Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
148
A p a r t a d o V:
Reproduccin de p artes de la obra, p a ra la crtica e investigacin cientfica, lite ra ria o artstica.
Paul Thompson
palgrave
m acm ian
social formation:
1. Purposeful activity o f man, directed to work.
2. The object on which the work is performed, in the form
of natural or raw materials.
3. The instruments o f that work, most often tools or more
complex technology.
The latter two elements are referred to by Marx as the means
o f production. Taken all together, the components of the
labour process form the general preconditions of all produc
tion. Furthermore, it is made clear that the human and
technical aspects o f the labour process interpenetrate. This is
indicated in Marxs famous analogy o f the architect and the
bee. Although the bee works in a complex and productive
way, the architect consciously constructs the operation
an exclusively human characteristic. Hence, Man not only
effects a change of form in the materials o f nature, he also
realises his own purpose in those materials (Marx, 1976: 284).
Whether it is a skilled worker adapting tools for a new use,
or employers organising the design of machinery for a par
ticular goal, man is shaping the means o f production. So
when Marx makes the following comment he is not being
technologically determinist: Instruments of labour not only
supply a standard of the degree which human labour has
obtained, but they also indicate the social relations in which
men work (Marx, 1976: 286). He is arguing that technology,
or any other productive force, embodies relationships between
people. Technology in particular provides a manifestation
of the relations between social classes.
For instance, when capitalists began to bring together
independent craftsmen in a workshop under their control,
the nature of production changed, even when the same
commodity was being introduced. The forms of co-opera
tion and division of labour inevitably bore the imprint of
capital in its search for greater productivity and profit. In
turn, this affected the nature and uses of tools, machinery
and the means o f production in general.
This analysis of the components and interrelationships
o f the labour process parallels Marxs general usage of the
concept of forces and relations o f production. Once again,
between capital, the state and the working class. The role
of the state was largely to provide a political and legal basis
for the socio-economic structure. Compared with today, there
was little intervention in the economy, except in crises like
the 1926 General Strike. Inevitably this encouraged the view
that the workplace was a separate sphere whose struggles
were restricted to relations between particular employers and
workers.
Politics, for the reformist wing o f socialism like the
British Labour Party and the German Socialist Party (SPD)
was regarded as the evolutionary conquest of parliamentary
power. For the revolutionary wing led by Lenin and the
Bolsheviks, the emphasis was on the necessity to challenge
and overthrow the state itself. But while there were differences
about the degree of support for militant mass action, both
wings accepted trade unionism as a necessary and restricted
politics o f the workplace. Lenin was insistent that only
trade union consciousness could develop from within the
labour process; socialist consciousness arose from the relations
between all classes, the state and government.
Trade unionism comes in a variety of forms and ideologies,
but its essence is the bargain between capital and labour over
the terms of the sale of labour power. Historically it has
tended to accept the existence of the division of labour, the
nature of work and wage labour under capitalism in its prac
tices, if not in its philosophies and constitutions. These
questions have normally been the province of informal
activity and unofficial shop-floor organisation. Friedman
suggests that as a consequence of following Lenins separation
of categories, Marxism has failed to give due recognition to
the importance of worker resistance as an extremely power
ful and growing force in the development of the capitalist
mode o f production (1977b: 44).
Goodrichs classic 1920 study of workshop politics (re
published in 1975) showed how workers countered managerial
power by extending their own frontiers o f control with
respect to organisation of work, changes in technology,
and methods of payment. Demands for workers control
were an extension of the degree o f job control already exer
cised. But the official socialist movements showed little
one set of critics noted, What isfat issue is what the produc
tive forces are, and what is involved in developing them
(Corrigan, Ramsay and Sayer, 1978: 30). The Bolsheviks and
others took the concept of productive forces in isolation
from Marxs critical analysis of social production (Colletti,
1972).29 Yet if as Marx argues, the means of production
indicate the social relations within which people work, the
working class cannot merely appropriate them for itself.
Workers will have to transform the technology and authority
relations which embody their own subordination (Gorz,
1976a).
Inevitably this unfortunate legacy has shaped the official
Marxism o f modem Eastern European societies.30 Take this
gem on the Soviet economy from a leading Russian theoreti
cian: Machine technology does not divide people, on the
contrary, it unites them in collective labour and teaches them
to work together, teaches them discipline, collectivism . . . In
that sense the technology o f large scale machine production
serves as the material basis for the establishment and develop
ment of socialist ownership (Sukharevsky, 1974: 46). He
goes on to say that the attitudes o f workers in socialist
factories are different because they are working for themselves,
even when working the same type o f machinery. No recog
nition is given to technology and work organisation em
bodying social relations, or to the fact that alienation concerns
the separation of skill and knowledge from the worker, in
addition to non-ownership. Contemporary accounts from
inside Eastern Europe o f actual work experience indicate that
it differs little from the West with respect to hierarchy, divi
sion o f labour and payment systems (Harastzi, 1977; Bahro,
1978).31
With existing socialism becoming identified solely with
nationalised property relations and state planning, and
measuring its progress by how much it can catch up with the
capitalist world, it is easier to understand why many Western
sociologists have come to regard Marxism in the technicist
manner described at the end o f the last chapter.32 The course
of events in Eastern Europe have appeared to confirm the
prominent view that there is an inevitable convergence of
PART TWO
The Contemporary
Debates
Minutes
0.04
0.04
0.014
0.026
0.015
0.027
0,033
0.033
0.009
0.050
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Deskilling: The
Degradation of Labour?