> It seems to me that the definition of the "coordinator" class
> should be seen in terms of Harry Braverman's classic book,
> LABOR AND MONOPOLY CAPITAL. There, he distinguishes between
> _conception_ and _execution_ in a labor process. This differs
> from the mental/manual labor distinction that many make,
> since it's a matter of who is deciding the what tasks should
> be done. Everyone does mental labor and everyone does manual
> labor (even if it involves pushing a pencil). But those who
> do conception have power over those who "just follow orders"
> (the executors).
I call the factor you have in mind empowerment ... The one class has way more power, what conveys if is a division of labor that puts empowering work in their hands, nearly only...
> In Braverman, Taylorism involves cementing the division
> between conception and execution. As part of this process,
> the conception-workers gain more and more power, since they
> simplify the jobs of the execution-workers so that the latter
> have to make the smallest number of decisions. This is the
> deskilling of the labor process (which B unfortunately
> confuses with the deskilling of workers, but that's another
> subject). It doesn't just increase the output which each
> individual execution-worker can produce; it also takes away
> his or her ability to understand the labor process as a whole
> and to (potentially) control that process.
It doesn't always increase output.
The point is to earn optimum profits, which is not the same as optimum output per input -- if workers are in position to grab more of the revenues...thus, disempowering them is central.
But I think there is another dimension to all this -- in capitalism -- not just coordinatorism -- the coordinator class is present and active and its agenda is to fufill the dictates of its employment but, as much as possible aggrandize its own interests...which are not always identical to those of capital.
> Albert (and his co-thinkers) seem to go one step further,
> suggesting that even if the revolution in Russia had not had
> all those problems, the establishment of Taylorism -- or even
> the failure to fight against Taylorism sufficiently --
> produces a class division between the conception-workers
> (coordinators) and the execution-workers.
I think not only does the corporate division of labor do that -- but markets and or central planning produce that division of labor...
All these institutions produce class division and rule, I believe.
> The former can use
> their knowledge to control the latter. This is true even if
> the means of production are nationalized and the state put
> under national democratic control. An idealized system such
> as that presented in Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD would
> degenerate into a conception-workers' dictatorship. Of course
> Albert _et al_ point to the "coordinatorism" in the
> actually-once-existed socialist states and under social
> democracy, too.
I don't think democracy would flower in the polity with coordinatorism in the economy -- though technically you are right that it could certainly exist...sure.
> The solution, it seems, is to organize production in terms of
> balanced job complexes, in which the main principle is the
> abolition of the division between conception and execution.
> Everyone participates in management and does sh*t work too.
Well, everyone does a balanced mix of tasks -- so that everyone is able to partake of participation in self management and no one has a position that produces dominating potentials.
But it isn't enough to want to undo the classist division of labor -- one also has to opt for modes of allocation and remuneration consistent with doing so, lest the fine aspirations are buried due tot the logic of mistaken choices.
> It seems to me that this could work on the micro level. A key
> question is whether or not the balanced job complexes could
> coodinate their activities on the societal level in a way
> that corresponds to the democratic will of the population...
> Is there some way to duplicate the abolition of the
> conception/execution division on the macro level? (I sorta
> know Michael's answer, but I'd like to hear if the stuff
> above is accurate or not.)
Yes, I think we agree quite a lot here...
I am not sure what you mean by this question though. In parecon the overall planning process occurs via the new type of allocation system. Perhaps you are asking about that. Or maybe something else, I am not sure?
A polity would need to be participatory and consistent with or even a school for and emblem of self management too -- and for those interested Stephen Shalom is thinking hard about that problem -- a desirable polity -- and his early efforts are online on ZNet -- in the life after capitalism section.