| This question <82|82> overall <77|84> Prudon: <70|212>. |
| Question 114: How does the division of labor in commodity-producing societies differ from that in other societies? (Some material for answering this Question is in Grundrisse, 102:2--105:0). |
| [82] Prudon: Division of Labor. Division of labor grows with civilization. The more developed the society is, the higher is the level of the division of labor in it. Production is broken in many compound parts each done by separate individuals. Capitalism is a system of commodity production where the division of labor has a universal character. It is a system of production for exchange; division of labor in a capitalistic society is aimed at the production of things as exchange-values. In primitive societies the division of labor exists at an elementary level: between family or community members. It is not aimed at production of things as commodities, since they are consumed by the producers themselves. It is aimed at the production of things as use-values. |
| In his book, entitled The Holy Family, which he wrote back in 1845, Marx praises the French philosopher Proudhon for his attacks on private property. In Marx's view the division of labor leading to private property, creates social inequality and the emergence of political structures that dominate rather than serve people. |
| Leftyjace: While I can see the point you are trying to make, there is a basic contradiction in your proof. |
| You state that "In primitive societies the division of labor exists at an elementary level: between family or community members." You are stating that labor is enacted by individuals quite possibly for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of peoples separate from themselves - their family members, and community members. |
| Yet, in the next sentence you state "It is not aimed at production of things as commodities, since they are consumed by the producers themselves. It is aimed at the production of things as use-values." |
| I believe there is a contradiction here. If a person is laboring to produce something to be consumed by someone other than himself (specifically family or community members), then how is the product being consumed by the producer himself? |
| Another contradiction is the inclusion of community members as targets for produced items not meant to be commodities. |
| While it is natural for an individual to produce something for a family member, or someone within their own close-knit familial group, it is not always so for a neighbor or other member of the community. Even in the most primitive of societies, trade exists (or existed) among community members. |
| In my opinion, this trade, this exchange of produced goods between community members, does not work to validate your conclusion that individuals produce things for community members, yet not as a commodity. The very exchange of produced goods between community members means they were treated as commodities, and therefore produced with the intent to be such. |
| This can also be true among family members. For a good to be produced and given without expectation of return, reward, or value of exchange to another indicates an act performed out of charity. Yet being a member of the same family does not guarantee that an individual will act towards another family member in such a way. |
| Prudon: I appreciate Leftyjace's critical comment. I also want to share my comments to their response. |
| My example of a primitive family group was brought to attention to oppose it to a commodity producing society. “Let's consider the matter more closely.” |
| Marx had a friend, Engels, who wrote a famous book called The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. In this book he begins analysis of the origin of family by considering the character of the ownership in the primordial formation. |
| Because early primitive family groups were polygamial in their nature where women and children were common, members of the community shared work and income and owned property collectively (classical Latin definition of the word commune is used to mean people with a common interest). They regarded themselves as communal proprietors and labored together. |
| In his work Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations Marx states: “The purpose of this labor is not the creation of value, although they may perform surplus labor in order to exchange it for foreign labor — i.e., for surplus products. Its purpose is the maintenance of the owner and his family as well as of the communal body as a whole. The establishment of the individual as a worker, stripped of all qualities except this one, is itself a product of history.” |
| Leftyjace, one of your main arguments states: “The very exchange of produced goods between community members means they were treated as commodities, and therefore produced with the intent to be such.” |
| However, according to Marx, results of labor were not exchanged but rather equally distributed between the members of the commune. Thus, goods produced within communities for the consumption by the members of these communities were never treated as commodities. |
|
|
|||||