What are socialist views on specialization of labour compared to task generalization / job rotation?
What are socialist views on specialization of labour compared to task generalization / job rotation?
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?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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?
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?
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! 😊
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.
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.