Division of labor in economic theory - abstract. History of the development of theoretical knowledge about the division of labor Types of division of labor

A. Smith's research begins with a definition of the subject of economic science. Subject study, according to Smith, is economic development society and improving its well-being. As N. Kondratiev noted, “Smith’s entire classic work on the wealth of nations was 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 .

At the heart of A. Smith’s entire system of economic views is 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 people is the initial fund, which provides it with all the products necessary for existence and the convenience of life,” make it possible to understand that according to Smith, it is the economy, as it develops, 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 understands not money, but material wealth created by labor. Accordingly, true source of wealth is the activity of people who annually create a mass of goods they consume.

A. Smith writes that the natural forces of nature without human activity would remain sterile and useless. From this he concludes that since wealth is generated by labor in general, and not just 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 entire nation as a whole. Hence, primary sphere where wealth is created is not the sphere of circulation, as with the mercantilists, but production sector , without highlighting any industries (unlike the physiocrats).

Having established the content and source of creation of society's wealth, A. Smith considers conditions for its growth . A. Smith says that the “wealth” of a society, that is, the volume of production and consumption of products, depends on two factors: 1) from the share of the population engaged 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 who are numerous but poor. The second factor is of incomparably greater importance.

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 total labor all workers. Wealth comes from their collaboration 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 depicts it as main factor growth of social labor productivity. 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 performance 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. A. Smith begins his consideration of the issue with division of labor in manufacture. A. Smith gives his famous example of the pin factory, where the specialization of workers and the division of operations between them allows workers, even when they are “not very well provided the necessary machines", increase production hundreds of times. A. Smith believed that the division of labor in manufacturing 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 manufacturing, 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 seems to A. Smith to be a huge workshop where there is a division between different types of labor that create social wealth. Division of labor in society, establishing the cooperation of all, to meet the needs of everyone individual, is the true source of progress and growth of prosperity.

In the same time origin of division of labor at the micro- and macroeconomic level it is different. If in manufacturing the specialization of jobs is created by the manager, then in the national economy division of labor arises naturally .

The division of labor is a consequence of the general human nature sharing instinct . This instinct is an innate human quality. It develops spontaneously under the influence of the simultaneous action of the personal interest of everyone. “The division of labor... is by no means the result of someone’s wisdom, which foresaw and realized the general welfare that would be generated by it: it is the consequence of a certain inclination human nature, namely, the tendency to barter and 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, motivates each person to devote himself to a certain special occupation.”

Thanks to division of labor And exchange a person manages to increase his productivity and his well-being many times over, and the progress of national wealth consists in increasing the entire mass various items made available to consumers.

How to make the division of labor widespread? A. Smith considers the most important condition to be the use of machines. Every expanding firm must introduce all more cars to improve 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 division of labor, outlined the doctrine technical 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 specialization of production. On this basis, high labor productivity and growth in the wealth of society are achieved. When the market is narrow, the possibilities for 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, in A. Smith’s interpretation they received a completely new meaning. He convincingly proved that labor is the source of society’s wealth, and division of labor, which V market economy has a natural development, is the most important factor in increasing labor productivity and increasing social wealth.

A well-known economist, now an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Water Problems.

He has long since moved away from economics, which, in my opinion, is worthy of every regret.

At the theoretical seminar, which was organized by Viktor Ivanovich Danilov-Danilyan and the late Albert Anatolyevich Ryvkin, the focus was on a problem that has not lost its relevance to this day.

Today everyone is talking about the dependence of the Russian economy on raw materials and how to get rid of it. But it [the resource curse] did not begin in the nineties of the 20th century. Raw material dependence was noticed back in the late seventies - in the eighties.

At that time there was state planning, there was a centralized system for the distribution of capital investments. And the following was observed: an increasingly large share of capital investment was directed to the oil and gas sector. At the same time, it was already obvious that, firstly, the remaining share of investments that are directed to the rest of the economy is declining, and secondly, this causes extremely negative phenomena in the rest of the economy. In other words, the economy outside the oil and gas complex has degraded. Everything was leading to the fact that soon there would only be one oil and gas sector left in the Soviet Union, and all other sectors would die out, since due to lack of investment the normal reproduction cycle in them was disrupted.

10.08.2013 New industrialization: breakthrough or road to nowhere? Anna Kuzmina.

How were investment decisions made in the USSR? Based effectiveness methods capital investments. The basis for the methodology for the efficiency of capital investments even then in the Soviet Union was based on cost-benefit approach, in some ways simulating decision making in a market economy.

It was clear that the degradation of the rest of the economy was dictated to us precisely by market principles: investments were directed to where they brought the greatest income. When perestroika came and everyone started talking about how we would now move straight to the market, our group [economists, headed by V.I. Danilov-Danilyan] I was horrified by this. If during the planned economy there were vague hopes that the existing trends could somehow be changed, then during the transition to a market economy, when decisions will definitely be made on market principles without any restrictions, what happened in the end will turn out.

So, the application of market principles - we observed and calculated this - led to such consequences. However, the same market principles operated in the West and under approximately the same conditions. At the time in question, America was not, like us, an oil country (although it is partly becoming one now). But decades before that, it was the world's leading oil-producing power.

Why didn't market principles lead to the United States becoming someone's raw materials appendage? Why there - decisions made on the basis of market principles led to the development of not only the oil sector, but also other industries, and quite rapidly, which allowed the United States to reduce oil production and switch to its purchases in exchange for higher technological products level?

This problem could be TWO answers:

Of course, this is a kind of conspiracy theory. It is known that in the West there are various think tanks - think tanks. One could assume that they are thinking about something strategic that goes beyond the current market conditions, developing recommendations that the government follows. after all, it can make decisions based on some other, non-market principles. There are many examples of such non-market solutions in the United States of America and European countries; we have carefully analyzed them.

Then, when perestroika ended, I had enough for a long time worked in the civil service, and for me these questions turned from theoretical to practical: in the nineties, the government authorities had heated discussions on this topic and tried different options. After all, the danger of becoming a raw material appendage was always recognized, and the majority of people in the nineties (including parliament, which was then still a “place for discussion”) believed that it was necessary to move in some other direction. Various attempts were made to search for another direction, all of them ended unsuccessfully, this was recorded and at the same time required theoretical understanding.

But there is another version of the answer.

We considered not only the experience of developed Western countries, but also the most diverse experience of developing countries, many of which tried in various ways to overcome their dependence on raw materials (create industry, etc.). Some experiments of this kind were still ongoing in the eighties, but those that ended largely ended in failure. And therefore, those experiments that were still underway would most likely also end in failure. And so it happened: the Mexican, Argentine, and Brazilian experiments did not lead to anything (the Brazilian one has now been restarted, and we’ll see where it leads - I think that nothing good should be expected now).

It was challenge to traditional economic theory , which tells us that all economies are the same.

A detailed presentation of the models can be found in the extensive work Economic Growth, written by Robert Joseph Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin. Without dwelling in detail on the analysis of this direction of modern economic thought, let us only note that some of the models being developed are aimed at identifying the internal structural factors of economies that predetermine the difference in their opportunities to achieve success.

I thought about this for a long time. And so, in September 2002, during one of the usual meetings on the development of the construction complex in Russia, it occurred to me, what factor should we take to understand how economies differ. It sounds very simple. Let's write it down so that it is before our eyes, because the entire lecture, and indeed the entire course, will be about this:

[At the same time] It’s not really a matter of division of labor, it’s a kind of marker pointing to a large integral structure, its designation. This design (taking into account what I started working on in the eighties) instantly highlighted everything at once: [If degree of division of labor taken as a FACTOR, it was discovered that] there is an answer to this problem, to this problem there is also an answer, to this one it is not yet clear, but what and where to look for is already clear.

It turned out like a detective story: I racked my brain for 20 years, and then suddenly it turned out that all the numerous facts that I was thinking about fit into a very simple diagram; It’s immediately clear who the killer is. And just like in a good hermetic detective story, when the detective says: here is the killer, here is the system of evidence, you begin to wonder how you didn’t guess it before, it was all on the surface.

First

At first there was fear: maybe [someone BEFORE me - already considered RT as a factor, and it turned out that after someone] I "invented a bicycle"?

Since this is all so clear, since all the numerous facts fit into a fairly simple scheme (later I realized that the scheme is not so simple). I experienced real horror. Now, of course, he has already left, I once again became thoroughly acquainted with. But then I thought: what if everyone knows about this?! In the civil service, you can’t dive deeply into science; you don’t read everything, maybe you missed something. But it turned out that no, he didn’t miss it.

Yes, there have been individual attempts, sometimes very striking, to do something in the same direction. I'll talk about them as we go. But they all remained episodes in .

Second

The fear did not go away for another reason. If I brought some new factor, a new term, a new word, but no!

Wake up any economist at night and ask, he will answer: “I know, . Russia must find its place in the international division of labor." Everything is banal, everyone talks about it.

It took eight years to answer this question. It turned out like this. It seems that there is a new approach, there are results that can be talked about. There are forecasts that come true. But the basis on which we make predictions and achieve results was for a long time only a vague image.

We have a different [economic] object, one to which . We're in another lecture, but I'll give you an idea of ​​what we're talking about today. If a new object or even a system of objects has appeared, then a new stage has begun in the development of economic science. Of course it deserves a new name. Well, without further ado, I called it “”.

Therefore, what you will now listen to is a neoconomics course.

When we changed the object, this was followed by a whole chain reaction of revisions of everything that was said in economic theory; it took us a long time to get to the depths and this process is still far from complete. Nevertheless, the general contours of the approach are already clear. You are the first to listen to this in such a volume that can already be considered holistic.

The first understanding (distinction), why I understand in one way and everyone else in a different way, was formulated almost immediately; it was part of the overall picture that was revealed to me from the very beginning. In fact, we call two different phenomena one division of labor (although they are sometimes very similar and interrelated): and.

We all know well about the natural division of labor from a standard economics textbook: furs are produced in the north, grapes are produced in the south, furs are exchanged for wine. is a division of labor caused by natural advantage or disadvantage. Some people have some natural (usually natural) advantage, others have a natural disadvantage. Within the framework of this system of advantages and disadvantages, exchange and trade are carried out, and this is where the story about the economy usually begins.

When they say that a country should integrate into the international division of labor, what is meant is the natural division of labor. Usually added: to use your natural advantages in a particular area. Moreover, the list of natural benefits is far from being limited to natural ones, they just don’t write down there, and we will deal with this later.

Let's return to Adam Smith, where does he begin the story? From a pin factory.

The work is divided into eighteen operations. There are 10 people working, so some of them perform several operations. No natural benefits are required for each of these operations. All that is required is care in performing a fairly simple operation.

In the natural division of labor the natural advantages of the individual develop, [for example] the blacksmith becomes more and more muscular [for affinity with the profession, and not only] more and more skillful. [probably until then] Until he gets sick. [By analogy] Anyone who embroiders must train his eyes to distinguish colors. And from the point of view of the natural division of labor, women are better colorists than men. There are also gender and age advantages; animals have them too. Young people do one thing, old people do another, women do something else, men do something else. Everyone plays to their natural strengths.

But in a pin factory there are no natural advantages.

The main idea of ​​the technological division of labor is its maximum development: a person is a creature capable of performing [only] two functions: monitoring instrument readings and pressing buttons in time.

Almost any [without any natural benefits] can handle it. Most types of today's [work] activities are approximately this. Even in trading on the stock exchange today, people are being replaced by an automatic machine: an automatic machine can also monitor instrument readings and press a button in time, and it does this much better and faster than a human. Of course, machines regularly malfunction, but people do too.

We are told [from childhood] that we need to learn a profession, but in principle [in real life] the whole profession boils down to the fact that a person [stupidly] monitors instrument readings and presses a button at the right time. Therefore, unlike the natural division of labor, technological division of labor leads to simplification and elimination of differences between people .

Marx considered this his most important discovery. And at the same time - he praised Ricardo for being more closely involved than Smith did, associated the division of labor with a natural factor, that is, with specific labor for the production of specific things. But [if] Marx still held both types of division of labor in his head, [while] subsequent generations of economists found this difficult, and they decided that one was enough. Let us remember: all the time when we talk about the division of labor, we must understand what exactly we are talking about. All the time, when I’m not specifically emphasizing, I talk about.

Within a natural economy, of course, he produces what he considers most useful for himself, but the idea of ​​usefulness is located exclusively inside his head. And this happens:

When making decisions - here usefulness doesn't matter. [Because] Utility is predetermined [those. the product is needed in any case]. We know why we are doing all this. This decision is made based only on the comparison of labor costs.

[It’s as if a calculation takes place in a person’s head that in the presence of another manufacturer] now we we can spend less labor to obtain the same utility (Or increase the utility received with the same amount of working time).

This is the basis of the theory of value. This is the situation considered by the labor theory of value.

And the theory of exchange [the theory of marginal utility], based on utility, does not provide for any labor costs. I have a thing: no one knows where it came from. It just is. You have a thing: it is also unknown where it came from. We are not going to produce or reproduce them, we don’t even think about it.

There is a term used in Marxist literature: “flea market economics” (or “rentier economics,” Nikolai Bukharin wrote such a book). I got something from somewhere - from my grandmother, from my dad, I just found it in the attic, on the street. It's not very useful to me - so I went and exchanged it for something more useful. In this situation, the comparison is based on utility.

There is no regular production here, only one-time deals, and this is a serious objection to the "utility theory of exchange."

Of course, everything is not as stupid as I just described to you. Although I met people who received higher economic education who did not understand such things.

It is assumed that the undertaker (who has resources - labor, materials, etc.) every time, almost every second or at the beginning of each new production cycle, that is, when he begins manufacturing his product, always considers alternative possibilities. It’s kind of like “shouldn’t I start baking buns?” Let us consider the factors that determine the scale of the technological division of labor. Adam Smith already described them quite clearly, and Marx detailed, specified and outlined them point by point. We can remain within the framework of Adam Smith; a lot of interesting, one might say brilliant, fit into him; including where he did not even bring the thinking to the end, but left important guesses and gave correct examples. The only thing that ruins it all is the confusion of unbridled fantasy on the topic of exchange. What is necessary for the division of labor? (1) People are needed to divide labor . Smith looked at the economy and saw in it many professions that must be in some kind of relationship with each other, he understood that the system of division of labor in which he lived involved two or three million people. He thought in terms of national economics [18th century Britain], and within this framework, these three million had to be physical. If we return to the example of Romania and the United States, Romania cannot build such a system of division of labor as the United States could hypothetically build for itself. There are 20 million people in Romania and 315 million in the US. Romania can build a system of division of labor for only 20 million people, taking into account the necessary proportions (as discussed below). Moreover, the American system itself, of course, includes not 315 million, but perhaps a billion or 2 billion people. Romania is very far from this. (2) Another important factor is population density. . Population Soviet Union at its peak there were 270 million people. More than the United States of America at that time. But this population lived over such a large area that transactions between people were difficult. Adam Smith constantly compares: the city, in which a high level of division of labor can be built, and the countryside. It doesn't matter what the population is in rural areas. It can be 10 times more than in the city. But in rural areas the level of division of labor will be lower than in the city, where the population density higher. (3) It is worth paying attention to one important point that is fashionable today theme of clusters. What they write and say about this today, frankly, depresses me. To understand the role and significance of clusters, it is necessary to take into account that from the point of view of the division of labor, not only population density is important, but also activity density. If someone sees this link, they can take it and outsource it. Then this operation will become specialized, and the one who has done this will take advantage of all the benefits of the division of labor, all the effects of specialization. In this case, it will be possible to normalize the workload so that everyone here will be employed full time, there will be no downtime, and for the same salary we will get an increase in productivity. But if we have many such enterprises that will now begin to use the services of a specialized company, what will happen next? It may turn out that this operation should be divided into several others, within this operation a division of labor should be carried out and its efficiency increased. The level of division of labor in the cluster will increase, and its efficiency will increase. Isolation of a specialized company providing veterinary services And now the veterinary business has become a separate company (Fig. 2) There may already be different people. Moreover, the one who, for example, takes tests and analyzes may not have the qualifications of a veterinarian; he can be paid less. And the veterinarian will now be responsible only for what his qualifications require. Therefore, the division of labor can be increased here, and due to this factor, the entire system receives a synergistic effect. This is where synergy comes from in clusters. First of all, from the division of labor. Cluster efficiency is due to the fact that it provides a higher level of division of labor than the industry average in the surrounding economic environment. Everything else is nothing more than fantasy and coincidence - It is impossible to select industries in a cluster in advance and say: this is where the maximum synergistic effect will be . This process cannot be done consciously, it must be done unconsciously. And - but more on this in the next lectures - when a number of external conditions are met. Who creates this specialized company? Most likely, someone who works here and has an entrepreneurial streak, who saw everything from the inside, felt it firsthand, and looked for how to do everything better. There is not just one such event, but many. Why do they have to be in one place? Firstly, the market is visible, everything is visible, you can see narrow places. Secondly, logistics costs are minimal. If firms were scattered over long distances, outsourcing one of the operations might be ineffective due to transportation costs, and then there would be no question of further division of labor. And if they are in one place, then all this is visible, all this is easier to calculate. Porter sometimes comes very close to understanding how this works. But his imagination, alas, always outweighs him. (1) The compensating factor for low activity density is infrastructure. We cannot increase the density to infinity and concentrate all production and consumption at one point. Adam Smith places infrastructure development at the forefront of a number of factors contributing to the development of the division of labor. Smith calls for the construction of roads, canals, and the main thing he calls for development is maritime transport. When he [in the book The Wealth of Nations] goes to the country that he calls Tartary, and we call Russia, then he says: This is a good, rich country, but it is terribly unlucky. If there are rivers, they flow in the wrong direction, they freeze, there are no convenient exits to the sea: nothing will work out there. But England is an island, everything is wonderful here! When we talk about the technological division of labor, we must take into account market size. The technological division of labor presupposes the presence of strict proportions in the economic system it covers. Following condition of division of labor according to Adam Smith - market sizes. This has been a stumbling block for me for a very long time, because this question is related to what the term “division of labor” applies to and which for a long time I could not correctly define. Smith clearly formulated this condition; the chapter is called: “ The development of the division of labor is limited by the size of the market

Let's compare the results of the work of 10 artisans and a factory with 10 workers (Table 1). This example shows say the orthodox, that market expansion is required, because 10 artisans will produce 10 tables per unit of time, and a factory - 15. In order to realize the additional income associated with the division of labor, the market must grow by 50%. However, 50% is the maximum, because in principle, even if they sell 11 tables, they will still get some effect. Why is the market expanding? Because they can reduce the cost of the table and those who were already buying tables will buy more tables. Well, those who haven’t bought them before will start doing so. Somewhere there is an equilibrium point at which table manufacturers can both reduce the price and make a profit due to the expansion of the market. Everything seems to be logical and corresponds to the words of A. Smith.

But it was always clear to me: what is here one, and here 10 - it matters; and the meaning exactly 10 times, and not by 50%, as in the orthodox example. So let's look at it now same example a little differently (Fig. 3).

One artisan sells his tables to someone. He can exist as long as there are, say, 10 farmers who regularly hit the tables with their fists, the tables break, and with some frequency they run to him to order them again, and at the ordered tables they feed the artisan with various tasty and healthy foods. One artisan exists as long as there are 10 farmers. And the factory requires from 100 to 150 farmers; if there are at least 99 of them, then the factory will not exist, since it will be unprofitable. The world will live, artisans will exist, but there will be no factories. What do we mean by market here? These are not just buyers. This is a whole closed exchange system. Farmers produce something, which means they exchange with each other, and they exchange with the artisan, that is, this is a whole production system. In a production system in which the table is manufactured in a factory, the minimum 110 people (including 10 factory workers). And for production system, in which the artisan exists, it is enough 11 Human .

I'll now show you what Adam Smith was really thinking about when he talked about market size. He wrote this, but didn’t finish the thought a little.

Second example:

Case about a day laborer's jacket

At the end of the first chapter [Wealth of Nations books] Smith's goes big enough [in which Smith is surprised that even a worker whose income is minimal can afford a wool jacket of excellent quality, since he does not have a regular income, because he is periodically hired for only one day]. Since it [the text] is a little unfinished, it is not very clear why it was written.

You can ask questions about the book. will from time to time answer the most interesting questions and post video answers to them.

2. Having observed for several decades a clear discrepancy between theoretical positions and observed processes, large group Western economists attempted to develop a class of fundamentally new economic growth models. An interesting overview of the results achieved is given in the book by R. Lucas “ Lectures on economic growth».

5. Orthodox economic theory usually assumes that this is true.

6. If we have less than 11 people, then there will be no artisan, and farmers will be forced to make their own tables in their free time from other activities. And they will probably take more care of them - they will bang their fists less, and they will have less strength for this. Can serve as a useful guide to his book “The Age of Growth”, as Oleg Vadimovich briefly outlines the history of neoconomics and its logic.

The following videos show that Oleg Vadimovich not only predicted the crisis, as Mikhail Khazin ascribes to himself, but already at the turn of the 2000s had a scientific basis for his theories, according to which the real crisis is not a periodic crisis at all, but the beginning of a contraction of the entire world economy, if if you want, you can even call it - end of capitalism.

3 Dec. 2011 Oleg Grigoriev in M. Delyagin’s program “THIS IS RELEVANT”. Causes and consequences of the crisis.

Neuromir Aug 15 2012 Economist Oleg Grigoriev about the coming financial crisis. Financial crisis. What is the root of Evil? and who ate the Future?

More on the topic Division of labor as a law of social development:

1. The philosophy of “economic man” and the division of labor. Theory of productive and unproductive labor
2. DIVISION OF LABOR WITHIN MANUFACTURE AND DIVISION OF LABOR WITHIN SOCIETY
3. FACTORY LEGISLATION (HEALTH AND EDUCATION PROVISIONS). ITS COMMON DISTRIBUTION IN ENGLAND
4. [b) MILL'S FAILURE ATTEMPT TO RECONCILIATE THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR WITH THE LAW OF VALUE. PARTIAL RETURN TO THE THEORY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND]

Division of labor

https://site/wp-content/plugins/svensoft-social-share-buttons/images/placeholder.png

DIVISION OF LABOR is a form of cooperation in which separate 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 tools, population growth, and 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 separate 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 tools, population growth, and the development and complication of social life.

The beginning of the social division of labor was already the natural division of labor. “Within the family - and with further development within the clan - the natural division of labor arises as a result of gender and age differences” (Marx, Capital, vol. I, 8th ed., 1936, p. 284). This is the division of labor between men and women, between adults and adolescents; some are engaged in hunting, fishing (men), others - collecting plants (women), etc.

Growth of productive forces, various geographical conditions, exerting their influence on the development of production among various tribes, clans, as well as the different levels of their development, the emergence of conflicts between them and the subordination of one clan to others accelerated the growth of the division of labor. In turn, the development of the division of labor gives a powerful impetus to the rise of 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 barbarian masses, the separation of cattle breeding from agriculture. Pastoral tribes, specializing in one business - cattle breeding, increased labor productivity, and they produced not only more means of subsistence, but also different means of subsistence compared to non-pastoral tribes. This created the basis for regular exchange, which was initially carried out between 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 widely penetrated the community and became a permanent phenomenon. Along with the increase in labor productivity in the field of cattle breeding, land cultivation improved, home crafts improved, and the need for additional labor arose. The growth of labor productivity on the basis of the first major social division of labor led to the fact that the worker produced more products than he himself consumed, i.e., he 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 large social division of labor, which played a huge role in the disintegration of the primitive communal system, the first antagonistic class slave-owning society arose: “The first large social division of labor, instead of increasing labor productivity, and therefore wealth, and expanding the field of productive activity, with all given historical conditions, slavery necessarily entailed. From the first major social division of labor 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, Works, vol. XVI, part 1, page 137).

Metal played a major revolutionary role in the further growth of the division of labor. Iron enabled the artisan to produce sharper and stronger tools, and it made farming possible on a larger scale. With the use of iron, crafts became much more diverse. But this diversity dictated the need for a new division of labor. Crafts were separated from agriculture. This was the second major social division of labor, marking the beginning of the separation of city and countryside. “The basis of any developed division of labor, carried out through commodity exchange, is the separation of city from countryside. It can be said that the whole 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 crafts from agriculture gave a new impetus to the development of exchange.

At the early stages of the development of human society, all production was based on the common ownership of land, on the direct combination of agriculture with crafts. The bulk of products were produced for direct consumption and only the excess was exchanged and turned into goods. 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 crafts, production for the purpose of exchange arose, trade developed, not only internal and border, but also maritime. The new division of labor led to a new division of society into classes. In addition to free and slaves, there were poor and rich.

At the subsequent stage of social development, the third major social division of labor occurred, which consisted in the separation of trade from production, in the identification of a special class that specialized only in the exchange of goods - the class of merchants. Under feudalism, serfs and dependent peasants, who represented the main productive force of this method of production, worked the land in small plots 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 there was absolutely no division of labor. Feudal fragmentation, weak connections between both cities and feudal estates, limited needs, and the dominance of guild organizations that 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 at first was only “a division of labor that occurred by itself, “naturally arising” thanks to natural inclinations (for example, physical strength), needs, accidents, etc., etc. The division of labor becomes a real division only from the moment when the division of material and spiritual labor appears” (Marx and Engels, German Ideology, Works, 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 dominance of the feudal mode of production, the main productive force of the village - serfs and dependent peasants - was deprived of the opportunity for cultural growth and development. The division between mental and physical labor, between city and countryside led to the spiritual savagery of the peasant and caused the “idiocy of village life.” The division of mental and physical labor takes its most acute form under capitalism. Under capitalism, millions of proletarians are deprived of the opportunity to receive an education, develop and demonstrate their strengths 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 opposition between mental and physical labor.

The development of the social division of labor was a necessary prerequisite for the development of the commodity economy and capitalism. Lenin characterizes the social division of labor as “the common basis of commodity economy and capitalism.” “Commodity farming,” says Lenin, “develops as the social division of labor develops. And this division of labor consists in the fact that one after another branch of industry, one after another type of processing of the raw product come off from agriculture and become independent, consequently forming an industrial population” (Lenin, Soch., vol. II, pp. 215 and 85). And back. The development of a commodity-capitalist economy, raising the level of productive forces, more and more splitting the production process into independent parts, gives a powerful impetus to the further progress of the social division of labor.

During the period of dominance of the capitalist mode of production, the division of labor widely develops 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, the peculiarity 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 a whole society - whether it occurs through commodity exchange 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” (Marx, 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, opposing the worker as capital. Emerging 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.

Social and manufacturing divisions of labor are closely related, mutually conditioned and influence each other. But there are significant differences between them. “The division of labor within society is served by the purchase and sale of products from various branches of labor; the connection between the partial works of manufacture is established through the sale of different labor powers to the same capitalist, who uses them as combined labor power. The manufacturing division of labor presupposes the concentration of the means of production in the hands of one capitalist, the social division of labor presupposes the fragmentation of the means of production between many commodity producers independent of each other. In the manufactory iron law strictly defined proportions and ratios distribute the working masses between various functions; on the contrary, the whimsical play of chance and arbitrariness determines the distribution of commodity producers and the means of their production between 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 pits independent commodity producers against each other, recognizing no other authority other 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, occurs spontaneously. Both anarchy and despotism reign here. In capitalist manufacture, the entire labor process 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 partial workers complementing each other. Accordingly, differentiation and adaptation of labor tools occurs in relation to partial operations. Thus, the manufacturing division of labor transforms the worker into a partial worker, and his instruments of labor into partial instruments. “The mechanism specific to 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 workers who perform the same mechanically repetitive processes. The development of machine production turned the worker into an appendage to the machine, and deprived labor of any content, intensified the exploitation of the worker, and led to the fact that the spiritual forces of the material production process confront the worker as an alien force dominating him. The manufacturing division of labor led, therefore, to an even sharper separation of mental labor from physical labor.

The invention of machines and the organization of machine production had the consequence of a further division of labor within society and led to the final separation of industry from Agriculture, strengthened the division of labor not only between individual industries within the country, but also between individual countries. Before the invention of machines, the industry of each 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 transformed production into social production. The division of labor between countries producing various products - industrial and agricultural countries, the connection between them, world trade, etc. is now the most important condition for the development of industry in each country.

The most important consequence of the division of labor is increased productivity. Thanks to the division of labor, there is an improvement in the use of labor: each worker, adapting to only one operation, increases dexterity, dexterity, etc., he does not have to waste time moving from one operation to another; consolidation of production creates savings in the means of production; due to the simplification of individual operations, unskilled labor 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 intensify exploitation. The division of labor was a powerful means capital accumulation (cm.).

In a class antagonistic society, the growth of the social division of labor, determining the distribution of productive forces in accordance with the interests of the ruling class, promoting the expansion of the market, the expansion of the rule of capital, leads to an increase in contradictions, to a gap between individual groups of society. Already the second major social division of labor, which led to the separation of city from countryside, doomed the rural population to a thousand years of stultification, and the townspeople to the enslavement of each one to his craft; it created a gap between city and countryside. The division of labor in a capitalist society inevitably leads to a deepening of the contradictions of capitalism, to a deepening of the gap between labor and capital, and develops on an antagonistic basis. “The division of labor already from the very beginning implies a division of working conditions, tools and materials, and thereby a fragmentation of accumulated capital between different owners, and thereby a split between capital and labor” (Marx and Engels, German Ideology, Op., vol. IV, p. 56). Under capitalism, everyone has their own circle of activities, from which they cannot leave unless they want to lose their means of living.

The division of labor in the modern capitalist factory and the capitalist use of machinery intensify 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 the conditions of capitalism the machine does not free the worker from labor, but deprives his labor of all content. Such enslavement of man can only be abolished with the destruction of the capitalist mode of production.

The Great October Socialist Revolution, which was victorious over 1/6 of the globe, established the dictatorship of the proletariat and destroyed the capitalist mode of production. The USSR has built a basically socialist society. The means of production no longer confront the worker as capital, they constitute public socialist property. The exploitation of man by man is abolished forever. In the socialist economic system, all production both in the city and in the countryside, the distribution of labor between individual sectors and within production is regulated and directed by a single state national economic plan, in the interests of the entire people, the entire society. Work and the attitude towards work of the worker himself have changed radically. Instead of forced labor for the capitalist, labor became 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. Over the years of socialist construction, the USSR has transformed into a country of highly productive labor, into a country of abundance of products. The USSR has the shortest working day in the world; workers are provided with all conditions for comprehensive cultural and intellectual development.

One of the most important prerequisites for eliminating the opposition between mental and physical labor is to raise 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 destruction of the opposition between mental and physical labor, is of great importance. Comrade Stalin pointed out that the Stakhanov movement was preparing the conditions for the transition from socialism to communism. The most important factor The cultural and technical uplift of the working class is the combination of education with industrial labor. Stakhanovites are the true bearers of a new, socialist work 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 of the opposition between mental and physical labor is the final destruction of the opposition between city and countryside.

The planned organization of socialist production is expressed primarily in the unprecedented pace of development of the productive forces, in the convergence of the rates of development of city and countryside, in the rapid elimination of the difference between city and countryside. Collectivization and mechanization of agriculture transformed agricultural labor into a type of industrial labor. The new enormous growth of the productive forces of the country of socialism, the massive development of the Stakhanovist movement for the mastery of technology, the massive cultural and technical growth of the working people, high, truly socialist labor productivity create all the conditions for the final elimination of the opposition between mental labor and physical labor generated by class exploitative society, for the transition from the first phase of communism (socialism) to the highest phase - communism. Only a communist society finally destroys the “subordination to the division of labor that enslaves man” (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, in the book: Marx and Engels, Works, vol. XV, p. 275).

Chapter II "On the cause of the division of labor"

The division of labor which leads to such advantages is by no means the result of any one's wisdom, which foresaw and realized the general welfare which would be generated by it: it is the consequence - although very slowly and gradually developing - of a certain tendency of human nature, which by no means had in view of such a useful goal, namely the tendency to barter, trade, to exchange one item for another.

It is not our task at present to examine whether this tendency is one of those fundamental properties of human nature for which no further explanation can be given, or, what seems more likely, it is a necessary consequence of the power of reasoning and the gift of speech. This tendency is common to all people and, on the other hand, is not observed in any other species of animals, to which, apparently, this type of agreement, like all others, is completely unknown. When two hounds are chasing the same hare, it sometimes seems as if they are acting under some kind of agreement. Each of them drives him towards the other or tries to intercept him when the other drives him towards her. However, this is by no means the result of any agreement, but a manifestation of a random coincidence of their passions, directed at the moment towards the same subject. No one has ever seen a dog deliberately exchange a bone with another dog. No one has ever seen any animal gesture or scream to another: this is mine, that is yours, I will give you one in exchange for the other. When an animal wants to receive something from a person or another animal, it does not know any other means of persuasion than to gain the favor of those from whom it expects handouts. A puppy cuddles up to its mother, and a lap dog uses countless tricks to attract the attention of its dining owner when it wants him to feed it. A man sometimes resorts to the same tricks with his neighbors, and if he has no other means of inducing them to act in accordance with his desires, he tries to gain their favor by servility and all kinds of flattery. However, he would not have enough time to act this way in all cases. In a civilized society he constantly needs the assistance and cooperation of many people, while throughout his life he barely has time to acquire the friendship of several people. In almost all other species of animals, each individual, having reached maturity, becomes completely independent and in its own natural state does not need the help of other living beings; Meanwhile, a person constantly needs the help of his neighbors, and it will be in vain that he expects it only from their disposition. He is more likely to achieve his goal if he appeals to their egoism and is able to show them that it is in their own interests to do for him what he requires of them. Anyone who offers another a transaction of any kind is offering to do just that. Give me what I need, and you will get what you need - this is the meaning of any such proposal. It is in this way that we obtain from each other much of the service we need. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their observance of their own interests. 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 chiefly on the goodwill of his fellow citizens. Even a beggar is not entirely 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 directly supply him with the necessaries of life at the moment when the beggar needs them. Most of his needs are satisfied in the same way as the needs of Other people, namely through agreement, exchange, 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 his needs.

Just as through contract, barter and purchase we acquire from each other most of the mutual services we need, so this very tendency to exchange initially gave rise to the division of labor. In a hunting or herding tribe, one person makes, for example, bows and arrows with greater speed and dexterity than anyone else. He often exchanges them with his fellow tribesmen for cattle or game; in the end he sees that he can get more livestock and game this way than if he hunts himself. Considering his own benefit, he makes the making of bows and arrows his main occupation 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 livestock and game, until, finally, he recognizes it as beneficial for himself to devote himself entirely to this occupation and become a kind of carpenter. In the same way, the third becomes a blacksmith or coppersmith, the fourth becomes a tanner or tanner of hides and skins, the main parts of the clothing of savages. And thus the confidence in the possibility of exchanging all that surplus of the product of his labor, which exceeds his own consumption, for that part of the product of the labor of other people which he may need, encourages each person to devote himself to a certain special occupation and to develop to perfection his natural talents 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 years 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, is created, apparently, 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 be accustomed to various activities. And then the difference in abilities becomes noticeable, which becomes gradually greater, until, finally, the vanity of the scientist refuses to recognize even a shadow of similarity between them. But without the inclination to bargain and exchange, each person would have to obtain for himself everything he needs for life. Everyone would have to perform the same duties and produce the same work, and there would not then be such a variety of occupations, which alone could give rise to significant differences in abilities.

This tendency to exchange not only creates the difference of ability so noticeable among people of different professions, it also makes this difference useful. Many breeds of animals, recognized as belonging to the same species, differ from nature by a much more pronounced dissimilarity of abilities than is apparently observed in humans, so long as they remain free from the influence of habit and education. A scientist, in his intelligence and abilities, is not half as different from a street porter as a yard dog is from a hound, or a hound from a lapdog, or the latter from a shepherd dog. However, these different breeds of animals, although all belonging to the same species, are almost useless to each other. The strength of a yard dog is not in the slightest degree complemented by the speed of a hound, or the intelligence of a lapdog, or the obedience of a shepherd dog. All these various abilities and properties, due to the lack of ability or inclination for exchange and bargaining, cannot be used for general purposes and do not in any way contribute to the better adaptation and convenience of the whole species. Each animal is forced to care for and defend itself separately and independently of others and receives absolutely no benefit from the various abilities with which nature has endowed animals like itself. On the contrary, among people the most dissimilar talents are useful to one another; Their various products, thanks to their tendency to bargain and exchange, are collected, as it were, into one common mass, from which each person can buy for himself any number of other people’s products that he needs.