PROCEEDINGS
OF THE TOMSK POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
OF THE ORDER OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND THE ORDER OF THE RED BANNER OF LABOR
named after S. M. KIROV

Volume 256 1972

PROFESSIONAL LABOR UNDER THE CONDITIONS

OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION

AS A FACTOR IN THE FORMATION OF THE NEW HUMAN

I. F. LIVSHITS

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Scientific Communism)

The formation of the new human has turned from a tendency into a stable, dynamic law-governed process, reflecting the ideals of communism and the requirements of the development of Soviet society under the conditions of the transition of socialism into communism and of the scientific and technological revolution. Social unity in socialist society is a favorable condition for the realization of this law-governed process. The dynamism of socialist society and the logic of the development of the scientific and technological revolution coincide. The development of the human being is the goal and essence of socialist production, and not a by-product, as is the case under the capitalist mode of production. Social unity is the most general characteristic of the social relations of socialism, whose economic basis is social ownership of the means of production. Under conditions of social unity, relations between the individual and society develop on a non-antagonistic basis by their very nature and are characterized by an increasing community of interests among friendly social groups: the working class, the collective-farm peasantry, and the intelligentsia, which, under the leadership of the working class, realize communist ideals that have become those of the entire people. The whole of society is interested in the all-round development of human capacities, regarding this as a condition of universal progress. In other words, the formation of the new human must be considered both as an end in itself—according to Marx, of communist society—and as a means of creating it. The formation of the new human as a means is considered in the sense that not one of the fundamental tasks of communist construction can be solved without the development of the subjective qualities of the individual, of his or her social activity.

Since Soviet society is a complex social organism, functioning and developing in close interconnection, interaction, and unity of various spheres, each task must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with other tasks as part of a whole. It is precisely such an integral approach that is characteristic of the strategic line formulated in the Program of the CPSU. It lays down the structure of the process of the transition of socialism into communism. If the entire process of the transition of socialism into communism is integral, then its elements are such processes,

which ensure the formation of the material and technical base, communist social relations, and the new human being. In this unified system there is no mechanical addition of its elements; rather, there exists a dialectical connection in which the formation and development of the personality is the result of the material conditions of society’s life and of its social relations. On the other hand, progress itself in the material conditions of life and in social relations is under the influence of the level of development of the personality. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the formation of the material and technical base is the main link in the system of strategic tasks.

The objective conditions connected with the formation of the material and technical base and of communist social relations are multidimensional phenomena and create for the individual the possibility of inclusion in various connections and relations. In this work we are interested in one aspect: to what extent the development of the productive forces under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution and of society’s transition from socialism to communism contributes to the formation of the new human being, what demands it makes upon him, and how this relates to the goal of the all-round development of the personality.

The structure of the modern productive forces is complex. Lively discussions are being conducted about its components. We shall not touch on this question here. It is important for us to state the indisputable fact that the human being, the laboring person, occupies an ever greater significance in their structure, being, according to V. I. Lenin’s profound definition, the first productive force.^1 In developing the productive forces, the human being himself changes, at the same time creating the conditions for new social relations. An essential specific feature of the development of the modern productive forces is that this process takes place under the comprehensive impact of the scientific and technological revolution, which exerts a profound influence on its entire structure. The subjective side of the productive forces is represented by the aggregate worker, characterized as a complex social phenomenon. It includes representatives of the working class, the collective-farm peasantry, and the scientific and technical intelligentsia, among whom a rapprochement is taking place. The Twenty-Fourth Congress of the CPSU gives particular attention to this side, as to a law-governed process.^2

The process of rapprochement of different social groups has an interconnected objective basis. This rapprochement is the transformation of every concrete labor into creative labor, as Marx emphasized, into universal scientific labor. And on this basis the overcoming of differences in social position takes place—the liquidation of one of the forms of the old social division of labor: the essential differences between mental and physical labor.

Soviet society inherited the productive forces of the capitalist mode of production: underdeveloped machine production in industry and routine technology in agriculture. Such a condition of the objective side of the productive forces corresponded to an underdeveloped worker.

It would be methodologically entirely incorrect, in analyzing the position of the aggregate worker in the system of production, to take as a basis only the technological side, that is, the manner of his inclusion

^1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 38, p. 359.
^2 Materials of the Twenty-Fourth Congress of the CPSU. Moscow: Political Literature Publishing House, 1971, p. 72.

into the production “mechanism,” leaving in the shadows the socioeconomic basis of production. Only a combined analysis of the two sides—the technological and the socioeconomic—provides a correct understanding of the social consequences of the development of the productive forces. It was precisely such a methodological approach to the analysis of capitalist production that enabled K. Marx to reveal the essence of the capitalist system of production.

Under the conditions of capitalist production, whose driving force is the growth of surplus value, the worker became alienated in the sphere of labor, since the labor process became not the basis of vital activity, but merely a means for satisfying life’s needs outside labor, outside working time. This had as its consequence the one-sided development of the personality, its adaptation to existing conditions. One cannot fail to take into account the shifts that have occurred in the development of the productive forces of the capitalist mode of production in recent decades. Under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, the entire structure of the productive forces in the developed capitalist countries has undergone change. Automation and comprehensive mechanization have attained a certain development. Production has introduced corrections into the professional and general educational structure of workers. But this objective process, which has a spontaneous basis, comes up against the irresolvable contradictions of the capitalist social order: the form of movement of the productive forces—namely capitalist production relations—does not change the aims of production and to a considerable extent neutralizes the stimuli that can be created for human development by modern production. This is one of the essential reasons deepening the general crisis of capitalism in its third stage.

A different situation is taking shape in socialist production, since the character of labor, which mediates its content, has been radically altered and continues to change. We find highly interesting the approach of S. A. Kugel and O. M. Nikandrov to revealing the character of labor as a multifaceted phenomenon: production-technical, socioeconomic, sociopolitical, psychological, and physiological.^3

The socioeconomic and sociopolitical aspects of the character of labor in socialist society differ fundamentally from the character of labor under the capitalist mode of production, since under socialism every worker is a subject of ownership and is interested in the development of production from economic and sociopolitical positions as a member of socialist society. Under these conditions one should see the objective coincidence of the interests of the individual and of society. On the concrete-subjective plane, the interests of the individual may also fail to coincide. The reason for such noncoincidence should be seen first of all in the fact that, in production-technical terms, the character of labor is heterogeneous and different kinds of labor are assigned to different social groups. Such a situation is explained not by the essence of the social order, but by the old technical basis, which is in essence outliving itself. The negative features connected with the technological incorporation of the worker into the old technical basis are overlapped by socialist production relations. One should see a gradual process of repla—

^3 S. A. Kugel, O. M. Nikandrov, Young Engineers. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1971, p. 37.

of the old technical basis by a new one on the basis of the laws of the scientific and technological revolution. Changes occur above all in the production-and-technical foundations of human activity.

The most characteristic tendency of modern production is the intellectualization of labor, characterized by an increase in the relative weight of mental, and especially mental professional, labor in the functions of the aggregate worker. How is this to be explained? The explanation should be sought in two interrelated phenomena. First, in the transformation of “the process of production from a simple labor process into a scientific process”^4 and, second, in the formation of a new technological mode of connection between human beings and technology.^5 The transformation of the labor process into a scientific process is expressed in the fact that the importance of the materialization of science steadily increases—that is, its embodiment in the instruments of labor, new materials, technological processes, and automated control systems. In this way the expenditure of living labor is reduced, and production itself changes its character, requiring of people a different qualification, a different level of knowledge, and other creative aptitudes. One may speak of a tendency toward the integration of labor and knowledge. Indeed, if one analyzes the structure of the aggregate worker in socialist production, then, as a tendency, the most significant figures are highly skilled workers, engineers and technicians, and scientists.

Under the influence of industrialization, the size of the working class—the leading component part of the aggregate worker—steadily increases. If in 1939 the share of workers in the employed population was 32.5 percent, then in 1969 it was 54.5.^6 At the same time, the share of workers of medium and high qualification increased considerably. The growth of qualification corresponded not only to empirical experience, but above all to the level of general and special education. The share of the scientific and engineering-technical intelligentsia within the aggregate worker is growing most intensively. Thus, statistical data show that from 1928 to 1971 the growth rates of the category of engineering-technical employees exceeded the growth rates of industrial-production personnel almost 3.5 times, which led to an increase in the relative weight of engineers and technicians from 3 to 11 percent of all enterprise employees.^7 Still more rapid growth is characteristic of the scientific intelligentsia. It is enough to point out that the number of scientific workers in the country doubled in 1949–1959, and then doubled once again in 1959–1964.^8 Such growth of the scientific-technical intelligentsia convincingly confirms the increasing role of the subjective factor in the production process, since the labor of this category of the aggregate worker is predominantly creative and initiative-driven, essentially compelling the individual to reveal and develop his abilities.

It was indicated above that one of the reasons for the intensive growth in the share of professional labor is the new technological mode of connection between human beings and technology. In what is this manifested? In the instruments of production—

^4 K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 46, part II, p. 208.
^5 See: V. G. Marakhov, The Structure and Development of the Productive Forces of Socialist Society. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1970, pp. 205–220.
^6 The USSR in Figures in 1970. Concise Statistical Handbook. Moscow, “Statistika,” 1971, p. 23.
^7 E. F. Borisov, Political-Economic Problems of the Contemporary Scientific and Technological Revolution. Moscow, “Vysshaya shkola,” 1970, p. 231.
^8 N. V. Markov, The Scientific and Technological Revolution: Analysis, Prospects, Consequences. Moscow, Publishing House of Political Literature, 1971, p. 137.

there appeared a fourth link—a cybernetic device by means of which the human being performs the functions of control, regulation, and management of the production process. Thus, standardized, monotonous functions pass from the human being to the means of labor. Labor becomes more complex and is an organic combination of creative mental labor and intellectualized physical labor. All this requires extensive theoretical training, considerable abilities and skills, since the human share consists of non-standardized operations connected with the operation of new technology. This has led to the emergence of such mass professions as adjuster, operator, laboratory assistant, and others. Consequently, the tendencies in the development of modern production fully confirm Marx’s hypothesis concerning the new technological relation between the human being and technology. “Instead of being the chief agent of production,” Marx wrote, “the worker stands alongside it.”¹

The new technological relation between the human being and technology is also expressed in the fact that more and more creative conditions are being directed toward the development of the productive forces. Moreover, if in the functioning of the productive forces we observe a reduction in the labor functions of the collective worker, then in the sphere of creating new technology, means of control and regulation, and applying new technological processes, the role of the human being is immeasurably strengthened. And this is the sphere of creative labor, based on the realization of the laws of nature, society, and human thought. If one tries to disclose the reason for the accelerated growth of the scientific and technical intelligentsia, it lies above all in the concentration of great efforts by the modern collective worker on the development of the productive forces. This process will intensify as the scientific and technological revolution unfolds. From all that has been said, the conclusion follows that the formation of the new human being is above all a function of the development of the productive forces, which are mediated by definite social conditions.

How, then, are we to explain the tendency of a significant group of social scientists to see in professionalization an impediment to the development of the personality and, consequently, a negative social phenomenon? It seems to us that this is connected, first, with the rejection of the social division of labor and its opposition to the law of the change of labor; second, with a narrow approach to the concept of “profession.”

A number of economists and philosophers (S. G. Strumilin, D. P. Kaidalov, V. P. Kornienko, R. N. Chochnev² and others) proceed from the premise that the division of labor has a historical, that is, transitory character. This position is expressed most fully by D. P. Kaidalov. “The historical character of economic laws, including the law of the division of labor,” he writes, “means that they operate only at a definite historical stage, within definite historical limits, and that their action has both its beginning and its end.”³ This proposition appears in D. P. Kaidalov’s conception as one of the funda-

...but it is incorrect in its foundation, since alongside transient, historical economic laws there exist non-transient ones. This is an elementary proposition requiring no explanation.

R. N. Chochnev links the emergence and existence of the individual division of labor with commodity production, characterizing the existence of professions under socialism as a residual phenomenon. “Under communism,” the author concludes, “together with the abolition of classes and commodity-money relations, the professional division of labor will also be abolished.”⁴

The authors mentioned above try to support their views on the social division of labor by the authority of the classics of scientific communism and, in particular, by certain propositions of Marx, where the question of eliminating the social division of labor is indeed raised. But, as is correctly indicated in the Philosophical Encyclopedia⁵ and in the work of a group of Moscow economists and sociologists,⁶ Marx approaches the social division of labor both as a historical and as a general social phenomenon. In the historical approach, Marx regards the social division of labor as a synonym for capitalist social relations, and with their elimination the basis is laid for overcoming the old forms of the social division of labor corresponding to the capitalist mode of production.⁷

Analysis shows that Marx’s posing of the question of overcoming the old forms of the social division of labor in no way contradicts his propositions on the universality, the non-transient significance, of the social division of labor. In Capital Marx writes: “...the division of labor ... is characteristic of the most diverse socio-economic formations; the manufacturing division of labor is an entirely specific creation of the capitalist mode of production.”⁸ We find the idea of the non-transient significance of the social division of labor in one of Marx’s letters to Kugelmann. In it the proposition is emphasized that the division of labor appears as a general natural law of social production. Precisely in connection with this law Marx makes an exceptionally important methodological observation: general laws are not eliminated, but are modified; they change the form of their manifestation.⁹ To resolve the question of the non-transient significance of the social division of labor, it is important to clarify the sources that give rise to this phenomenon.

Social labor is a natural need of human society. Its realization takes place through the exchange of activity. This means that the division of labor is an attribute of social labor. In this connection Marx wrote in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: “The division of labor, as the totality of all particular kinds of productive activity, is the general condition of social labor, considered from its material aspect as labor producing use-values.”¹⁰

Consequently, the division of labor is a general condition of social labor. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that, under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, the internationalization of the productive forces and integration, the process of cognition is intensifying, the differentiation and integration of science are growing, and new forms of production and spheres of labor are arising that intensify the need for an exchange of activity among people, since the possibilities of each individual person, with the general growth of his intellect and abilities, not only increase but are also increasingly limited. Hence the path to overcoming the contradiction between social and concrete labor lies not in curtailing concrete labor (that would be unnatural), but in its development, in expanding the division of labor in all its forms, including the individual division of labor. The second reason for the enduring significance of the division of labor is connected with the principal determinant conditioning the development of the productive forces. Such a determinant is the instruments of labor, which determine the development of both the objective and the subjective aspects of the productive forces and, in connection with this, the quantitative and qualitative aspect within the system of the social division of labor at all levels, including the level of the individual division of labor.

“The hand-mill,” Marx noted, “presupposes a different division of labor than the steam-mill”¹¹. Naturally, the modern technical basis now taking shape—founded above all on the revolutionization of the instruments of labor, as well as of the objects of labor, of technology, and of the management of production—is a source of the further development of the division of labor; and since changes in the objective aspect of the productive forces are an endless process, the improvement of the division of labor is likewise an enduring process. Consequently, the social division of labor is not a transient phenomenon but a general condition of social labor, which fully accords with the methodology of the classics of scientific communism, with reality, and with the tendencies of social development.

The authors mentioned above proceed further from the view that the natural law of social production is the law of the change of labor, which under the conditions of communist society will exclude the law of the division of labor as a historical, that is, transient phenomenon. “...The division of labor,” writes D. P. Kaidalov, “will be replaced by the change of labor”¹². Academician S. G. Strumilin asserts that “under conditions of the ever greater specialization of machines and tools, the technology of communism affirms a new division of labor no longer mainly among people, but among machines and whole complexes of automatic machine tools and lines”¹³. It seems to us that in the indicated approach to the two forms of realization of the process of social labor there is a serious methodological flaw, consisting in the absence of a dialectical approach to the process of realization of social labor. The essence of the problem is that the change of labor cannot exist without the division of labor. The change of labor reproduces a new division of labor on a new scientific and technical basis. If the change of labor appears as the mobile, changeable side of the labor process, then the division of labor appears as its stable, relatively stable side. Precisely

in the dialectical unity of the division and change of labor, the progressive development of the productive forces, including the human being, is ensured.

Usually reference is made to the law of the change of labor discovered by Marx, which he regarded as a natural law of universal production¹⁴. But one must not forget that Marx considers the change and the division of labor in their interconnection. Immediately after formulating the law of the change of labor, he expresses the idea that, for the normal realization of the law of the change of labor, social relations must be adapted; and this means, above all, Marx emphasizes, that it is necessary to eliminate the capitalist form of production, including “the abolition of the old division of labor”¹⁵. Thus, Marx does not consider the change of labor in isolation from the division of labor. He analyzes the division of labor itself primarily from the social side, from the standpoint of overcoming the old forms of the social division of labor and, above all, of the socio-economic fixation of the human being in the labor process.

What significance, then, do the division and change of labor have in the development of the human being? To analyze scientifically any social problem, including the present one, is possible, naturally, at the most diverse levels of cognition. In the present case the sociological level is legitimate, which requires a systemic analysis of the problem. This means that the all-round development of the personality, turning into social practice, cannot be considered by us in isolation from production and social conditions, nor can production and social conditions be adapted to this process. It is expedient to consider the formation of the human being within the system: production—human being—social conditions. From such a premise it follows that production, in the broadest understanding, and its leading element—technology, as materialized science—places its demands upon the human being as the subject of labor. But these demands are mediated by social conditions, that is, by the entire totality of social relations, which in the final analysis play the decisive role in the formation of the human being. Any other interpretation inevitably leads to mechanism. On the basis of the systemic approach, it is possible objectively to determine the place of the professional division of labor and of the change of labor in the formation of the human being and in the development of the entire totality of social relations.

S. G. Strumilin, D. P. Kaidalov, and others categorically oppose professionalization. At the same time, an argument is advanced that at first glance is very weighty: the professional division of labor leads to the worker’s being fixed in place, serving as a great brake on the development of the personality, whereas the change of labor frees one from such fixation and leads to the all-round development of the human being.

The all-round development of the human being is, in essence, a function of his activity. Activity contributes to the disclosure of the human being’s essential powers. It is broad in its range. One may argue about which components determine activity: labor, communication, and consciousness in their totality¹⁶, or practically transformative activity, communication, cognition, and value-orienting activity in their totality¹⁷. Other variants of the structure of activity are possible. But with-

A controversial point is that a comprehensive approach to activity is determined by the contemporary requirements of social and scientific-technological progress. For the person of socialist society, social and scientific-technological progress appear in unity, as two decisive conditions determining his all-round development.

Human activity is concrete in its form, but, apparently, not every concrete activity is a good for the human being. In this respect narrow professionalism appears as a serious negative phenomenon. And the whole complexity and contradictoriness of the situation consists in the fact that in modern production different stages of development are represented: manual labor, mechanized labor, automated labor, and the stages and forms of the division of labor connected with them.

The presence of contradictions in any social system does not mean the hopelessness of the situation. Everything depends on the basis on which they unfold and by what methods they are overcome. Under conditions of the social unity of socialist society there is an unswerving process of overcoming narrow professionalism, but not the liquidation of concrete labor in general. A good for society as a whole and for the individual human being is such concrete labor as promotes—and one may even say compels—the development of a person’s creative powers, that is, when labor itself has a creative character.

It was indicated above that in the sphere of material and spiritual production the necessity of a creative approach to the character and content of labor is increasing. A creative approach may manifest itself when the subject of labor possesses not simply habits and skills, but a broad and deep scientific foundation on the basis of knowledge of the complex of natural, technological, economic, and social laws. It is precisely this that determines the freedom of the personality, its ability to penetrate into the essence of phenomena. Of course, today it is still too early to speak of the considerable prevalence of this kind of tendency, which has emerged in contemporary production, but under the influence of the scientific-technological revolution and favorable social conditions it will become a stable law-governed regularity. The movement of the present tendency is connected with the complication of labor, with the gradual increase in the share of spiritual production in the general structure of production, with the growth of the educational level of the entire population. Thus, does the professionalization of labor, given the prerequisites for creative activity, hinder the development of the personality?

1. The professional division of labor solves a twofold task: it is the most important means of increasing the productivity of social labor and is an equally important means of the development of the personality. Marx expressed this proposition in the following way: “...both the product and its producer are perfected thanks to the division of labor.”¹⁸

If there were no social division of labor in its individual form, this would lead to the leveling of the personality; therefore, the functions of the social division of labor should be seen not only in the reproduction of the objective world on an expanded basis, but also in the reproduction of the human being himself likewise on an expanded basis, in his self-affirmation. It is another matter that the professional division of labor does not always perform this function in the interests of the human being, owing to the socio-economic basis of the social division of labor and the imperfect technical base. Hence the removal of social antago-

...the communist basis of the division of labor on the basis of the socialist revolution and the development of the technological conditions of labor—their revolutionary transformation in dialectical unity with the change in social conditions—must remove those negative aspects that are associated with narrow professionalization, with the professional fixation of labor. This is how the classics of scientific communism posed the problem. In principle, they came out not against the professional (individual) division of labor, but against narrow professionalism, which under conditions of antagonistic relations leads to the social fixation of the worker, to alienation in the sphere of labor and outside labor. In formulating the law of the change of labor, Marx speaks not against specialization in general, but against the fact that “...in its capitalist form it (industry.—I. L.) reproduces the old division of labor with its ossified particularities”¹⁹.

It must be borne in mind that with the development of production on the basis of automation and cybernetization, the rigid connection between its specialization and the specialization of people is gradually eliminated. Workers of a broad profile or engineering and technical personnel integrate the labor of many people who previously performed narrow functions. Therefore, if under the conditions of a machine technical basis the specialization of production requires, for the most part, an adequate specialization of people, then the new technical basis weakens such a strict dependence, and this contributes to the development of the personality.

1. Undoubtedly, the change of labor is of enduring significance for the development of the personality. The whole issue is how to interpret this phenomenon. It seems to us that the change of labor must be seen first of all not in mastering a number of professions and in changing professions, but in broadening the range of labor functions within the main, basic profession, in deepening them, in the organic combination of mental and physical labor in productive activity with the intellectualization of physical labor itself. In a word, it is necessary to see the circumstance that, under the social division of labor, the activity of the personality develops within a narrow range, but the whole point is that, under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, this narrow range of activity changes in its character: it increasingly requires a creative approach. In connection with this, a new criterion appears for evaluating the activity of the personality, one connected not only with what the personality does, but with how he does it, by what means, and at the cost of what efforts productive activity is carried out.

Intensive creative activity in any field is impossible without professional training. In this respect it is appropriate to cite Marx’s well-known words that “without limiting the sphere of activity, nothing significant can be accomplished in any field.”²⁰ Thus, the meaning of the change of labor should be seen in the horizontal and vertical mobility of the worker. By vertical mobility is meant a deepening of activity, which may lead to social movement.²¹ Moreover, vertical mobility appears as the leading aspect, since the objective basis of the change of labor is the revolutionary changes in the objective aspect of the productive forces.

In addition, it is necessary to bear in mind that the mobility of functions can take place not only within the framework of a given specialty, but also within the framework of a profession, since a profession includes many specialties. For example, the engineering profession contains more than 500 specialties. This creates great possibilities for changing labor within reasonable limits. In this case we shall already have a horizontal change of labor. Naturally, transition to another profession, one connected with more substantive labor, leads to vertical professional mobility.

D. P. Kaidalov essentially recognizes horizontal mobility without linking it to a definite profession. Of course, for the present state of production, when noncreative and in many respects fragmented labor still predominates, mastering several similar professions makes sense both for production and for the development of the individual. But the author of the book The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of Man attempts to absolutize such a situation as essentially the only form in which the law of the change of labor is manifested. This is evidenced by the conception of the organization of labor under conditions of developed communism that we find in D. P. Kaidalov’s book. “And in communist society, where the change of labor will replace the division of labor,” the author asserts, “every able-bodied person will be subordinated to the planned organization of labor: at a definite time and in a definite place he will perform some kinds of work, and at another time and in another place he will perform other kinds of work.”²² Such an approach to the organization of production and labor under conditions of developed communism is very far from the truth, since it does not correspond to the laws of the unfolding scientific and technological revolution. Contrary to D. P. Kaidalov’s assertions, labor in modern production, as was indicated, is not becoming simpler but more complex. This is a stable tendency, and it will intensify.

1. Professional labor will increasingly require integral knowledge, the need for renewing which is accelerating and growing exponentially; and this is the basis for the development of the intellect. According to specialists’ calculations, every production worker must double his knowledge and radically improve his skills and qualifications every 8–10 years (as against 25 years in the epoch of the industrial revolution).²³

General education acquires fundamental importance in the formation of a worker at any level (worker, engineer, technician). V. V. Krevnevich shows a great and stable dependence in a worker’s advancement to higher qualification on the level of education. To attain the highest grade, workers who have a secondary education and have received training in a vocational-technical school require 4 years, while workers who have 5 grades of education and have been trained on the job must spend almost 20 years for this.²⁴

1. The development of the individual will be greatly promoted by changes in the structure of employment within individual branches of production and between—

between them. It is necessary to take into account those forecasts that are connected with the development of the scientific and technological revolution. Scholars believe that the introduction of automation into all spheres of production activity creates the prerequisites for smoothing out, in the next 20–30 years, the boundary between mental and physical labor²⁵. Universal automation presupposes the practical elimination of differences in the level of education between workers and engineering personnel, since the structure of those employed at an automated enterprise, by level of education, will look as follows: 40–60 percent persons with secondary education and 20–40 percent specialists with higher education (in traditional industrial production—4–8 percent persons with secondary education and 1–2 percent engineers with higher education)²⁶. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the tendency toward more accelerated development of the nonproduction sphere. If the number of workers employed in the industry of our country over the last 28 years (1940–1968) increased 2.3 times, then the number of workers in education grew 2.8 times, workers in health care—3.1 times, and those employed in science and scientific services—8.3 times²⁷. All this provides the prerequisites for creative labor and for professional and social shifts. In a word, tendencies connected with changes in the structure of employment do not contradict professionalization, but they do not accept narrow professionalization, professional fixation.

1. It seems to us that one cannot approach production as the only field where the essential powers of the human being are manifested. Undoubtedly, it is the chief, the basic field. But it does not follow from this that if the entire muscular system is not set in motion in production²⁸, then harmony in the development of the personality disappears. One cannot make the development of the personality dependent on only one condition, even the most significant one. It is necessary to correlate this development with the totality of all social conditions.

With the complete disappearance of alienation in labor, with its transformation into the primary vital need, all forms of human life-activity will complement one another, reflecting the wholeness of the personality. As for the measure of the development of the personality, it is not static, but is determined by the level of development of society and by its needs. Such are the propositions which, as it seems to us, confirm the progressiveness of professionalization, which occupies an important place in the structure of conditions ensuring the formation of the new human being.

In connection with the growing significance of professionalization in the development of the personality, we would like to draw attention to the need to improve the concept of “profession,” since the essence of any phenomenon is concentrated in the concept itself. “A concept that has taken shape becomes the ‘measure’ of the phenomenon under consideration”²⁹. First of all, it is necessary to note that, concerning the essence of profession, there exist a number of points of view. Some researchers try to see in profession a purely technological category, one that acts in the same way under all social conditions. V. P. Kornienko advances this idea most openly. “It is enough,” he writes, “to compare, for example, an electrical fitter—

...turner and locksmith under capitalism and under socialism, in order to understand that professions, as such, do not express the specificity of production relations”³⁰. Such a point of view cannot be accepted for the simple reason that profession interests society above all not as a possibility of activity, but as a kind of activity, as an exchange of abilities among producers; and this is one of the components of production relations, mediated by the character of ownership of the means of production. Consequently, in profession one should see both a technological and an economic aspect. But, as it seems to us, even this does not exhaust the essence of profession. In it one must also see two further sides: the socio-political and the spiritual. M. N. Rutkevich and F. R. Filippov are right when they say that “professional gradations are not separated from social ones by some wall. On the contrary, in a society where private ownership of the means of production has been eliminated and everyone works, the social groups formed as a result of the social division of labor and professional groups are correlated as genera and species of labor, that is, as the general and the particular.”³¹

The professional division of labor—and hence belonging to a profession—acquires ever greater significance under conditions of the social unity of society, when the decisive class-forming factor—the relation to the means of production—while remaining determinative also under conditions of developed socialism, gradually becomes, as it were, equally operative, while in certain other characteristics one can observe a process of “blurring,” for example in distribution. In such a situation the significance of the character and content of labor in socio-class differences increases.

We proceed from the premise that a profession constitutes a differentiated social community occupying a strictly concrete place in the system of the social division of labor, endowed with strictly specific functions and carrying out common social tasks. The place of a socio-professional group is mediated by class affiliation, which, in turn, is determined by forms of ownership and by other class-forming characteristics set out by V. I. Lenin in his definition of social classes.³² The spiritual side of profession consists in the fact that it acts as one of the determining factors in the development of personality. At the same time, it may either stimulate this development or hinder it. As indicated, this is determined by the character and content of labor.

Thus, profession is a broad social category that has technological, economic, socio-political, and spiritual aspects. Its social role must be considered not in isolation, but in the context of the social order, of the social system, which determine the place and role of the corresponding socio-professional group in life as an inseparable part of a broader social whole—a class or social stratum. Such an approach proceeds entirely from Marxist-Leninist methodology and is very important under contemporary conditions of the development of socialist society, when, on the basis of social unity, there occurs both a rapproche—

between classes and the intelligentsia, as well as the overcoming of intra-class differences and differences within the intelligentsia. At the same time, it is important to see the organic interconnection between the social and the professional division of labor.

It must be borne in mind that in the approach to defining profession there is an acute ideological struggle. To present profession as a supra-class phenomenon—such is the aim of bourgeois ideology. This, in particular, is confirmed by an analysis of the literature published in recent years in West Germany. In numerous definitions of the concept of profession—technological, functional, economic, ethical, religious—an attempt is made to present the supra-class character of the bourgeois order³³. Profession itself is considered not in the context of the social order, but as an isolated phenomenon, supposedly existing in pure form and determining the “social form of being”³⁴.

Thus, profession is presented as the sole, independent determinant of a person’s life, unconnected with the existing social relations. Yet it is precisely capitalist social relations, determined above all by private ownership of the means of production, that create real obstacles to the acquisition of a profession and to its realization. So-called technological unemployment is clear confirmation of this. The very term “technological unemployment,” that is, unemployment connected with workers’ lack of the necessary qualifications, does not change the situation, since it once again confirms the inability of the capitalist social order to create professional mobility in accordance with the demands of production. Under such conditions, to speak of a harmony of interests between the individual and society, as is emphasized in the official definition of profession by the statistical service of the FRG³⁵, means turning the problem upside down. The same attitude should be taken toward the striving of bourgeois stratification theory to solve the problem of class-forming factors by seeing among them not the main factor (the relation to the means of production and the place in the system of social production), but such factors, for example, as profession, which can play an essential role only in conjunction with the fundamental factors.

The currently widespread definition of profession emphasizes three features: belonging to a type of labor activity, the necessity of definite training for the performance of the corresponding labor functions, and profession as a source of income³⁶. The indicated features have undergone substantial changes. Moreover, they cannot exhaust the entire concept, since they do not include a number of new requirements for profession. Therefore, since the objective conditions of labor and the requirements imposed on labor have changed, the concept of profession must change as well. The proposition that concepts must develop, reflecting the new essence of the phenomenon, is one of the most important methodological requirements of Marxism-Leninism. “For it is self-evident,” wrote F. Engels in the preface to the third volume of Capital, “that when things and their mutual relations are considered not as fixed, but as

…undergoing a process of change, then their mental reflections, concepts, are also subject to change and transformation”³⁷.

A stable attribute of a profession has always been belonging to a definite kind of activity. This attribute is objectively conditioned by the social character of labor and by its division. Since the scientific and technological revolution deepens the social division of labor, this attribute naturally becomes stronger. This is clearly confirmed by the emergence of new branches of production and by the dynamics of the professional structure.

As was indicated, what is characteristic of modern production is the ever greater intellectualization of labor activity on the basis of its specialization. This puts forward two requirements: first, that the subject of labor possess general scientific training, which makes specialized activity meaningful and increases the mobility of the subject of labor, as it were adapting him to constant changes in the organizational and technical aspect of production, to the processes of integration and differentiation that take place in science and production. Such general scientific training is provided by universal secondary education, the transition to which will be completed in the years of the Ninth Five-Year Plan. Second, the acquisition of special knowledge on the basis of general scientific training and scientific thinking.

An important stimulating factor in a person’s labor activity is the correspondence of the profession to the inclinations and interests of the individual. The significance of this factor acquires fundamental importance under conditions of the intellectualization of labor. Since labor increasingly becomes the most important condition for the self-affirmation of the individual, for his self-development and the constant raising of social activity, this creates a basis for the development and combination of material and moral incentives to labor, because the individual sees in labor not only the main source of income (bearing in mind that part of income is compensated through social consumption funds), but also obtains ever greater satisfaction from the very process of labor. It is also important to take into account the circumstance that, under the conditions of the socialist system, the attitude toward labor and the character of labor determine the position of the individual, his prestige both in the sphere of his immediate social environment and on the scale of society as a whole.

The requirements imposed on professional labor by scientific and technological progress, and the social conditions in which a person in socialist society works, increasingly contribute to the fact that not separate components and qualities of the personality, but its entire structure in the aggregate, are included in the labor process.

Thus, under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, it is wholly insufficient to define a profession on the basis of only three attributes: the kind of labor activity, the necessity of definite training for the performance of the corresponding labor functions, and the source of income. A profession must also include general scientific and special training and the capacity to bring spiritual satisfaction.

Proceeding from the criteria listed, the following definition of a profession may be given: a profession is belonging to a definite kind of labor activity on the basis of general scientific and special training, in accordance with personal inclinations, and serving as the principal source of income and spiritual satisfaction. Of course, at

at the present stage of development of socialist society, such a definition is subject to considerable limitations imposed by the current state of production and of the individual. But, first, the definition must include the progressive tendencies that have a real basis for realization, and, second, the limitations will be removed as scientific-technical and social progress develops. In addition, it must be borne in mind that professionalization takes place at three levels: the training of workers, the training of mid-level specialists, and the training of highly qualified specialists. The definition given above reflects what is general and characteristic of professionalization. This general aspect manifests itself at each level in its own specific way.

In the literature there is still no clear understanding of the relationship among profession, specialty, and specialization. It seems to us that such a division has a technological basis. A profession appears as a generic formation, whereas specialty and specialization are specific formations; a profession is relatively stable, while specialty and specialization are more changeable.

The material presented in the article provides grounds for the following conclusions:

1. The scientific-technical revolution creates favorable objective conditions for the formation of the new human being, which are realized within the system “production—human being—social conditions.” The socialist social order has the possibility of organically combining the laws of the scientific-technical revolution with the laws governing the formation of the new human being.

2. Within the structure of the objective means directed toward the formation of the new human being, an especially important place is occupied by professional labor, which develops in accordance with the laws of the scientific-technical revolution and creates the prerequisites for transforming labor into a creative process, as a necessary condition for solving one of the most cardinal tasks of communist construction: transforming labor into the primary necessity of life.

3. Professional labor contains the most favorable basis for the full realization of two forms of social labor that exist in dialectical unity—the division and the alternation of labor.

4. The solution of the problem of personality formation under the conditions of the scientific-technical revolution and the increasing role of professional labor has broad access to social practice. This contributes to: a) increasing the productivity of social labor; b) forming the new human being on the basis of the development of his subjectivity; c) accelerating social mobility and achieving social homogeneity.

Thus, the present problem has a profound class, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical content, both in its essence and in its forms of manifestation, reflecting the entire complex of decisions of the Twenty-Fourth Congress of the CPSU.

1. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 46, pt. II, p. 214. ↩

2. S. G. Strumilin, On the Paths of Building Communism. Moscow, 1959. D. P. Kaidalov, The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of the Human Being. Moscow, Mysl, 1968. V. P. Kornienko, The Social Division of Labor in the Period of Transition to Communism. Moscow, 1963. R. N. Chochnev, “The Historical Essence of Professional Labor,” in Problems of Scientific Communism, issue 3. Moscow, Mysl, 1969. ↩

3. D. P. Kaidalov, The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of the Personality. Moscow, Mysl, 1968, p. 16. ↩

4. R. N. Chochnev. The Historical Essence of Professional Labor. The Problem of Scientific Communism. Issue 3. Moscow, Mysl, 1969, p. 230. ↩

5. Philosophical Encyclopedia. Vol. 4, Moscow, Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 1967, p. 456. ↩

6. V. S. Nemchenko. “The Division of Labor and the Transformation of Labor Activity into Creativity,” in: Professional Adaptation of Youth. Moscow State University Press, 1969, p. 10. ↩

7. K. Marx and F. Engels. Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 31; Vol. 23, p. 499. ↩

8. K. Marx and F. Engels. Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 372. ↩

9. K. Marx and F. Engels. Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 460–461. ↩

10. K. Marx and F. Engels. Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 38. ↩

11. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 4, p. 152. ↩

12. D. P. Kaidalov, The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of Man. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1968, p. 88. ↩

13. S. G. Strumilin, On the Paths of Building Communism. Moscow, 1959, p. 12. ↩

14. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 498. ↩

15. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 499. ↩

16. B. G. Ananyev, Man as an Object of Cognition. Leningrad, 1969. ↩

17. M. S. Kagan, “An Attempt at a Systemic Analysis of Human Activity,” Philosophical Sciences, 1970, No. 5, pp. 43–53. ↩

18. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 433. ↩

19. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 498. ↩

20. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 433. ↩

21. The connection between professional and social movement is set forth in the book by M. N. Rutkevich and F. R. Filippov, Social Movement, Moscow, “Mysl,” 1970, pp. 45–46. ↩

22. D. P. Kaidalov, The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of Man. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1968, p. 88. ↩

23. Questions of Philosophy, 1971, No. 9, p. 30. ↩

24. V. V. Krevnevich, The Influence of Scientific and Technological Progress on Changes in the Structure of the Working Class of the USSR. Moscow, “Nauka,” 1971, p. 157. ↩

25. The Future of Human Society. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1971, p. 338. ↩

26. “Problems of Peace and Socialism,” 1967, No. 1, p. 80. ↩

27. V. V. Krevnevich. The Influence of Scientific and Technological Progress on Changes in the Structure of the Working Class of the USSR. Moscow, “Nauka,” 1971, p. 385. ↩

28. D. P. Kaidalov. The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of the Human Being. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1968, p. 122. ↩

29. Philosophical Encyclopedia. Vol. 4, p. 315. ↩

30. V. P. Kornienko, The Social Division of Labor in the Period of Transition to Communism. Moscow, 1963, p. 23. ↩

31. M. N. Rutkevich, F. R. Filippov, Social Mobility. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1970, pp. 61–62. ↩

32. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 39, p. 15. ↩

33. A. Hess, Profession in Development. Report on the Problems of Professionalization. Stuttgart, 1968, pp. 13–26 (translated from German). ↩

34. Ibid. ↩

35. Economics and Statistics. Bonn, 1961, p. 389 (translated from German). ↩

36. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. 2nd ed., vol. 35, p. 164. ↩

37. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 25, part 1, p. 16. ↩