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 are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

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! 😊

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Socialism

!socialism@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules TBD.

Community stats

  • 902

    Monthly active users

  • 720

    Posts

  • 3.1K

    Comments

Community moderators