So how does the division of labor/alienation actually end?
This is something that's always confused me, but I've put it off since it's always "later." But Marx and such talks about how a communist society wouldn't have alienation or a division of labor ["In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"- Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme] . But like...how? He's using the division of labor the same way I am right? [That being, multiple people make individual parts of a thing and therefore have better throughput but no one has a concrete connection to the thing they're making?] But I don't understand how you necessarily get rid of that. Maybe this is basic but this confuses me
haui - 1w
I cant quote any theory in that regard but I can tell you my perspective on this. As a carpenter, you build a chair and sell it. In capitalism you build many chairs because you make them break soon and burn them to keep the factory running.
Thats why you need to alienate people from their product as this is what comes from mass producing.
In communism (and arguably in more advanced socialism) the reason you build something is for it to last, you treat a chair with respect and the longer a chair has survived the challenge of time, the more awesome it becomes.
But there is also the dialectic of progress. It is of no consequence that something becomes outdated and needs to evolve or vanish. The communist future i envision does not conserve for conservations sake but educates children on the limited human capacity for conservation and the need for constant change and progression. There is no benefit in keeping this house the way it was just to ne cold in the winter and hot in the summer while the other house that through ingenuity keeps a perfect climate through ancient techniques needs to be preserved for the future instead of dogmatic need for change and "newness".
I think we will produce a tiny amount by hand in a communist society. Most boring stuff will be done by machines, only the really medirative and creative things will be done by hand and therefore not be alienated from their creator.
King_Simp in genzhou
So how does the division of labor/alienation actually end?
This is something that's always confused me, but I've put it off since it's always "later." But Marx and such talks about how a communist society wouldn't have alienation or a division of labor ["In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"- Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme] . But like...how? He's using the division of labor the same way I am right? [That being, multiple people make individual parts of a thing and therefore have better throughput but no one has a concrete connection to the thing they're making?] But I don't understand how you necessarily get rid of that. Maybe this is basic but this confuses me
I cant quote any theory in that regard but I can tell you my perspective on this. As a carpenter, you build a chair and sell it. In capitalism you build many chairs because you make them break soon and burn them to keep the factory running.
Thats why you need to alienate people from their product as this is what comes from mass producing.
In communism (and arguably in more advanced socialism) the reason you build something is for it to last, you treat a chair with respect and the longer a chair has survived the challenge of time, the more awesome it becomes.
But there is also the dialectic of progress. It is of no consequence that something becomes outdated and needs to evolve or vanish. The communist future i envision does not conserve for conservations sake but educates children on the limited human capacity for conservation and the need for constant change and progression. There is no benefit in keeping this house the way it was just to ne cold in the winter and hot in the summer while the other house that through ingenuity keeps a perfect climate through ancient techniques needs to be preserved for the future instead of dogmatic need for change and "newness".
I think we will produce a tiny amount by hand in a communist society. Most boring stuff will be done by machines, only the really medirative and creative things will be done by hand and therefore not be alienated from their creator.