The division of labor leads to its growth. Division of labor as a law of social development. Forms of manifestation of the division of labor
A. Smith's research begins with the definition of the subject of economic science. Subject study, according to Smith, is the economic development of society and the improvement of its well-being. As N. Kondratiev noted, "Smith's entire classic work on the wealth of nations is written from the point of view of what conditions and how lead to the greatest prosperity, as he understood it." Thus, A. Smith explores the nature of wealth and the conditions for its increase .
The whole system of economic views of A. Smith is based on the idea that the wealth of society is created by labor in the production process. The very first words with which the book begins: “The annual labor of every nation is the initial fund that supplies it with all the products necessary for the existence and convenience of life”, make it possible to understand that, according to Smith, it is the economy, developing, that increases the wealth of the people, and this wealth acts not in the form of money, but in the form of material (physical) goods. Thus, unlike the mercantilists, under wealth Smith does not understand money, but material goods created by labor. Accordingly, true source of wealth - this is the activity of people who annually create a lot of goods consumed by them.
A. Smith writes that the natural forces of nature without human activity would remain fruitless and useless. From this he concludes that since wealth is generated by labor in general, and not only by land, then productive there will be not the labor of any one class (as with the Physiocrats), but the labor of all classes, of the whole nation as a whole. Hence, primary sphere, where wealth is created, becomes not a sphere of circulation, as with the mercantilists, but production area , while without singling out any branches (unlike the physiocrats).
Having established the content and source of creating the wealth of society, A. Smith considers conditions for its growth . A. Smith says that the "wealth" of society, that is, the volume of production and consumption of products, depends on two factors: 1) of the share of the population employed in productive labor and 2) on the level of labor productivity. He considered the first factor less important, pointing out that there are many peoples numerous, but poor. The second factor is incomparably more important.
According to A. Smith, the growth of social labor productivity is determined by division of labor . Smith writes that the wealth created in a country in a year is the product of total labor all workers. Wealth comes from their cooperation and cooperation, which is the result of the division of labor in society. Attaching the greatest importance to the division of labor as a condition for the growth of wealth, Smith turned it into starting point of your research. Beginning his book with the division of labor, A. Smith portrays it as main factor growth in the productivity of social labor. Indeed, at the manufacturing stage of capitalism, when machines were still rare and manual labor predominated, it was the division of labor that was the main factor in the growth of its productivity, since the most productive is the execution of simple operations.
A. Smith considers the division of labor of two kinds - the division of labor in manufacture and the social division of labor. Consideration of the issue A. Smith begins with division of labor in manufacturing. A. Smith gives his famous example of a pin manufactory, where the specialization of workers and the division of operations between them allows workers, even when they are "not too well provided with the necessary machines", to increase production hundreds of times. A. Smith believed that the division of labor in manufacture increases productivity in three ways: by increasing the dexterity of each worker; saving time when moving from one type of activity to another; stimulating the invention and production of machines that facilitate and reduce human labor.
The division of labor in manufacture, where workers specialize in different operations and jointly produce the finished product, contributes to an enormous increase in labor productivity. The same result brings economy-wide division of labor . Society appears to A. Smith as a huge workshop, where there is a division between different types of labor that create social wealth. The division of labor in society, establishing the cooperation of all, to meet the needs of each individual, is the true source of progress and the growth of well-being.
In the same time origin of the division of labor different at the micro- and macroeconomic levels. If in manufactory the specialization of jobs is created by the manager, then in the national economy the division of labor arises. naturally .
The division of labor is a consequence of the common human nature exchange instinct . This instinct is an innate human quality. It develops spontaneously under the influence of the simultaneous action of the personal interest of each and every one. "The division of labor ... is by no means the result of someone's wisdom, foreseeing and realizing the general welfare that will be generated by it: it is a consequence of a certain propensity of human nature, namely, a propensity for me, trade." "... The confidence to exchange all that surplus of the product of his labor, which exceeds his own consumption, for that part of the product of other people that he may need, encourages each person to devote himself to a certain special occupation."
Thanks to division of labor and exchange man manages to increase his productivity and his well-being many times over, and the progress of national wealth consists in increasing the whole mass of various objects placed at the disposal of consumers.
How to make the division of labor widespread? A. Smith considers the most important condition - the use of machines. Each expanding firm must introduce more machines to increase the productivity of its workers. The use of machines, in turn, makes it possible to further specialize labor operations and increase labor productivity. We can say that A. Smith, in the concept of the division of labor, outlined the doctrine technological progress as the main means of increasing the wealth of the nation.
Adam Smith considered the dependence of the division of labor from market development. An extensive market, he argued, creates favorable conditions for the division of labor and the specialization of production. On this basis, high labor productivity and the growth of the wealth of society are achieved. With a narrow market, the possibilities for the division of labor are limited, and the growth of labor productivity is difficult.
Although certain provisions of the doctrine of the division of labor were formulated by predecessors, they received a completely new meaning in the interpretation of A. Smith. He convincingly proved that labor is the source of the wealth of society, and division of labor, which in a market economy has a natural development, is the most important factor in increasing labor productivity and multiplying social wealth.
Division of labor
https://website/wp-content/plugins/svensoft-social-share-buttons/images/placeholder.png
DIVISION OF LABOR - a form of cooperation in which individual groups or individual participants in the production process perform various labor operations that complement each other. The social division of labor arises at the early stages of the development of human society and develops along with the growth of production, with the development and improvement of the tools of labor, the growth of the population, the development and complication of social life. The beginning of the social division of labor was...
DIVISION OF LABOR- a form of cooperation in which individual groups or individual participants in the production process perform various labor operations that complement each other.
The social division of labor arises at the early stages of the development of human society and develops along with the growth of production, with the development and improvement of the tools of labor, the growth of the population, the development and complication of social life.
The germ of the social division of labor was already the natural division of labor. "Within the family - and with further development within the clan - a natural division of labor arises as a result of sex and age differences" (Marx, Capital, vol. I, 8th ed., 1936, p. 284). It is the division of labor between men and women, between adults and adolescents; some are engaged in hunting, fishing (men), others - picking plants (women), etc.
The growth of productive forces, different geographical conditions that have an impact on the development of production among different tribes, clans, as well as their different levels of development, the emergence of conflicts between them and the subordination of one clan to another accelerated the growth of the division of labor. In turn, the development of the division of labor gives a powerful impetus to raising the productive forces to a higher level.
The first major social division of labor that arose historically was the separation of pastoral tribes from the rest of the mass of barbarians, the separation of cattle breeding from agriculture. Pastoral tribes, specializing in one thing - cattle breeding, increased labor productivity, and they produced not only more means of subsistence, but also other means of subsistence compared to non-pastoral tribes. This created the basis for regular exchange, which was originally carried out between the tribes, whose representatives were the elders of the clans, and later, when the herds began to become the private property of individual families, the exchange penetrated widely into the community and became a permanent phenomenon. Along with the growth of labor productivity in the field of animal husbandry, land cultivation improved, home crafts improved, and a need arose for additional labor. The growth of labor productivity on the basis of the first major social division of labor led to the fact that the worker already produced more products than he himself consumed, i.e., created a surplus product, which is the economic basis for the emergence of private property, the class of exploiters and the class of the exploited. If at previous stages of social development prisoners of war were killed, because with the extremely low productivity of social labor they could not create a surplus product, now it has become profitable to turn prisoners of war into slaves.
Thus, from the first major social division of labor, which played a huge role in the decomposition of the primitive communal system, the first antagonistic class slave-owning society arose: given historical conditions, necessarily entailed slavery. From the first major social division of labor also arose the first major division of society into two classes - masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited ”(Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, in the book: Marx and Engels, Soch., vol. XVI, part 1, page 137).
Metal played a great revolutionary role in the further growth of the division of labor. Iron enabled the craftsman to produce sharper and stronger tools, it made possible agriculture on a large scale. With the use of iron, handicrafts became much more diverse. But this diversity dictated the need for a new division of labor. Handicraft separated from agriculture. This was the second major social division of labor, which marked the beginning of the separation of the city from the countryside. “The basis of any developed division of labor carried out through the exchange of commodities is the separation of the city from the countryside. It can be said that the entire economic history of society is summed up in the movement of this opposition” (Marx, Capital, vol. I, 8th ed., 1936, p. 285). The separation of handicrafts from agriculture gave a new impetus to the development of exchange.
In the early stages of the development of human society, all production was based on common ownership of land, on the direct combination of agriculture and handicrafts. The main mass of products was produced for direct consumption, and only the excess was exchanged, turned into a commodity. The work schedule was based on the traditions and authority of the best people of the family. With the division of production into agriculture and handicrafts, production for the purpose of exchange arose, trade developed, not only internal and frontier, but also maritime. The new division of labor led to a new division of society into classes. In addition to the free and the slaves, there were the poor and the rich.
At the next stage of social development, the third major social division of labor took place, which consisted in the separation of trade from production, in the allocation of a special class that specialized only in the exchange of goods, the class of merchants. Under feudalism, the serfs and dependent peasants, who represented the main productive force of this mode of production, were engaged in cultivating the land in small parcel farms and feudal estates; they also produced industrial products. The division of labor in the cities between workshops was extremely insignificant, and within the workshops between individual workers it was completely absent. Feudal fragmentation, the weak connection between cities and feudal estates, limited needs, the dominance of guild organizations, which artificially inhibited competition, were an obstacle to the growth of the division of labor.
Primitive human society did not know the separation of mental and physical labor. The division of labor in the beginning was only “a division of labor that took place by itself, “naturally arising” due to natural inclinations (for example, physical strength), needs, accidents, etc., etc. The division of labor becomes a real division only from the moment when there is a division of material and spiritual labor” (Marx and Engels, Nemetskaya Ideologiya, Soch., vol. IV, p. 21). In a class society, spiritual activity becomes the privilege of the ruling classes. In a slave-owning society, spiritual activity was the privilege of slave-owners. The lot of slaves was hard physical labor. During the period of domination of the feudal mode of production, the main productive force of the countryside - serfs and dependent peasants - was deprived of the possibility of cultural growth and development. The division between mental and physical labor, between city and country, led to the spiritual savagery of the peasant, caused "the idiocy of village life." The most acute form is taken by the division of mental and physical labor under capitalism. Under capitalism, millions of proletarians are deprived of the opportunity to receive an education, to develop and show their strength and abilities. They are doomed to exhausting, monotonous work, the fruits of which are reaped by parasites. Capitalism turns education and science into its monopoly, into an instrument of exploitation in order to keep the vast majority of people in slavery. Only the proletarian revolution, destroying forever the foundations of the class division of society, creates the conditions for the destruction of the antithesis between mental and physical labor.
The development of the social division of labor was a necessary prerequisite for the development of a commodity economy and capitalism. Lenin characterizes the social division of labor as "the common basis of the commodity economy and capitalism." “A commodity economy,” says Lenin, “develops in proportion to the development of the social division of labor. And this division of labor consists precisely in the fact that one after another branch of industry, one after another type of processing of a raw product come off from agriculture and become independent, thus forming an industrial population” (Lenin, Soch., vol. II, pp. 215 and 85). And back. The development of the commodity-capitalist economy, by raising the level of the productive forces, by splitting the production process more and more into independent parts, gives a powerful impetus to the further progress of the social division of labour.
During the period of domination of the capitalist mode of production, the division of labor develops widely both within society and within each individual enterprise. A feature of the division of labor within society is the fragmentation of the means of production between individual independent commodity producers, the connection of which is carried out through the exchange of goods. Within the enterprise there is a manufacturing division of labor, a feature of which is the concentration of the means of production in the hands of capitalist owners and the organization of production based on wage labor. Marx writes: "While the division of labor in the whole society - whether it takes place through the exchange of commodities or independently of it - belongs to the most diverse socio-economic formations, the manufacturing division of labor is a completely specific creation of the capitalist mode of production" (Mark s, Capital , vol. I, 8th ed., 1930, p. 291). A necessary prerequisite for the emergence of the manufacturing division of labor was the isolation of the means of production, which opposed the worker as capital. Arising at a certain stage of social development, with a certain degree of maturity of the division of labor within society, the manufacturing division of labor, in turn, influences the social division of labor, developing and dividing it further.
The social and manufacturing divisions of labor are closely linked, mutually conditioned and influence each other. But there are significant differences between them. “The division of labor within society is served by the buying and selling of the products of the various branches of labor; the connection between the partial works of manufacture is established by the sale of various labor powers to the same capitalist, who uses them as a combined labour-power. The manufacturing division of labor presupposes the concentration [concentration] of the means of production in the hands of one capitalist, while the social division of labor presupposes the division of the means of production among many commodity producers independent of each other. In manufacture, the iron law of strictly defined proportions and relations distributes the working masses among various functions; on the contrary, the whimsical play of chance and arbitrariness determines the distribution of commodity producers and their means of production among various branches of social labor ... The manufacturing division of labor presupposes the unconditional authority of the capitalist in relation to the workers, who form simple members of the aggregate mechanism belonging to him; the social division of labor opposes to each other independent commodity producers who do not recognize any other authority than competition, other than that coercion that is the result of the struggle of their mutual interests ”(Marx, ibid., pp. 287-288).
In a capitalist society based on private ownership of the means of production, on the exploitation of one class by another, the division of labor, like the entire process of social reproduction, takes place spontaneously. Anarchy and despotism reign here at the same time. In capitalist manufacture, the entire process of labor necessary for the production of this or that product is split into separate operations between individual partial workers. Each worker now performs only one operation, and the entire product is performed by a collection of many sub-workers that complement each other. Accordingly, there is a differentiation and adaptation of the tools of labor in relation to partial operations. Thus, the manufacturing division of labor transforms the worker into a partial worker, and his tools into partial tools. “The specific mechanism for the manufacturing period remains the collective worker itself, composed of many partial workers” (Marx, ibid., p. 281).
The invention and use of machines deepens and develops the manufacturing division of labor. Machines are increasingly replacing the worker performing the same mechanically repetitive processes. The development of machine production has turned the worker into an appendage to the machine, while labor has been deprived of any content, has intensified the exploitation of the worker, has led to the fact that the spiritual forces of the material process of production oppose the worker as an alien force dominating him. The manufacturing division of labor thus led to an even sharper separation of mental labor from physical labor.
The invention of machines and the organization of machine production resulted in a further division of labor within society, led to the final separation of industry from agriculture, and increased the division of labor not only between individual branches within a country, but also between individual countries. Before the invention of machinery, the industry of every country was directed to the processing of raw materials produced within the country. Thanks to the use of machines and steam, the division of labor assumed such proportions that large-scale industry became dependent on the world market, on the international division of labor. Machine production extended the division of labor to the entire world economy and turned production into social production. The division of labor between countries that produce different products—industrial and agricultural countries—connections between them, world trade, etc., are now the most important condition for the development of the industry of each country.
The most important consequence of the division of labor is an increase in labor productivity. Thanks to the division of labor, there is an improvement in the use of labor power: each worker, adapting to only one operation, increases dexterity, dexterity, etc., he does not have to waste time moving from one operation to another; the unification of production creates an economy in the means of production; due to the simplification of individual operations, unskilled labor power is used, etc. Under the conditions of the capitalist mode of production, all the benefits from the division of labor are used by capitalists in order to increase capital and increase exploitation. The division of labor was a powerful means capital accumulation (cm.).
In an antagonistic class society, the growth of the social division of labor, causing the distribution of productive forces in accordance with the interests of the ruling class, contributing to the expansion of the market, the expansion of the domination of capital, leads to an increase in contradictions, to a rupture between individual groups of society. Already the second major social division of labor, which led to the separation of the city from the countryside, doomed the rural population to a thousand years of stupidity, and the townspeople to the enslavement of everyone to his craft; it created a gulf between the city and the countryside. The division of labor in capitalist society inevitably leads to a deepening of the contradictions of capitalism, to a deepening of the gulf between labor and capital, and develops on an antagonistic basis. “The division of labor already from the very beginning involves the division of labor conditions, tools and materials, and thereby the fragmentation of accumulated capital between different owners, and thus the splitting between capital and labor” (Marx and Engels, German Ideology, Soch., vol. IV, p. 56). Under capitalism, everyone has his own circle of activities, from which he cannot get out if he does not want to lose his means of subsistence.
The division of labor in the modern capitalist factory, the capitalist use of machinery, intensifies the exploitation of the worker. The introduction of the conveyor and the automation of production turn the worker into an appendage of an automatically operating mechanism. The new technical improvements introduced by the capitalists are a new bondage for the worker, because under capitalism the machine does not free the worker from labor, but deprives his labor of any content. This enslavement of man can only be abolished with the destruction of the capitalist mode of production.
The Great October Socialist Revolution, which was victorious in 1/6 of the globe, established the dictatorship of the proletariat and destroyed the capitalist mode of production. Basically, a socialist society has been built in the USSR. The means of production no longer stand in opposition to the worker as capital, they constitute public socialist property. The exploitation of man by man has been destroyed forever. In the socialist economic system, all production, both in town and in the countryside, the distribution of labor between individual branches and within production, is regulated and directed by a single state national economic plan, in the interests of the whole people, the whole of society. Work and the attitude towards work of the worker himself have changed radically. Instead of forced labor for the capitalist, labor has become a social matter, a matter of honor, glory, valor and heroism. The dictatorship of the proletariat marked the beginning of the destruction of the opposition between mental and physical labor and created all the prerequisites for its final destruction. During the years of socialist construction, the USSR has been transformed into a country of highly productive labor, a country with an abundance of products. The USSR has the shortest working day in the world; the working people are provided with all conditions for all-round cultural and intellectual development.
One of the most important prerequisites for eliminating the opposition between mental and physical labor is raising the cultural and technical level of workers to the level of engineering and technical workers. In this regard, the growth and development of the Stakhanov movement, which is one of the most important conditions for the elimination of the opposition between mental and physical labor, is of great importance. Tov. Stalin pointed out that the Stakhanov movement was preparing the conditions for the transition from socialism to communism. The most important factor in the cultural and technical upsurge of the working class is the combination of education with industrial labour. The Stakhanovites are the true bearers of the new, socialist labor culture, innovators in the field of science and technology; the rich practice of the Stakhanovites enriches Soviet science and moves it forward. The most important prerequisite for the destruction, the opposition between mental and physical labor, is the final destruction of the opposition between town and country.
The planned organization of socialist production is expressed primarily in unprecedented rates of development of the productive forces, in the convergence of the rates of development of town and countryside, in the rapid elimination of the distinction between town and countryside. The collectivization and mechanization of agriculture have turned agricultural labor into a variety of industrial labor. The huge new growth of the productive forces of the country of socialism, the mass development of the Stakhanovist movement for mastering technology, the mass cultural and technical growth of the working people, the high, genuinely socialist productivity of labor create all the conditions for the final elimination of the opposition between mental labor and physical labor engendered by a class exploiting society, for the transition from the first phase of communism (socialism) to the highest phase - communism. Only a communist society finally abolishes "the subjugation of man to the division of labor" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, in the book: Marx and Engels, Soch., vol. XV, p. 275).
Chapter II "On the cause causing the division of labor"
The division of labor which leads to such advantages is by no means the result of any wisdom that foresaw and realized the general welfare which it would produce: it is the consequence - although very slowly and gradually developing - of a certain inclination of human nature, which by no means had in view of such a useful purpose, namely, the propensity to exchange, trade, to exchange one object for another.
Whether this tendency is one of those fundamental properties of human nature for which no further explanation can be given, or, as seems more likely, it is a necessary consequence of the faculty of reason and the gift of speech, is not our task at the present moment. This propensity is common to all men, and, on the other hand, is not observed in any other species of animals, which, apparently, this kind of agreements, like all others, is completely unknown. When two hounds chase the same hare, it sometimes seems as if they are acting on some kind of agreement. Each of them drives him towards the other or tries to intercept when the other drives him towards her. However, this is by no means the result of any agreement, but the manifestation of an accidental coincidence of their passions, directed at the moment towards the same subject. No one has ever seen a dog deliberately swap a bone with another dog. No one has ever seen any animal gesture or shout to another: this is mine, this is yours, I will give you one in exchange for another. When an animal wants to get something from a person or another animal, it knows no other means of persuasion, how to win the favor of those from whom it expects handouts. The puppy caresses his mother, and the lapdog tries innumerable tricks to attract the attention of his dining master when he wants him to feed her. A man sometimes resorts to the same tricks with his fellows, and if he has no other means of inducing them to act in accordance with his desires, he tries to win their favor by servility and all kinds of flattery. However, he would not have had time to do so in all cases. In a civilized society, he constantly needs the assistance and cooperation of many people, while in the course of his whole life he hardly manages to acquire the friendship of a few people. In almost all other species of animals, each individual, having reached maturity, becomes completely independent and in its natural state does not need the help of other living beings; meanwhile, a person constantly needs the help of his neighbors, and in vain will he expect it only from their favor. He will achieve his goal more quickly if he appeals to their selfishness and can show them that it is in their own interest to do for him what he requires of them. Anyone who offers another a deal of any kind is offering to do just that. Give me what I need and you will get what you need - that is the meaning of any such offer. It is in this way that we receive from each other a much greater proportion of the services we need. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect to get our dinner, but from their self-interest. We appeal not to their humanity, but to their selfishness, and never tell them about our needs, but about their benefits. No one but a beggar wants to depend mainly on the goodwill of his fellow citizens. Even a beggar is not wholly dependent on him. The mercy of good people supplies him, however, with the means necessary for existence. But, although this source ultimately provides him with everything necessary for life, it does not and cannot provide him directly with the necessities of life at the moment when the beggar needs them. Most of his needs are met in the same way as the needs of other people, namely through a contract, an exchange, a purchase. With the money that the beggar receives from other people, he buys food. He exchanges the old dress that is given to him for another, more suitable for him, or for housing, food, and finally for money with which he can buy food, clothes, rent a room, depending on the need.
In the same way that by contract, barter, and purchase we obtain from each other the greater part of the mutual services we need, so also this propensity to exchange originally gave rise to the division of labour. In a hunting or shepherding tribe, one person makes, for example, bows and arrows with more speed and dexterity than anyone else. He often trades them with his fellow tribesmen for cattle or game; in the end, he sees that he can get more cattle and game in this way than if he hunts himself. Considering his own advantage, he makes his main occupation out of the manufacture of bows and arrows and thus becomes a kind of gunsmith. Another stands out for his ability to build and roof small huts or huts. He gets used to helping his neighbors in this work, who reward him in the same way - with cattle and game, until at last he recognizes it profitable for himself to devote himself entirely to this occupation and become a kind of carpenter. In the same way, a third becomes a blacksmith or coppersmith, a fourth a tanner or tanner of hides and skins, the main parts of the clothing of savages. And thus the certainty of exchanging all that surplus of the product of his own labor which exceeds his own consumption, for that part of the product of the labor of others which he may need, induces every man to devote himself to a certain special occupation, and to develop to perfection his natural gifts in this special area.
Different people differ from each other in their natural abilities much less than we suppose, and the very difference in abilities that distinguish people in their mature age is in many cases not so much a cause as a consequence of the division of labor. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a scientist and a simple street porter, for example, seems to be created not so much by nature as by habit, practice and education. At the time of their birth, and during the first six or eight years of their lives, they were very similar to each other, and neither their parents nor their peers could notice any noticeable difference between them. At this age or a little later, they begin to accustom them to various activities. And then the difference of abilities becomes noticeable, which gradually becomes more and more, until, finally, the vanity of the scientist refuses to recognize even a shadow of similarity between them. But if there were no tendency to bargain and exchange, each person would have to get for himself everything he needs for life. Everyone would have to perform the same duties and do the same work, and there would not then be such a variety of occupations that alone could give rise to a significant difference in abilities.
This propensity to exchange not only creates the difference in ability so marked in people of different professions, it also makes this difference useful. Many breeds of animals that are recognized as belonging to the same species differ from nature by a much more pronounced dissimilarity of abilities than is apparently observed in people, so long as they remain free from the influence of habit and education. A scientist in his mind and abilities is not half as different from a street porter as a yard dog is from a hound, or a hound from a lap dog, or the latter from a sheep dog. However, these different breeds of animals, though all belonging to the same species, are almost useless to each other. The strength of the yard dog is not in the least complemented by the speed of the hound, or the intelligence of the lap dog, or the obedience of the shepherd dog. All these different faculties and qualities, because of the lack of ability or inclination to exchange and bargain, cannot be used for general purposes and do not in any way contribute to the better adaptation and comfort of the whole species. Each animal is compelled to take care of itself and defend itself separately and independently from others and receives absolutely no benefit from the various abilities with which nature has endowed animals like it. On the contrary, among people the most dissimilar gifts are useful to one another; their various products, thanks to the propensity to bargain and exchange, are collected, as it were, into one common mass, from which each person can buy for himself any number of products of other people that he needs.
From the book Prison Encyclopedia author Kuchinsky Alexander VladimirovichDivision: castes, suits, ranks In places of deprivation of liberty, prisoners are divided into several rather closed groups. These are thieves, peasants, goats and untouchables, pariahs of the prison and the zone - roosters (combs, beer, bastards, lowered, offended), feathered, kochets, etc. and
From the book The World's Largest and Most Sustainable States author Solovyov AlexanderThe great division of peoples The well-fed does not understand the hungry. Russian proverb Back in the days when mammoths were found on our Earth, the then relatively small community of people once and for all divided into two categories: the rich (there were relatively few of them) and all
From the book The World After the Crisis. Global Trends 2025: A Changing World. Report of the US National Intelligence Council author author unknownCHAPTER 7 Dividing Power in a Multipolar World In the next 15 to 20 years, the United States will have more influence on the development of the system of international relations than any other actor, but in a multipolar world it will lose the power it has enjoyed over the past
From the book The Truth about the Military Rzhev. Documents and Facts author Fedorov Evgeny StepanovichLABOR EXCHANGE The situation with industry was no better. Although for the resumption of production in November 1941, a labor exchange was created. The exchange existed until December 27, 1941. She was located on the street. 3rd International near the Raymag. It was headed by a German lieutenant,
From the book Theory of Military Art (collection) by William CairnsXXVIII. Separation of forces at night On the eve of the battle, no forces should be separated, because during the night the situation may change either due to the retreat of the enemy, or due to the arrival of large reinforcements, which will allow him to resume the offensive and counteract
From the book A Brief History of Freemasonry author Gould Robert FrickTHE GREAT DIVISION IN ENGLISH FREEMASONRY The many years of rivalry between the Grand Lodges of England was accompanied by such vitriolic attacks that some scholars have even called this time the "Great Schism". Henry Sadler's research in the archives of the Grand Lodge proves that
From the book Main Anti-Russian meanness author Mukhin Yury IgnatievichThe division of prisoners into three categories. In The Katyn Detective, I drew attention to the Katyn crime scene as a handwriting of the Germans, but since the writing of that book, the Goebbels brigade has accumulated (including in the full sense of the word) a lot of other data, and the place
From the book My Lord is Time author Tsvetaeva MarinaHero of Labor For the first time - in the magazine "Will of Russia" (Prague. 1925. No. 9/10, 11). On October 9, 1924, V. Ya. Bryusov died in Moscow. In August of the following year, Tsvetaeva completed her notes on the poet, her last duty to the deceased. “The dead are defenseless,” said Tsvetaeva. Her notes on
From the book Rise of the Consumers author Panyushkin ValerySeparation of powers In 1998, ten years after the start of perestroika, having experienced the collapse of the country, the change of one president, four parliaments and three governments, no one seriously thought that one could argue with the authorities. Probably hundreds of years in Russia with power
From the book Russian Literature of the First Third of the 20th Century author Bogomolov Nikolai Alekseevich From the book Far Eastern Neighbors author Ovchinnikov Vsevolod VladimirovichPearls of Labor Imagine a mountain range that boldly wedged into the ocean, as if intermarried with the water element. Wooded slopes rise directly from the sea blue. Wherever you look - secluded bays, quiet bays, similar to mountain lakes. Here you understand why the Japanese, like
From the book Fuchses, commiltons, philistres... Essays on student corporations in Latvia author Ryzhakova Svetlana Igorevna6.1. Separation of statuses: fuchses, commiltons, philistres Relationships, rights or obligations, transitions from status to status (training, initiation rituals). Exclusion from corporations. Relationships between representatives of different corporations. Relationship between
From the book US National Security Council Directive 20/1 of August 18, 1948 by Etzold Thomas H4. DIVISION OR NATIONAL UNITY First of all, is it desirable in this case that the present territories of the Soviet Union remain united by one regime, or is their separation desirable? And if it is desirable to keep them united, at least to a large extent
From the book Reasons for Increasing Labor Productivity author Smith AdamChapter I "On the division of labor" The greatest progress in the development of the productive power of labor and a significant share of the art, skill and ingenuity with which it is directed and applied, were, apparently, the result of the division of labor. The results of the division of labor for
From the author's bookChapter III "The division of labor is limited by the size of the market" Since the possibility of exchange leads to a division of labor, the degree of the latter must always be limited by the limits of this possibility of exchange, or, in other words, by the size of the market. When the market is small, neither
From the author's bookChapter X "On Wages and Profits Under Different Uses of Labor and Capital" The totality of the advantages and disadvantages of the various uses of labor and capital in the same locality must be exactly the same, or constantly tend towards equality. If in this
The basis of economic development is the creation of nature itself - the division of functions between people, based on age, sex, physical, physiological and other characteristics. But man was able to take a qualitative step forward and move from the natural division of functions to the division of labor, which became the basis of the economy and socio-economic progress. The mechanism of economic cooperation of people assumes that some group or individual focuses on the performance of a strictly defined type of work, while others are engaged in other types of activities.
The concept of "division of labor"
If you pay attention to the isolation of the types of activities that are performed by each member of society, then you can see that all people are isolated from each other in one way or another by the nature of their occupations, activities, functions performed. This isolation is the division of labor. Consequently, the division of labor is a historical process of isolation, consolidation, modification of certain types of activity, which takes place in social forms of differentiation and implementation of various types of labor activity.
Now we know that in our lives we are doomed to perform only certain types of activities, while in the aggregate they represent a “borderless sea” for the free choice of the method and direction of our “swimming”. But are we really so free if our activity is narrowly focused? Why does it happen that, performing only a rather narrow and specific type of activity, we have all the necessary benefits that are in no way connected or are connected very conditionally with our work activity? After some reflection, one can come to the conclusion that people have everything (or almost everything) they need only because they exchange the results of their labor activity.
The division of labor in society is constantly changing, and the very system of various types of labor activity is becoming more and more complex, since the labor process itself is becoming more complex and deepening.
Concentrating efforts on the manufacture of any one thing and exchanging the products of his labor for the products of the labor of other people, a person soon discovered: this saves him time and effort, since the productivity of labor of all participants in the exchange of goods increases. And therefore, the mechanism of expanding and deepening the division of labor, launched in ancient times, is still working properly to this day, helping people to use the available resources in the most rational way and receive the greatest benefit.
The isolation of various types of labor activity creates conditions for each participant in the production process to achieve high skill in his chosen business, which ensures a further improvement in the quality of manufactured products and an increase in their output.
Productivity and labor intensity
It can be concluded that a commodity is a product of labor intended for exchange in order to satisfy social needs, i.e. the needs of not the commodity producer himself, but of any member of society. As already noted, any commodity has an exchange value, or the ability to exchange in a certain proportion for other goods. However, all goods enter into exchange only because they can satisfy this or that need. This is the value of the acquired good by one or another economic entity.
Barter and commodity circulation
Initially, people entered into a simple commodity exchange, or such exchange relations in which the sale and purchase of goods coincided in time and took place without the participation of money. The form of such commodity exchange is as follows: T (commodity) - T (commodity). As a result of the development of commodity exchange, more and more opportunities opened up for the isolation of types of activity, because the guarantee of obtaining the missing goods or products, from the production of which the commodity producer deliberately refused, increased. In the process of development of commodity relations, commodity exchange underwent significant transformations until it was replaced by commodity circulation, which is based on money - a universal purchasing tool that has the ability to exchange for any product.
With the advent of money, exchange was divided into two opposite and complementary acts: sale and purchase. This created the conditions for the intermediary merchant to join in the exchange. As a result, a new major division of labor took place (earlier there was a separation of hunting from agriculture, then handicrafts from agriculture) - the separation of trade into a special large type of economic activity. Thus, commodity circulation is an exchange relationship that is mediated by a monetary equivalent. It has the following form: T (goods) - D (money) - T (goods).
Types of division of labor
For a general idea of the system of division of labor, we will give a description of its various types.
Natural division of labor
Historically, the natural division of labor was the first to appear. The natural division of labor is the process of separating the types of labor activity according to gender and age. This division of labor played a decisive role at the dawn of the formation of human society: between men and women, between adolescents, adults and the elderly.
This division of labor is called natural because its character stems from the very nature of man, from the delimitation of the functions that each of us has to perform due to our physical, intellectual and spiritual merits. We must not forget that initially each of us is most naturally adapted to perform certain types of activities. Or, as the philosopher Grigory Skovoroda said, the "affinity" of each person to a certain type of activity. So whatever kind of division of labor we consider, we must remember that visibly or invisibly, the natural division of labor is always present in it. The natural moment manifests itself with the greatest force in the search for ways, forms and methods of self-realization by each person, which often leads not only to a change of place of work, but also a change in the type of work activity. However, this, in turn, depends on the availability of freedom of choice of labor activity, which is predetermined not only by the personal factor, but also by the economic, social, cultural, spiritual and political conditions of human life and society.
No socio-economic system, no matter how advanced it may be, can or should abandon the natural division of labor, especially with regard to women's work. It cannot be associated with those types of labor activity that can harm a woman's health and affect a new generation of people. Otherwise, the society will suffer in the future not only colossal economic, but also moral and moral losses, deterioration of the genetic fund of the nation.
Technical division of labor
Another kind of division of labor is its technical division. The technical division of labor is such a differentiation of the labor activity of people, which is predetermined by the very nature of the means of production used, primarily equipment and technology. Consider an elementary example illustrating the development of this type of division of labor. When a person had a simple needle and thread for sewing, this tool imposed a certain system of labor organization and required a large number of employed workers. When the sewing machine replaced the needle, a different organization of labor was required, as a result of which a significant mass of people engaged in this type of activity was released. As a result, they were forced to look for other areas of application of their labor. Here, the very replacement of a hand tool (needle) by a mechanism (sewing machine) required changes in the existing system of division of labor.
Consequently, the emergence of new types of equipment, technologies, raw materials, materials and their use in the production process dictates a new division of labor. Just as the natural division of labor is initially imposed by the very nature of man, so the technical division of labor is imposed by the very nature of the emerging new technical means, the means of production.
Social division of labor
Finally, it is necessary to dwell on the social division of labor, which is the natural and technical division of labor, taken in their interaction and in unity with economic factors (costs, prices, profits, demand, supply, taxes, etc.), under the influence of which isolation, differentiation of various types of labor activity. The concept of social division of labor includes the natural and technical division of labor due to the fact that any kind of activity cannot be carried out outside of a person (natural division of labor) and outside the material and technical means (technical division of labor) that are used by people in the production process. In production activities, people use either outdated or new equipment, but in either case it will impose an appropriate system of technical division of labor.
As for the social division of labor, we can say that it is predetermined by the socio-economic conditions of production. For example, farmers, having certain land plots, are engaged in both crop production and animal husbandry. However, accumulated experience and economic calculations suggest that if some of them specialize mainly in the cultivation and preparation of feed, while others are engaged only in fattening animals, then production costs will be significantly reduced for both. Over time, it turns out that savings on production costs can be achieved through a separate occupation of meat and dairy farming. Thus, there is a separation of crop production from animal husbandry, and then, within animal husbandry, there is a division of labor into meat and dairy areas.
Historically, the division of labor between livestock and crop production initially proceeded under the direct influence of natural and climatic conditions. The difference in them just ensured lower costs in both cases. Both sectors benefited from sharing their results. It should be noted that in the conditions of market relations, the division of labor is to a decisive extent predetermined by economic expediency, obtaining additional benefits, income, cost reduction, etc.
Sectoral and territorial division of labor
Within the framework of the social division of labor, it is necessary to single out the sectoral and territorial division of labor. The sectoral division of labor is predetermined by the conditions of production, the nature of the raw materials used, technology, equipment and the product being manufactured. The territorial division of labor is characterized by the spatial distribution of various types of labor activity. Its development is predetermined both by differences in natural and climatic conditions and by economic factors. With the development of productive forces, transport, and communications, economic factors play a predominant role. However, the development of extractive industries and agriculture is dictated by natural factors. Varieties of the territorial division of labor are the regional, regional and international division of labor. But neither sectoral nor territorial division of labor can exist outside of each other.
General, private and individual division of labor
From the point of view of coverage, degree of independence, as well as technical, technological, organizational and economic relationships between different types of production in the social division of labor, it is important to distinguish three of its forms: general, private and individual. The general division of labor is characterized by the separation of large types (spheres) of activity, which differ from each other in the form of the product. It includes the allocation of pastoral tribes, i.e. separation of animal husbandry from agriculture, crafts from agriculture (later - industry and agriculture), separation of trade from industry. In the XX century. there was a separation and isolation of such large types of activity as services, scientific production, public utilities, agro-industrial complex, credit and financial sphere.
The private division of labor is the process of separating individual industries within the framework of large branches of production. It is characterized by the release of finished homogeneous or similar products, united by technical and technological unity. The private division of labor includes both individual industries and sub-sectors and individual industries. For example, within the framework of industry, such industries as mechanical engineering, metallurgy, and mining can be named, which in turn include a number of sub-sectors. Thus, in mechanical engineering, there are more than seventy sub-sectors and industries, including such as machine tool building, transport engineering, electrical engineering, and electronics. Such a separation is also characteristic of all the other major types of production listed above.
The individual division of labor characterizes the isolation of the production of individual components of finished products, as well as the allocation of individual technological operations. It includes sub-detailed, node-by-unit (production of parts, assemblies, components) and operational (technological operations for physical, electrophysical, electrochemical processing) division of labor. A single division of labor, as a rule, takes place within individual enterprises.
Historically, the trend in the development of the social division of labor was determined by the transition from the general division to the particular and from the particular to the individual division of labor. In this regard, we can say that in its development the social division of labor went through three stages, each of which was determined by the general division of labor, then the private, then the individual. However, apparently, it is not necessary to absolutize this scheme of development of the social division of labor. It will be shown below that each subsequent type of division of labor can become the initial basis for the development of the historically preceding types of its division.
Forms of manifestation of the division of labor
The forms of manifestation of the social division of labor include differentiation, specialization, universalization and diversification.
Differentiation
Differentiation consists in the process of isolation, "branching" of individual industries, due to the specifics of the means of production, technology and labor used. In other words, it is a process of dividing social production into more and more new types of activity. For example, before the commodity producer was engaged not only in the production of any goods, but also in their sale. Now he has focused all his attention on the production of goods, while their implementation is carried out by another, completely independent economic entity. Thus, a single economic activity was differentiated into two of its varieties, each of which functionally already existed within this unity.
Specialization
Specialization should be distinguished from differentiation. Specialization is based on differentiation, but it develops on the basis of focusing efforts on a narrow range of manufactured products. Specialization, as it were, consolidates and deepens the process of differentiation. In the above example, there was a separation of production from sales (trade). Suppose a commodity producer produced various types of furniture, but later decided to concentrate his efforts on the production of only bedroom sets. The commodity producer has not abandoned the production of furniture, but is reorganizing production on the basis of replacing universal labor tools with specialized ones; the workforce is also selected on the basis of the benefits of experience and knowledge in the specific area of activity. Of course, there are many conventions and transitional states, but it is still necessary to distinguish between these two concepts - differentiation and specialization.
Universalization
Universalization is the opposite of specialization. It is based on the production or sale of a wide range of goods and services. An example is the production of all types and types of furniture and even the production of kitchen utensils, cutlery at one enterprise. An analogue of such production in trade can serve as a department store.
As for the concentration of production, it finds its technical manifestation in the ever-increasing concentration of the means of production (machinery, equipment, people, raw materials) and labor within one enterprise. However, the direction of development of production depends on the nature of their concentration: whether it will follow the path of universalization, or - specialization. This is due to the degree of homogeneity of technology and applied technologies and raw materials, and hence the workforce.
Diversification
Diversification of production deserves special attention. Diversification should be understood as the expansion of the range of products. This is achieved in two ways. The first is market diversification. It is characterized by the expansion of the range of manufactured goods, which are already produced by other enterprises. At the same time, quite often the process of such diversification is accompanied by absorption or mergers with enterprises that produce the same products. The main thing is that in this case, as a rule, there is no enrichment of the range of goods offered to the buyer.
The second way is production diversification, which is directly related to scientific and technological progress (STP), with the emergence of qualitatively new goods and technologies. This type of diversification, in contrast to market diversification, forms and satisfies previously non-existing needs or satisfies existing needs with a new product or service. As a rule, production diversification is closely interconnected with the existing production at a given enterprise and grows organically from it.
Within the framework of industrial diversification, one should distinguish between technological, detailed and product diversification. Product diversification is developing on a large scale. So, with the help of the same technological operations, parts, assemblies, components, it is possible to assemble finished products and products that are very diverse in their functional purpose. But this becomes possible only under the conditions of expanding the process of diversification of the production of constituent components of finished products. It was production diversification, as a result of scientific and technical progress, that led to a change in the development trends of the general, private and individual division of labor.
Modern trends in the development of the division of labor
Structural and technological commonality of products
So, let's consider the current trends in the development of the social division of labor. First of all, we note that under the influence of scientific and technical progress, the constructive and technological commonality of the types of products produced, primarily assemblies, parts, and components, is increasingly manifested. Thus, about 60-75% of modern equipment and vehicles consist of similar or identical components and parts. This is a consequence of detailed and technological diversification.
The diversification of social production could not but affect sectoral differentiation. In conditions of unprecedented pace of product diversification, the principle of sectoral differentiation came into conflict with the tendencies of the social division of labor and the requirements of scientific and technological progress.
The growing constructive and technological commonality of the ever-increasing mass of various types of products gives rise to a complex and contradictory process of real isolation of the production of finished products and their constituent components. The fact is that many types of products of the same economic branch are structurally incompatible with each other in terms of units, assemblies, parts and components, while products from other industries have a lot of structurally common elements with them. For example, there is nothing in common between cars and trucks, except for the principles of their operation and the names of components and parts, while the latter have a lot of identical components with products of the corresponding class of equipment for road construction, tractor, agricultural engineering.
The development of a single division into a private one
The modern production of component products, apparently, is at that stage of its development, at which their production has gone beyond the scope of individual enterprises and has already reached isolation into separate industries. The exit of a single division of labor beyond the boundaries of the enterprise is necessarily and objectively associated with the development of another trend - the development of a single division of labor into a private one. As long as the dedicated specialized production of component products remains closely connected with one final product, one can speak, albeit with certain, and sometimes significant deviations, of a single division of labor. When such production closes on itself a complex of technical, technological, organizational, economic ties for the production of a number of final products, then it acquires an independent, equal, and sometimes predetermining significance in relation to the choice of directions for the development of industries that produce finished products.
The development of detailed and technological specialization of production within society creates the basis for the transition from simple cooperation (based on the division of labor by kind, type, type of product) to complex, based on the combination of detailed and technologically highly specialized industries within industrial complexes, rather than individual enterprises, associations . With the growth of separate industries for the production of units, parts, components and the identification of their constructive and technological commonality, the integration of identical industries occurs. This leads to the formation of independent industries and industries for the production of intersectoral products.
The economic content of these processes lies in the fact that the rigid attachment of the constituent component to a certain type of finished product indicates the prevailing role of the use value of the partial product and, on the contrary, the use of the partial product in a wide range of products indicates the leading role of value. It can be said that the more use value dominates exchange, the wider the scale of the individual division of labor, the more often and more urgently exchange value manifests itself, the more obvious is the development of the particular division of labor. Therefore, with the development of a single division of labor into a private one, an increasing part of partial products acquires an independent value as a commodity, which indicates a new stage in the development of commodity production, market relations.
The growing role of the private division of labor in the process of further development of industrial production is manifested, on the one hand, in the formation of intersectoral industries for the production of structurally and technologically related semi-products, and on the other hand, in the integration of related, but separate industries and industries into industrial complexes.
Private division of labor as the basis of its general division
The considered trend of a private division of labor, of course, does not exclude its development in the traditional way - within the framework of the division of labor. At the same time, various types of labor activity, arising, transforming and separating, thereby create the basis for the formation of new large types of economic activity. Such new formations include public utilities, the agro-industrial complex (AIC), infrastructure, and scientific production. These new large spheres of social production were formed on a qualitatively new basis - through the integration of individual industries, i.e. on the basis of a private division of labor. Thus, the agro-industrial complex was formed on the basis of industries serving agriculture and agricultural production. The communal economy has integrated heat supply, energy supply, gas economy. Consequently, what is currently happening is not the “growth” of a particular division of labor from the general one, but, on the contrary, the formation of a general division of labor on the basis of the particular one.
Having considered various aspects of the division of labor, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the more extensive and deeper the division of labor, the more developed the productive forces of society. A. Smith called the division of labor the leading force in economic development. It personifies the social productive force that arises from the form of labor organization and production management. Sometimes this productive force costs society little, but gives a huge return, expressed in the growth of social labor productivity.
Trends in the development of the division of labor as a universal form of the existence of social production make it possible to determine the most important directions for improving economic relations. Consequently, economic relations represent a social shell for the existence and development of the division of labor. Any changes in the system of division of labor immediately affect the system of relations between economic entities: between some of them, economic ties cease, while between others, on the contrary, they arise. So, the social division of labor and its socialization reflect both the material and technical (productive forces) and socio-economic (production relations) aspects of social production.
Socialization of labor and production
The expansion and deepening of the division of labor presuppose the mutual conditioning and predetermination of separate types of activity and make it impossible for them to exist without each other. In this regard, we can conclude that with the process of deepening and expanding the division of labor, the process of its socialization is simultaneously unfolding. The socialization of labor is the process of drawing various types of labor activity, connected either by the exchange of directly labor activity, or by its results or products, into a single social labor process.
The considered types, types of division of labor and forms of their implementation, as well as the trends of its development, mark the process of unification of disparate spheres and subjects of economic activity into a single socialized production process. In the course of technical and socio-economic progress, various types of activities are combined, because most of the modern benefits are the result of the activities of a mass of people, some of whom are engaged in the production of individual parts, others - components, others - units, fourths - components, fifths - the implementation of individual technical operations, the sixth - assembly and assembly of finished products. The merging of fragmented production processes of various branches and spheres of the national economy into a single social production process is called the socialization of production.
The socialization of production is a contradictory unity of the socialization of labor and the means of production, which lies in the very process of labor, which presupposes both one form or another of the interaction of the total labor force, and one or another socialized form of the functioning of the means of production. Therefore, they can complement each other or develop in opposite directions, entering into conflict.
At the same time, in the relations of the socialization of the means of production, it is necessary to distinguish between two aspects: the socialization of the means of production as a factor of production, i.e. as the material and material content of the process of socialization, and as an object of property relations. Therefore, in the socialization of the means of production, it is necessary to see both a material factor and socio-economic relations.
The division of labor, its socialization and the socialization of the means of production are closely interconnected and complement each other. The relationship between them is mobile to the extent that the very material and technical base of social production is changeable, i.e. productive forces, the division and socialization of labor, and to what extent the forms of property are able to evolve in the direction of the socialization of the means of production in accordance with the requirements of the development of the productive forces.
As in the case of the technical division of labor, the very nature of the means of production used changes both the principle and the extent of their interaction, as well as interaction with the labor force. Therefore, the socialization of the means of production as productive forces does not depend on the social form of management.
However, it is necessary to realize that the means of production can function outside of economic relations, the dominant property relations, and therefore the socialization of the means of production as productive forces is influenced by the social form of their functioning.
So, before the advent of machine production, individual property, individual capital, was dominant, which then, thanks to its own accumulation, moved to manufacturing production (manufactory division of labor). However, the appearance of machines and their use in production opened the way to a qualitatively new division of labor and the socialization of production on the basis of the unification of isolated capitals into social capital in the form of joint-stock companies. Despite the private nature of this corporate form of ownership, in its way of functioning it acts as an integrated social force, as social capital. Thus, private capital, unable to ensure the appropriate division of labor and the socialization of production, was forced to transform into a social form.
Understanding the process of socialization of the means of production in its material, technical and social aspects, in unity with the socialization of labor, allows us to consider the dynamics of social production as a first approximation. The first impetus in its development comes from the productive forces, but its real transformation (as well as economic utilization, the functioning of new productive forces) begins to take place only with the onset of changes in the system of economic relations.
Production loses its private character and becomes a social process due to the absolute dependence of producers on each other, when the means of production, even if they are the property of individuals, appear as public ones by virtue of their relation to production. In the same way, labor in individual enterprises turns out to be really socialized within the framework of a single production process. In this regard, I would like to draw attention to the following aspects of the socialization of the means of production and labor as components of a single process of socialization of production.
The socialization of the means of production can proceed in the following forms. First, by concentrating capital, i.e. increasing its size through the accumulation of investment in the production of part of the profits.
Secondly, on the basis of the centralization of capital, i.e. its growth through the absorption of weak competitors or the merger of relatively equivalent capital into a single entity. The processes of takeovers and mergers lead to the formation of oligopolistic and monopoly capital, which cannot function outside state supervision, and under certain conditions it can be expected to be nationalized.
However, a much larger scale of the real socialization of the means of production is represented by corporate capital with its system of participation in the financial control of branches, branches, subsidiaries and grandchildren, associated enterprises, as well as tens of thousands of "independent" enterprises, which turn out to be tightly tied technologically, technically, organizationally, economically to corporate capital by a system of agreements on scientific, technical and industrial cooperation. This whole set of seemingly legally independent enterprises functions as a single whole, as social capital in a single corporate reproduction process.
At the same time, far from any socialization of the means of production, the growth of capital embodies the socialization of labor and production. Formally, there may be an appearance of socialization of the means of production and labor, while they function in completely unrelated industries. This can also be observed within the framework of corporate capital, when it acts as a conglomerate, i.e. associations of diverse industries and services, which are disparate types of economic activity. Here there is no cooperation of labor between the individual links of production, and the exchange of results of economic activity.
It is necessary to distinguish between direct (direct) and indirect (indirect) socialization of labor. At the same time, its cooperation is important, which can be realized in the form of a direct exchange of labor activity within a separate economic unit (enterprise) and in the form of an exchange of the results of labor activity based on the implementation of production cooperation in the manufacture of certain types of products or by-products. In the latter case, the labor of employees of individual enterprises acts as a part of the labor of the total workers participating in cooperation in the manufacture of certain products. As a result, the labor of all participants in production acquires the social character of the total worker in a given area of production. Under the conditions of scientific and technical progress, a huge number of enterprises are drawn into a single intersectoral production process on the basis of truly cooperative labor, even if the latter is mediated by commodity-money relations.
Thus, the need for a constant exchange of the fruits of specialized labor predetermines the cooperative nature of relations in the sphere of production of goods and services. Production cooperation is the combination of separated production operations or separate releases of units and parts necessary for the manufacture of final products into a single production process.
findings
1. The division of labor is the historical process of separating various types of labor activity into independent or interrelated productions, while the socialization of labor is aimed at drawing various types of labor activity directly or indirectly by exchange into a single social production process.
2. There are three types of division of labor: natural, technical and social. The natural division of labor is predetermined by the separation of labor activity according to gender and age, the technical division of labor is determined by the nature of the equipment and technology used, the social division of labor is determined by the nature of economic relations expressed in prices and costs, supply and demand, etc.
3. Within the framework of the social division of labor, it is necessary to distinguish between individual, private and general division of labor. The first characterizes the division of labor within the enterprise, the second - within individual industries, the third - within the boundaries of large areas of social production.
4. Forms of manifestation of the division of labor are differentiation, specialization, universalization and diversification. Differentiation expresses any process of isolation of certain types of production activity. Specialization expresses a type of differentiation characterized by the concentration of means of production and labor on the production of a narrow range of products, while universalization, on the contrary, is accompanied by a concentration of means of production and labor in order to produce a wide range of products. Diversification refers to the expansion of the range of products produced by an enterprise.
5. The division of labor, speaking in various types and forms of its manifestation, is a determining prerequisite for the development of commodity production and market relations, since the concentration of labor efforts on the production of a narrow range of products or on its individual types forces commodity producers to enter into exchange relations in order to obtain what they lack. good.
We are still far from understanding the last and deepest secrets of life, the laws of the origin of the living. Will we ever open them? Today, we only know that when an organism is formed from individual forms, something is created that did not exist before. Plants and animals are more than a collection of individual cells, and society is more than the sum of the individuals that make it up. We have not yet grasped the full significance of this fact. Our thinking is still limited by the mechanistic theory of the conservation of energy and matter, which is unable to help us understand how one becomes two. And again, in order to expand our knowledge of the nature of life, the understanding of social processes must outstrip the understanding of biological processes.
Historically, the division of labor has two natural sources: the inequality of human abilities and the diversity of the external conditions of human life on earth. In reality, these two facts come down to one thing - the diversity of nature, which does not repeat itself, but creates an infinite and inexhaustibly rich universe. The peculiarity of our study, aimed at sociological knowledge, justifies a separate analysis of these two aspects.
Obviously, as soon as human behavior becomes conscious and logical, it falls under the influence of these two conditions. In general, they are such that they literally impose a division of labor on humanity**. old and young
Izoulet. La cite moderne. Paris, 1894. P. 35IT.
Durkheim (Durkheim. De la division du travail social. Paris, 1893. P. 294 f!) [Durkheim E. On the division of social labor. Odessa, 1900, p. 207 et seq.] following Comte and in a dispute with Spencer, he seeks to prove that the division of labor took root not because it contributes to the growth of production (as economists think), but as a result of the struggle for existence243. The higher the population density, the sharper the struggle for existence. This forces individuals to specialize, otherwise they will not be able to feed themselves. But Durkheim fails to notice that the division of labor makes this outcome possible only because it leads to an increase in labor productivity. Durkheim denies the connection between the growth of labor productivity and the division of labor, based on a false understanding of the basic principle of utilitarianism and the law of saturation of needs (Op. cit P. 218 ff,; 257 ff). His notion that civilization develops under the pressure of changes in population size and density is unacceptable. The population grows because labor becomes more productive and able to feed more people, and not vice versa.
men and women in cooperation find suitable uses for their various abilities. Here is also the embryo of the geographical division of labor: the man goes hunting, and the woman goes to the stream for water. If the strength and ability of everyone, as well as the external conditions of production, were the same everywhere, the idea of a division of labor would never have arisen. On its own, man would never have thought of facilitating his struggle for existence by cooperation and division of labor. Social life could not have arisen among people of equal natural ability in a world endowed with geographical uniformity*. Maybe people would sometimes unite to solve problems beyond the strength of an individual, but such unions are still far from forming a society. Such relationships are short-lived and last only until the common task is solved. For the origin of social life, these alliances are important only because, bringing people together, they bring awareness of differences in natural abilities, and this in turn gives rise to a division of labor.
Once the division of labor has become a fact, it becomes a factor of further differentiation. Further improvement of individual abilities is made possible, and thanks to this, cooperation becomes more and more productive. By cooperating, a person is able to do what he alone would not be able to do, and feasible work becomes more productive. The significance of all this can be understood only after the conditions for productivity growth in conditions of cooperation are formulated with sufficient accuracy for analysis.
The theory of the international division of labor is the most important achievement of classical political economy. It shows that as long as the movement of labor and capital between countries is not free, the geographical division of labor is determined not by absolute, but by relative costs of production**. When the same principle was applied to the division of labor among individuals, it was found that advantage arises not only from cooperating with those who are superior to you in this or that respect, but also from cooperating with those who are decisively inferior to you in every respect. If, due to its superiority over B, A needs 3 hours of labor to produce a unit of commodity p and 2 hours to produce a unit of commodity #, and B needs 5 and 4 hours, respectively, then it is advantageous for A to concentrate on the production of #, and leave the production of p to B. If they both will spend 60 hours on each item, then A will produce 20/?+30#, B - 12/7+15#, and together they will produce 32/7+45#. If, however, A takes 120 hours to produce /? and B to produce #, then they will produce 24/7+60#. Since for A the exchange value of p is 3:2# and for B it is 5:4#, the total result will be greater than in the first case, 32/7+45#. Hence it is clear that the deepening of the division of labor is always beneficial for its participants. The one who cooperates with the less gifted, the less capable, and the less diligent wins as much as the one who cooperates with the more gifted, the more able, and the more diligent. The advantage conferred by the division of labor is of a general nature; it is not limited to those cases when it is necessary to do work beyond the strength of one.
The increase in productivity as a result of the division of labor promotes unification. This growth teaches a person to look at everyone more as a comrade in the common struggle for well-being than as a competitor in the struggle for survival.
On the importance of the variety of local conditions of production for the initial stages of the division of labor, see Steinen. Unter den Naturvolkem Zentalbrasiliens 2 Aufl. Berlin, 1897. gt;S. 196 ff [Steinen K. Among the primitive peoples of Brazil. M., 1935. S. 102 et seq.].
Ricardo.,Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. P. 76 ff [Ricardo D. Op. T.l. S. 72 et seq.]; Mill. Principles of Political Economy. P. 348 ff [Mill D.S. Foundations of political economy. S. 494 et seq.]; Bastable. The Theory of International Trade. 3rd ed. London, 1900. P. 16ff.
This experience turns enemies into friends, war into peace, and creates a society out of disparate people*.
More on the topic Division of labor as a law of social development:
- The philosophy of "economic man" and the division of labor. Theory of productive and unproductive labor
- DIVISION OF LABOR WITHIN MANUFACTURE AND DIVISION OF LABOR WITHIN SOCIETY
- FACTORY LEGISLATION (HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL REGULATIONS). GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN ENGLAND
- [b) MILL'S FAILURE ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR WITH THE LAW OF VALUE. PARTIAL RETURN TO THE THEORY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND]