Harry Braverman

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both famous for their philosophies on economics, more specifically the division of labor. For each of them the division of labor is rather similar in its definition, but the outcome of the division of labor differs drastically from Smith to Marx. For Smith the division of labor leads to mass production and allows large amounts of people to get things that were once available only to the rich. Smith believes that small specialized tasks leads to the invention of new technologies, and that individuals working selfishly to better themselves in the capitalistic world is beneficial to everyone. For Marx the division of labor is more about the relationship between the employee and the employer. He believes that

As the famous rap group Mobb Deep once said, “Cash rules everything around me cream, get the money. Dollar dollar bill yalllll”, they weren’t lying. If one that gets things done is money, and in order to get money these corporation use the strategic ideology of division of labor to get their products going. Division of labor is a practice that every corporation does with its workers. It narrows specialization of tasks within a production process so that each worker can become a specialist in doing one thing. Especially on an assembly line. In traditional industries, division of labor is a major motive force for economic-growth. With this practice products get finished quicker and sold quicker as well, which brings in the money flowing hence why it’s an important practice and its everywhere. At restaurants, we have waiters/servers, host, cooks, managers, food runners, and busser, this gets people seated faster, attended to quicker, and food cooked in a timely manner (most times). I believe without this a lot of places would in fact be a mess without, just like Emile Durkheim. She believes that division of labor is beneficial to our society and I mostly agree with her statement. Karl Marx also finds Division of Labor necessary to have multiple number of workers under one capitalist. As for Adam Smith, his main focus is growth. Smith believes that growth is rooted in the practice of division of labor. Each of these people agree that division of labor is a necessity in our

Danny Hupfer is a bold, jittery, thoughtful, and coarse type of person, and he’s also an hot-headed, loud person and shows even more traits later in the book. However he learns how and why he needs to help others, to let himself be heard, to keep going, and to stand up to and for others.

This week I will be focusing on David Harvey’s work, Capitalism: The Factory of Fragmentation, and how it classifies stratification within society. Throughout the readings, it was more than evident that Harvey believed that new-age Capitalism works to separate the workforce and creates individuals with an inadequate sense of purpose as implied on pages 217 and 218. This information, thus indicates that those who reign on top of the Capitalist hierarchy control the process of which workers confront daily life. Those who have already ascended to power, maintain it by diverting the attention of those individuals still climbing the rungs of modern Capitalism effectively creating a dissonance within them that serves to keep them from asserting any

Both authors mentioned “specialization of production,” regarding it as a division of labor that makes us weaker and unable to fend for ourselves. I had never previously thought of our society in those terms, but can

In his discussions of capitalism in The German Ideology he frequently accuses existing social structures for alienating man from his production. “Each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape” (Marx, Page 160) as a result of the division of labour in capitalist societies. This division of labour exists because there is higher priority placed in communal interest than individual interest. As such, there is an inequality here – communal interest is taken to be of greater importance than individual

is when the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a small part of a man’s want which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other’s men’s labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society (Smith, 2003, p. 37).

In regards to the labour-capital relation within a traditional capitalist corporation Marx & Engels (2007) refer to the dialectic between the capitalists (or bourgeoisie) who own the property and the means of production and the laborers (or proletariat) who own no property and are obligated to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie to gain substance. For Marx & Engels, this labour market is inherently fraught with tension, since the interests of the capitalist and labourers are diametrically opposed, and the balance of power between capitalists and labourers tips further in the favour of the capitalists. Because workers have nothing to sell but their labour, the bourgeoisie are able to exploit them by paying them less than the true value created by their labour. Furthermore, because of the unequal positions of capitalist and labourer, labourers must work for someone else- they must do work imposed on them as a means of satisfying the needs of others. As a result, labourers inevitably experience alienation which Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844) summarizes as the separation of individuals from the objects they create, which in turn results in one’s separation from other people, from oneself, and ultimately from one’s human nature.

Division of labour emerged during the Industrial Revolution as people moved from rural to urban areas. As population increased the distribution of jobs and activities was divided. Durkheim argues that there are two types of division of labour – forced and spontaneous. In forced division of labour rules and regulations are very restrictive. He explains “constraint alone, more or less violent, more or less direct, henceforth binds [individuals] to these functions” (Durkheim, 1984, p. 311). Constraint, experienced through indirect force (barriers) and direct force (violence) puts individuals at risk of occupying a social position that is not aligned with their abilities and talent. Spontaneous division of labour differs from forced division of labour in the sense that rules and regulations are present; however, they are much less restrictive allowing for individuation. We are free to discover and develop our unique talents because there is nothing “that may hamper, even indirectly, the free unfolding of the social force each individual contains within himself” (Durkheim, 1984, p. 313). When Durkheim refers to anything that hampers, or indirectly affects spontaneous division of labour he is referring to three key inequalities - natural, social and external.

According to Karl Marx, “Division of Labour” in the modern society refers to a process where every worker did a job that he was good at in order to make profits for the organization. Different people are good at different jobs and they must only be given the task that they are good at so that the results that they produce are profitable. The working class (ruled class) had to sell their hard work and services to the ruling class as a result to get wages as their rewards.

Division of labor is system in accordance with which the specialty in the production process. It has two advantages: first, the workers specialize in types of work in which they have a comparative advantage (comparative advantage); Second, the division of labor becomes possible to acquire through training or as a result of the practice of special knowledge and skills to work productively and to avoid errors. In modern industrial society, the division of labor is so great that no one in society can’t produce whole product by himself. [5]

‘The division of labour is the specialization of cooperating individuals who perform specific tasks and roles, because of the large amount of labour saved by giving workers specialized tasks’.

Division of labour-Unlike psysiocrats who regarded only land as the productive factor and agriculture as source of all wealth Adam smith regarded labor as the wealth of the nation .He argued that division of labour will increase productivity hence will increase the wealth of the nation.According to Adam smith ”division of labour is limited mainly by size of market”. That is only if there is a wide demand of goods ,it will be produced on a large scale and there will be lots of scope for division of labour