The socialist division of labor (was Re: Mommy, what's an intellectual?)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>>I boils down to questions concerning the division of labor.  I think
>>the division of labor is here to stay even if we get around to
>>establishing socialism, though that is a thought unacceptable to some
>>LBO-talkers.
>>
>>Yoshie
>
>How about "a" division of labor?  If one of the aims of socialism is 
>to foster the development of persons-rich-in-needs and if those 
>needs are met not by consumption but by the actualization of powers, 
>then of necessity the amount of time spent at paid labor would have 
>to decrease and the amount of time spent at (unconstrained) work 
>would increase.  (Modified market socialism here.  The sphere of 
>necessity/exchange never goes away, but it becomes a smaller part of 
>our lives).  One can still imagine a division of labor within the 
>realm of freedom (I play viola and you play cello in our quartet), 
>but its purpose is no longer to maximize production.  And if 
>intellectual work at its best is really as wonderful as some of us 
>have convinced ourselves that it can be, then lots of people will do 
>intellectual work without, for all that, ever "being" intellectuals. 
>Or for that matter (we hope) "narrow technicians" (ouch!).
>
>Michael McIntyre

I basically agree with you, Michael, setting aside the question of 
market socialism for the moment.  I just think that we'll never be in 
a position to even hope for building such a society if we get stuck 
in an antagonism between "experts" and "lay persons," as discussion 
on LBO-talk often does.  Expertise is not our enemy.

Yoshie