Socialism

5149 readers

1 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What are socialist views on specialization of labour compared to task generalization / job rotation? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I see many self-identified socialists imply that, in a socialist society, people would constantly be doing different jobs and would split their labour between many different jobs rather than specialize. It definitely makes sense when it comes to jobs that don't require too much specialization, but how does this work with highly specific jobs that require a disproportionately high amount of resources to become skilled in? Would they spend more time on a specialization, would they frequently rotate the same as everyone else?

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

To put it as an article I saw the other day said, “who does the dishes after the revolution? Everyone.”

There’s a tendency I see among some leftists, like, “after the revolution I’ll knit for everyone all the time.” Nooo. We don’t need your knitted goods, to be honest. Machines do it better and faster. If you want to knit in your newly liberated free time, that’s fine. You can also help clean the toilets and scrub the floors.

In other words, I don’t really know whether I discount specialization entirely, but I do know that contribution to the various modes of production helps prevent elitism and ensures a comradeship that sitting in an office all the time and relying on others to do the hard work can never bring.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depends on what branch of Socialism you are asking about, and what stage of Socialism.

If you are asking about early Socialism, I cannot see Specialization being done away with.

If you're asking about full Communism, education and general training would be high enough and difficult aspects largely automated enough where most people can do most available tasks, with some jobs likely requiring more training.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Would you say that something that might take significantly more input to complete a task in, say, being a medical or astrophysics researcher (something that might take months to see results from the work) would be negatively affected by generalizing labour under a more progressed form of communism (assuming there aren't many people qualified to do this work in the population), or would you say it wouldn't be significantly less effecient than if labour were specialized?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it's important to recognize how Communism is achieved.

Communism is the result of resolved contradictions in Socialism, itself the resolved major contradiction of Capitalism. In this manner, dialectically, Communism is a heavily advanced form of Socialism.

Communism is not a goal to be "speedrun, any%," except in more Anarchist tendencies of Socialism that cannot reconcile with a state. Communism is built up thoroughly and completely.

In that manner, the generalizing of labor is something that happens gradually, steadily, and thoroughly. If it negatively impacts specialized fields, then it was too fast! These fields should be automated and simplified, and general labor more highly trained, such that Communist labor is largely interchangeable.

Specialization is still possible, but not required.

Does that make sense?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In a couple of sentences, why should labor be largely interchangeable? I haven't read much but I imagine there's a straightforward argument. If there isn't and it requires a page, don't worry about it! 😊

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is a vast oversimplification, but the division of labor itself reinforces class dynamics and can create them, so any good Socialist movement will work against it in the long run.

As for the means, automation and improvements in technology make labor easier to grasp and train for, and thus easier to swap around, so to speak.

Marx envisioned a society where someone could labor in a factory in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and debate in the evening, if they so chose.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Oh I get it now. Thanks! I've come to similar conclusions about division of labor in families I've observed and its effects on them. In my family, everyone yields the power tools and does the laundry.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People don't become research scientists to make money, especially after they take on tons of debt that will take decades to pay off. Does more need to be said about their motivations? If you give people what they require, they will do what they want. Many of them want to do specialized jobs because they want to. Just because many will not specialize does not mean that nobody will specialize.

Choice is the point. And some will choose to specialize.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think you missed the point of the post. This is about if and/or how division of labour is used in socialism, not whether people will do jobs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Perhaps I do misunderstand. What do you mean by how the division of labor is used?

My point was that people will do what they want, and if they want to do those jobs now, they would also likely want to do them in this hypothetical situation.

These Individuals may rotate as others are expected to, but they could do that more easily in the current system already. High valued education and experience is sought after and the opportunity for them is higher than your everyday person.