Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:22:40 -0500 (EST) From: Viraj Fernando <viraj-AT-interlog.com> Subject: M-I: Some Considerations -Mental and Physical Labour After the responses by Rob Schaap and Rob Malecki, I re-read my post and I feel some clarifications are necessary. It is regretted that non repetition of certain basics, which I assumed as commonly accepted has led to this misunderstanding. The basics are: a) Contradictions within the capitalist society will create conditions for its own destruction. b)The working class will (and will have to) take over political power to lay foundations of the next stage in the development of productive forces, by taking over ownership of the means of production and *control*. c)The dictatorship of the proletariat will be the period of transition from post-capitalism to socialism. I thought the aim of this list, is to promote a dialogue between marxists, who understood and agreed on the basics and that there is no necessity to repeat and elaborate them at every turn. This would particularly be necessary, when the posts have to be as brief as possible so that there may be an economy of time to facilitate attetion for all posts in a given day. I must thank both Robs, for clarifying the position for me. I agree completely with Rob Malecki. >>>[The technical capacity of computers is not the only criterion upon which >>>speculation about their role in the future should be done. Computers may >>>lead people to redefine managers and supervisors - they do not replace >>>them. Computers will always play the game their operators play, whether >>>they be CEOs or central planners - in the latter case political control and >>>economic control are potentially even more concentrated than in the former. > > >>>To make more of the point: if the computer is a universally accessible >>>tool, well, that might be a good thing for checking autocracy - but it is >>>not computers who will decide whether they will be universally accessible - >>>that's a decision for humans. Always is. >Ahh, What are you trying to say here Rob? Do you mean that the computer is >just another technical invention which like most things depends on who >controls them >which decides the future? >If it is I agree! >However this guy Viray is just full of shit. As if a computer can change the >fundementals in class struggle. Computers like anything else is a weapon >either in the hands of the poor and working class and its organisdations or >it is in the hands of its class enemies. The only thing we (the Proletariat) >have to do is see to it that this powerful technical weapon is controlled by >the state power of the working class so that it is not used by the class >enemy to regain power once we get rid of them.. Simply put, computers are also an integral part of the means of production and *control*. It is not the computers that will dig the grave for capitalism. The computer has brought the possibility a resolution of the antithesis between mental and physical labour, and elimination of capitalism. This will not be an automaitic process. This will happen only when the working class has taken over all means of production and *control*, including the computers and put them under its dictates. This will be the change over from the dictatorship of the capitalist class to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The antithesis will be turned over. This antithesis is the main historico - morphological structure relative to which the *motion* of all exploitative modes of production have operated and continued. This is why the history of mankind has been defined as a history of class struggles. It is by dissolution of this antithesis, that expoitative relations will cease to exist. Henceforth the motion of the developing productive forces will continue but without the exploitative social relations of production. This is why 'history' is supposed to cease in a classless society. (I can not be a judge to his comment about my own self; so if "this guy Viray is full of shit", so be it. I can not disagree nor do I care. But Rob, you must understand that there *will be* new comers to the list who would try to develop within the list by writing and they will certainly make errors. In such instances the tone of the words used will matter. A comradely attitude will help developing new comers to marxism. And that is one of the great opportunities this list offers and we should not bust it up) (Dialectically, this list has a dual role. Polemical and Pedagogical, we can not forget one element or the other. If we are using this list as a weapon for propagation of marxism and not as a medium for personality conflicts and squabbles, then we must not sacrifice either of the elements, in any of the articles. We must try to consciously expound both with responsibility). Chris Burford wrote about Mental and Physical Labour: >>- This tends to be seen as the distinction between the white collar and the labouring classes. >> Remember, when this *antithesis* between mental and physical labour took place it was neither capitalist society nor were there white collar workers. Capitalism is the culmination of this antithesis. First of all productive power is increased not only by division of labour, but by co-operation as well. In all social formations these two elements go hand in hand. Even at the hunting stage, there would be division of labour and co-operation where the whole group would exert specific skills under a leader. But the leader's mental skills in getting the group to organise and co-ordinate their efforts, do not warrant him to be the owner of the product of the collective effort. Also at this stage both mental and physical labour are fused together. Some exert one faculty to a greater degree than the other. There is also no possibility for accumilation and appropriation of a surplus created by the collective effort. It is when the productive forces have developed to a greater degree and a division between agriculture and handicraft has taken place, the conditions appear for accumilation and appropriation of the surplus created. This fuels up greater organisation and control of the means of production (the rudiments of polical economy of growth). The control of means of production by private ownership also appear on the horizon. The process culminates in certain societies in producing priest-kings, as men of power and knowledge wielding absolute control over their subjects. In others propertied classes (Masters, and Feudal lords) and the propertyless (slaves and serfs). The division between mental and physical labour is not to be taken literally as who does "mental" work and who does not. Even in the most menial physical job there is some thinking involved. Even in the most mental, intellectual job, there will be some physical action required. The fine line is, who takes decisions, who are the *ultimate* policy and decision makers in a given mode of production. The question is who dictates, and under whose dictates the social production processes are carried out. Those, who dictate in the interest of accumilation of capital in the final analysis *represent* mental labourers in the *antithesis* and those not the physical labourers. The data entry operator or even a computer programmer is no partaker in the decision making process in the social appropriation of surplus value. We can not draw a fine line and say that a computer assembler is a physical labourer and reject the data entry operator and the progammer as mental labourers and not belonging to the working class. In so far as the antithesis between mental and physical labour is concerned, it is not that the side the equation of physical labour must literally be represented by those working with muscle power and physical labour. It is all those who in their composite effort create a social surplus. It is a vast spectrum. But as to whether the conditions of work will create a propensity for the development of a class consciousness throughout the spectrum is another matter. The vangaurd role will be played by those who under their social conditions production, make them realise of their own collective power and that their emancipation can be brought about through their own struggles. This objective condition will not automatically spread throughout the spectrum. Best regards/ Viraj --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005