>>> furuhashi.1 at osu.edu 07/11/01 02:04AM >>>
Charles says:
> >>> furuhashi.1 at osu.edu 07/09/01 04:50PM >>>
> >It 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.
>>
>>((((((((
>>
> >CB: I agree a division of labor there must continue to be. But does
>>the division between predominantly mental and predominantly physical
>>labor , and its gradations have to be the divide ?
>
>Even under capitalism it seems to me that differences in social power
>among the working class are not necessarily rooted in the divide
>between mental and physical. Compare secretaries, journalists, etc.
>with plumbers, carpenters, & others in skilled trades that demand a
>lot of physical labor.
>
>((((((((
>
>CB: Yea, I should have said "a divide" instead of "the divide".
>There is still some privilege and status associated with
>predominantly mental labor, though the generalization is not
>absolute. Also, very few members of the ruling class are
>predominantly physical laborers.
The ruling class do not derive their social power from their labor, mental or physical, even when they do either or both (but I'm preaching to the converted here). Even the work of extracting surplus value from the working class is now mostly delegated to top managers, investment bankers, creative accountants, etc. Those who are forced to develop lots of brain power, for which they may or may not be well compensated, tend to be petty producers & some groups of workers -- those who populate left-wing e-lists often hail from these categories (e.g., lawyers, writers, college teachers, computer programmers, etc.).
(((((((
CB: As you say, I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, the main economic classes of society , including the exploiting, ruling classes, are part of the "traditional" idea of "division of labor" , even though the exploiting classes are as you say in relationship to "labor". Although, I don't think the ruling class can just sit on its "asses" and rule.
>In communism , won't everybody be both an intellectual and a
>physically active comrade in a manner that is socially productive?
>Writing music in the morning and whistling it while they
>collectively build geodesic domes in the afternoon, nude swimming
>and fishing in the afternoon, and making astronomic observation at
>night.
What Marx says is that under communism one-sided development is not mandatory & people can aspire to many-sided development if they so desire, unlike under capitalism & even socialism.
((((((((
CB: My sense of it is that it won't work if a lot of people are not inspried and desirous of developing themselves in a many-sided way. So , the "desire" you mention would have to be pretty much universal. Otherwise, there would arise a new invidious division of labor.