husband...Division of labor and private property are, moreover, identitical expressions" They go on to describe how the division of labor and the ideologies associated w/ it obfuscates the social, cooperative, communal characteristic of productive
labor in which the products of one's labor appear as alien to us: "For as soon as the division of labor in society 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 shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood"


>The point here is that the division of labor--between mental and material production-- was already advanced by M&E. There was the general d.o.l. manifesting itself as workers v. owners, production v consumption. There was another level of a d.o.l that existed within the bourgeoisie, that between the intellectuals (ideologists, the capitalists who invested capital, and the rentiers who owned the land and/or machinery (see the 18th Brumaire)

Whereas I'm quite sure that M&E saw capitalists, and workers as separate classes, I'm not so sure that they saw workers in the intellectual and control fields as such. To the extent they considered a *class* between labor and capital they seemed to have thought of the small capitalists, those people who lived both from their own labor and some ownership of the means of production. The other examples you have given they seemed to regard as just what you said -- a division of labor which comes with the invention of property and not a separate class.

I like the way you explicate your thesis below, and I'd like to see you continue to develop it in future posts. However I hope you don't mind if I tie it back to my more simple minded point; if those in "control" functions do indeed constitute a separate class with a separate class interest from workers then anyone interested in movement building has to avoid a class bias in favor of the coordinator classe interest. I'm not saying there is conflict on every issue; but on those issues on which conflict does exist (and they seem to me quite substantial) we have to support the 80% or so in the working class, as opposed to the around 20% between capital and labor.

Thanks

Gar


>But this d.o.l. has become increasingly complex, particularly with
revolutions in the means of production and I would include one of those advances to be rationalization. Now, here's where Weber comes in handy. Weber argued that capitalism as a form of market exchange has existed for quite some time. What Marx was looking at, and what made it unique and different from earlier forms of capitalism was it's character as a form of *rationalized* capitalism: the focus on efficiency (optimum means for getting from one point to another), calculability (precise measurements of time, size, cost--this becomes extremely important as capitalism advances and explains why time calculations, cost-benefit calculation, rational accounting procedures are crucial to success), predictability (uniformity, sameness, methodical preciciseness about the future--what one can expect from a supplier for example), and control (the rise of technologies which control people: assembly lines control people; people control hammers).


>Those control functions Gar and Curtiss were describing I think fall into
two different aspects of rationalization, societal-level and organizational-level. We separate them out for analytical reasons, but there are intertwined in complex ways. On the one hand, control through computer software which determines how we do our work (say the way a spell check program tells the typist what word to substitute for a misspelled word). The people who develop this software exercise control over the labor process at the organizational level in this way. Reminds me of a time years ago when computers were just being developed for use in restaurants. The salesman was talking to my boss, who was a notorious sucker for anything salesmen were selling, but NOT with this one because the guy said to him: "Look the advantage is that you can control your waitresses and make sure they don't rip up the guest check and pocket the cash. Everything is documented and if a guest check and the money is missing you'll know who stole it." My boss at the time replied, to paraphrase: "Look my employees are honest and they don't steal from me. This computer you have here is just going to turn this into a suspicious place and my waitresses don't need to be treated as if they're theaves. What good is that going to do me?"


>Control also happens to customers for, in addition to services, customers
are produced in service-based organizations. When you go to a chain restaurant w/ waitress service you will *know* that you shouldn't loiter for a leisurely meal. The chairs and tables have been designed to make you uncomfortable after a certain amount of time. The din has been scientifically tested to produce the right mix to annoy you right about the time you're done w/ desert.


>I think that we can see that societal rationalization is really about an
increasingly advanced division of labor. Physicians now define what consitutes illness (health) and have a monopoly over the production of knowledge about what constitutes illness, who is ill and who isn't, etc. This was work once performed in the home, by community healers, etc. Educators now define what is to be learned, who is learned and who is not, whereas that was one work done by the family, community, church. I could go on. As these things become subsumed by the cash nexus of capitalism part of what happens is that they become 'rationalized' for good or ill.


>anyway, enough for now.

-- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list