On Differences in the Methodological Approach to the Professional Division of Labor

I. F. Livshits

The professionalization of labor has important theoretical and practical significance, occupying a definite place in the structure of the means ensuring the implementation of the strategic line of the Twenty-Fourth Congress of the CPSU toward combining the advantages of socialism with the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution.

The social role of the professionalization of labor consists in the fact that it is one of the decisive initial conditions for the intensification of production, for changes in the content and character of labor, for the movement of socialist society toward social homogeneity, and for changes in the personal structure of workers in any sphere of modern production. Hence attention to the professionalization of personnel must constantly increase, both in theoretical-methodological and in organizational-practical respects. The present article is devoted to certain theoretical-methodological questions, the absence of a clear solution to which creates great difficulties for practice.

The essence of the problem is that, until recently, contradictory views on the professional division of labor have been widespread in the scholarly literature, and hence also on the place of the profession in social relations.

In some cases the professional division of labor is regarded as an important form of the social division of labor¹. Another point of view denies this division of labor and predicts its disappearance, since this, allegedly, is where technical progress leads, and this corresponds to the interests of the all-round development of the individual². And the adherents of a third point of view believe that the professional division of labor has not existed and does not exist, since “profession or specialty defines the quality of labor power and is by no means a permanent occupation, one or another type of labor”³.

¹ V. M. Moskovin. The Social Division of Labor under Socialism. Moscow, 1961; P. Sude­revsky. Problems of the Division of Labor. Moscow, 1963; N. M. Rutkevich and F. R. Filippov. Social Movements. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1970; A. M. Padalko. “The Professional Division of Labor in Connection with Scientific and Technological Progress.” Economic Sciences, 1970, No. 6, etc.

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 Man. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1968; R. N. Chochiev. “The Historical Essence of Professional Labor.” Problems of Scientific Communism, issue 3, Moscow, “Mysl,” 1969.

³ D. D. Torginov. The Personal Abilities and Division of Labor under Socialism. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1972, p. 17.

What should be seen as the methodological basis of such an, essentially, diametrically opposite attitude toward the professional division of labor? It seems to us that this can be explained by three reasons: first, by the denial of the dialectical unity between the social and the professional division of labor; second, by a narrow approach to the concept of profession; and, third, by the counterposing of the professional division of labor to the all-round development of the individual.

To deny the dialectic of the social and professional division of labor means nothing other than recognizing that these are phenomena of different orders and that the connection between them is not essential but purely external in character. It is from precisely such positions that L. D. Loginov approaches the problem.^4 Moreover, the reference to the absence in K. Marx of a proposition on the existence of a professional division of labor has no foundation. In Capital, K. Marx emphasizes the idea that the division of labor within society corresponds to the limitation of the individual by the sphere of a definite profession.^5 Here, in a footnote comment, K. Marx cites an excerpt from Skarbek’s work in which the professional division of labor is considered within the system of the social division of labor.

The social division of labor is a system of relations reflecting the differentiation of human labor activity. In this lies its essence, which is mediated by the social order, by the type of production relations.

The social division of labor has a set of forms that determine its content. According to K. Marx’s classification, these are the general, particular, and individual divisions of labor.^6 Naturally, content cannot exist without form, which constitutes the “internal organization of content.”^7

One of the numerous forms of the social division of labor is the professional division, through which a person’s concrete activity is revealed and his place in production is determined, production having two sides—objective and subjective: “On one side,” wrote K. Marx, “the material means of production, the objective conditions of production; on the other side—the acting capacities for labor, labor power purposefully manifested, the subjective condition of production.”^8

It is important to stress the idea that the professional division of labor cannot be linked only with the individual type of division of labor,^9 which is characteristic of a separate enterprise. Scientific and technological progress leads to a reduction in the number of narrow professions and to an increase in the share of broad-profile professions, which have an industry-wide, inter-industry, and even general character. This is especially characteristic of professions brought about by the comprehensive mechanization and automation of production and of intellectual professional labor. In this respect, the profession of engineer is indicative; it has become, in essence, universal. The engineer’s labor is applied both in material and in spiritual production, as well as in the sphere of the social administration of society, and is in turn divided into more than 500 specialties. This is convincingly confirmed by statistical data—

^4 L. D. Loginov, Universal Employment and the Division of Labor under Socialism. Moscow, “Mysl,” 1972, p. 16.
^5 K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 364.
^6 K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 363.
^7 Philosophical Encyclopedia, vol. 5, Moscow, 1970, p. 383.
^8 Archive of K. Marx and F. Engels, vol. II (VII), 1933, p. 15.
^9 V. G. Podmarkov, I. N. Sizemskaya, On the Professional Structure of Soviet Society. Moscow, “Znanie,” 1969, p. 4.

...statistics on the distribution of engineering personnel by branches of the national economy¹.

Consequently, the professional division of labor must be linked with all types of the social division of labor. This should be emphasized because the idea is sometimes advanced that with the development of scientific and technological progress the individual division of labor will disappear, and, consequently, so will the professional one. Such a formulation is incorrect, because what is taking place is not the abolition of the individual division of labor, but its narrowing and enlargement. Moreover, such a formulation violates one of the initial principles of dialectics concerning the relation of the general, the particular, and the individual.

The absence of a dialectical approach to the problem leads to the professional division of labor being regarded as a temporary historical phenomenon, while the narrow professionalism characteristic of manufacture and machine production is absolutized. Attempts are sometimes made to interpret expansively K. Marx’s assessments relating to the manufacturing period. In this regard it is not without interest to cite the characterization given to the professionalization of labor in Capital, in the chapter “Division of Labor and Manufacture.” K. Marx writes: “The division of labor, alongside the economic sphere, embraces all other spheres of society and everywhere lays the foundation ... of narrow professionalism and specialization...”².

It seems to us that this characterization of professionalization refers to the manufacturing period. Evidently L. D. Loginov holds a different opinion; in the book mentioned above he cites K. Marx’s proposition without any reservations, that is, he gives it a universal methodological significance. Naturally, such use of the methodology of the classics of scientific communism can only be harmful.

K. Marx approaches the social division of labor both as a historical and as a general social phenomenon. In the historical approach, Marx considers the social division of labor as synonymous with capitalist social relations, with the elimination of which the basis is laid for the abolition of the old forms of the social division of labor corresponding to the capitalist mode of production³.

Analysis shows that Marx’s formulation of the question of overcoming the old forms of the social division of labor in no way contradicts his propositions on the universality and enduring significance of the social division of labor. In Capital Marx writes: “The division of labor ...—regardless of whether or not it is mediated by commodity exchange—is inherent in the most diverse socio-economic formations themselves...”⁴. In order to resolve the question of the enduring 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 necessity of human society. Its realization occurs through the exchange of activity. This means that an attribute of social labor is the division of labor. In this connection K. Marx wrote in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: “The division of labor, as the totality of all special kinds of productive activity, is the general state of social labor, considered from its material aspect as labor producing use-values”⁵.

Hence the path to overcoming the contradiction between social and concrete labor lies not in the “curtailment” of concrete labor (this would be unnatural), but in its development, in the expansion of the division of labor in all its forms, including the professional division of labor.

The second reason for the enduring significance of the division of labor is connected with the principal determinant that conditions the development of the productive forces. This determinant is the instruments of labor, which determine the development of both the objective and the subjective sides of the productive forces and, in this connection, the quantitative and qualitative aspect in the system of the social division of labor at all levels, including the level of the professional division of labor.

“The hand-mill,” Marx noted, “presupposes a different division of labor than the steam-mill.”^15 Naturally, the modern technical basis now taking shape, at the foundation of which lies above all the revolutionizing of the instruments of labor, as well as of the objects of labor, technology, and production management, is a source of further development of the division of labor; and since changes in the objective side 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; this is fully consistent with the methodology of the classics of scientific communism, with the reality and tendencies of social development.

Some researchers are inclined to believe 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. “In place of the division of labor,” writes D. P. Kaidalov, “there will come the change of labor.”^16 Academician S. G. Strumilin asserts that “under conditions of ever greater specialization of the machines and implements of the technology of communism, a new division of labor is established no longer chiefly among people, but among machines and entire complexes of automatic machine tools and lines.”^17

It seems to us that in the indicated approach to the two forms of realization of the process of social labor, its dialectic is likewise not taken into account. 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, changing side of the labor process, then the division of labor appears as the stable, relatively constant side. It is precisely in the dialectical unity of the division and change of labor that the progressive development of the productive forces is ensured, including the improvement of the professional division of labor.

It was indicated above that a narrow approach to profession is often encountered. In particular, there is the tendency to see in it a purely technological category. This idea is stated most openly by V. P. Kornienko. “It is enough,” he writes, “to compare, for example, an electrician and a fitter under capitalism and under socialism in order to understand that professions, as such, do not express the specificity of production relations.”^18

Consequently, V. P. Kornienko links profession only with technological relations. Of course, technological relations, devel—

^15 K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 4, p. 152.
^16 D. P. Kaidalov, The Law of the Change of Labor and the All-Round Development of the Human Being, p. 88.
^17 S. G. Strumilin, On the Paths of Building Communism, p. 12.
^18 V. P. Kornienko, The Social Division of Labor in the Period of Transition to Communism. Moscow, 1963, p. 23.

revealing man’s connection with the instruments of labor, are the substantial basis of professional activity. Technological relations determine the content of labor and in this sense are a determinant of the professional structure. One may agree with those social scientists who include them in the totality of social relations”¹⁹. If technological relations are not singled out as social ones, as K. Marx drew attention to²⁰, then in analyzing them (social relations) their integrity is violated, since a most important element falls out—one that affects the entire complex system of the functioning and development of society.

For all the importance of technological relations, they are mediated by the determining and decisive element of social relations—production relations. Hence professional activity cannot exist outside production relations, which determine its social meaning and social character on the basis of such determinants as the type of property, the character of distribution, and consumption.

It is necessary to emphasize the idea that a profession is both a type of activity and an ability for activity. An approach to a profession only as an ability for activity serves as a basis, as is evident from L. D. Loginov’s position cited above, for denying the professional division of labor. It seems to us that this is incorrect in essence, since the ability to work is realized in labor itself. Such an assertion contains an underestimation of professionalization and, in essence, affirms the very gap that often exists between the production functions performed and professional training. Thus, the category of practitioners among the engineering intelligentsia not only is not decreasing, but, according to researchers’ data, tends to increase²¹. Naturally, scientific and technological progress only loses from such a situation.

One of the most important demands of the scientific and technological revolution is the professionalization of labor, and especially of mental labor. The worker’s training must correspond to production activity. This is why a profession should ideally be considered both as a type of labor activity and as the ability for it, in their dialectical unity.

Modern production increasingly requires from a person such professional qualities as, in essence, integrate his entire structure—social, psychological, and biological. This applies especially to the personal (social) structure, which characterizes a person’s experience, the orientation of his activity, and his attitude toward it. Hence it has become generally recognized that modern production increasingly requires an all-round developed personality and at the same time creates the conditions for this.

Since the professional division of labor is a form of the social division of labor, it is natural that the development of the personality must take place under conditions of professional training and professional activity. It is precisely in professional labor—the principal sphere of human activity—that the personality objectifies its

¹⁹ G. N. Volkov, Sociology of Science. Sociological Essays on Scientific and Technical Activity. Moscow, 1968; I. D. Ermakov, The Laws of the Development of Society and the Building of Communism. Moscow, Mysl, 1971; V. I. Belozertsev, Problems of Technical Creativity as a Type of Spiritual Production, Ulyanovsk, 1970.

²⁰ K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 383, note.

²¹ A. A. Zvorykin, A. M. Gemota, Social Problems of Engineering and Technical Labor. Collection “Social Problems of Labor and Production.” Soviet-Polish Comparative Study.

essential forces and broadens social experience. Such a framing is theoretically untenable and lifeless⁶.

Thus, the professional division of labor, as a universal form of the social division of labor in all its types, has enduring significance, developing under the influence of scientific-technical and social progress and, under conditions of the increasing professionalization of personnel, exerting ever-growing influence on the objective and subjective sides of production. The absence of clear methodological positions on this question may cause significant harm to the process of the professionalization of labor.

1. Public Education, Science, and Culture in the USSR. Statistical Collection. Moscow, “Statistika,” 1971, p. 238. ↩

2. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 366. ↩

3. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 3, p. 31; vol. 23, p. 499. ↩

4. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 372. ↩

5. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 13, p. 38. ↩

6. For a detailed discussion of the influence of the professionalization of labor on the development of the personality, see: I. F. Livshits, “Professional Labor under the Conditions of the Scientific-Technical Revolution as a Factor in the Formation of the New Human Being,” Proceedings of the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute, vol. 256, “Instruction, Upbringing, and the Development of the Student’s Personality,” TSU Publishing House, Tomsk, 1972, pp. 3–18. ↩