The division of labor does matter but so does ownership. I must admit that I have a simplistic if not vulgar understanding of Marxism. But the basic understanding I have of class in capitalist society is that there are two broad classes those who own the means of production and those who must sell their labor because they do not own the means of production. The owners of the means of production hire labor in order to extract surplus value and make a profit.
The division of labor still exists in a socialist society and so there is still alienation within production. However since socialism allows for the full employment of new technologies etc. the working day can be much shortened so that there is more free time for the full development of human powers.
As for the Soviet system. It was not the division of labor that was the problem but several others that I can think of. First the Soviets were interested in catching up with and surpassing the west in production. Also they were under siege from the west and also were involved in a horrendous war so that production had to be oriented towards the war effort. Also there was a policy of developing the means of production quickly. Thus the surplus was appropriated by the state for needs as defined by the ruling Communist Party not the workers.
There was no democratic control in the workplace thus Soviet managers could imitate western capitalist managers techniques to maximize profit at the expense of the workers. Needs such as control over work time speed etc holding managers responsible for abuse of workers were not met. But this is not a result of ownership or division labor but power relations and the lack of democracy within the Soviet System. If the workers truly owned the means of production and used them for their needs there no doubt would be democratic control of the workplace.
Ownership is of importance but so is the division of labor. As I understand it Marxists at least do not see socialism as doing away with the division of labor. What is done away with is unnecessary labor within that division as a means of maximizing profits for capital.. With most of the day free time because there is no wage slavery the alienation caused by the division of labor is not a huge problem.
Cheers, ken ----- Original Message ---- From: // ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 11:08:58 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bad Times and the Left
On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
<snip happens>
> It is not the "system" or "ownership" but the division of labor that
> matters here. You can create any political system you want and label
> it however you want, but as long as the division of labor remains in
> place - it will make little difference for the management-labor
> relations. And since nobody has yet found out how a modern economy
> can function without a division of labor, the de facto class society
> is here to stay, revolution or not. The best thing we can hope for is
> implementing institutions that mitigate this division and reduce the
> excesses. This is where social democracy comes handy. The
> Scandinavians obtained quite remarkable results from it.
Brilliantly put! A lucid explication of the paradox confronting a non-expert (such as myself) who is generally sympathetic to Western Leftism.
—ravi
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk