PRODUCTION FOR USE—or Mass Production?
What is Mass Production? It is that
method of production where society is split up into more or less
exclusive occupational groups and the work each group performs is
broken down into its simplest process and each person becomes a
detail worker.
To give an example—where most
families
made their own bread, there was still
division
of labour. But this simple division
of labour
is not mass production. Mass
production
methods are bread-making are only
possible
when the vast majority of families,
including the
mothers and daughters no longer bake
bread.
Prior to mass production, thousands of
mothers and daughters were making tens of thousands of loaves of
bread, in fact plenty of bread—but it was not mass production of
bread. Or.ce the mothers and daughters were taken into factories,
offices, etc., other methods were required to produce the tens of
thousands of loaves. A relatively few professional bakers and
assistants were necessary.
In order that these relatively few
people can turn out the bread formerly made by thousands of people,
vast masses of machinery have to be made, machinery enabling the
process of bread-making to be split up into its simplest opera-
tions and the labourers divided,
classified and grouped according to these functions. These methods
demand the centralising of the activity, such as is to be seen at
Lyons' Cadby Hall, ' Hovis ", and " Wonderloaf " model
bakeries.
Mass production methods demand a
hierarchy of labour, from the labourer at the working-tool to the
organising manager. It must be remembered that this splitting of the
functions demands speed and authority in production and
transportation.
Division of Labour
Comrade Parker, in his article "
Will there be Mass Production?", writes, "division of
labour is only harmful when excessive ". When he says this, he
has granted me my whole case.
What are mass production methods but
excessive division of labour?
Parker then says: " Further,
however, it is argued that mass production necessarily involves
pace-making, is exclusive to capitalism, and is inseparable from
large towns. These are more controversial statements with which I
for one, disagree."
Seeing that Marx has been quoted, may I
be permitted some references?
" The foundation of every division
of labour that is well-developed, and brought about by the exchange
of commodities, is the separation between town and country." (K.
Marx, Capital Vol. 1, p.345, Sonnenschein Edition.)
In case members doubt the wisdom of
stating
bat the future will be regarding the
manner
and methods of production within
Socialist
society—that it is not "scientific"
but merely
utopian:
" The abolition of the separation
between town and country is no Utopia, it is an essential condition
of the proportionate distribution of the greater industry throughout
the country. Civilisation has left us a number of large cities, as an
inheritance, which it will take much time and trouble to abolish. But
they must and will be done away with, however much time, and trouble
it may take." (F. Engels, " Landmarks of Scientific
Socialism, p.244, Kerr Edition.)
" In a higher phase of communist
society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals under
division of labour and therewith also the antithesis between mental
and physical labour has vanished, after labour has become not merely
a means to live but has become itself the primary necessity of life,
after the productive forces have also increased <vith the
all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of
co-operative wealth flows more abundantly—only then can the narrow
horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe
on its banner from each according to his ability, to each according
to his needs." (" Critique of the Gotha Programme." K.
Marx Selected Works, p.566, Vol. II.)
Whilst quoting Marx and Engels, I am
prepared to agree that supporters of mass production may find other
quotations that might appear to bear a different interpretation. This
shows the futility of relying on any one person m expecting to find
the 100% correct position in any one book. But what it does show is
the childishness of the accusation that it is Utopian if one states
that under socialism the excessive fivision of labour will not exist,
and that town and country will be abo'.ished.
I sincerely hope that, now it is shown
that Ac "masters" of scientific socialism advocated all
these things, members will not dismiss the arguments by merely
labelling them utopian. Of course, I am fully aware that "because
Marx and Engels advocated these propositions” it does not make them
correct.
Production for Use
In his article, Parker says: "
There seems no reason why it should not be possible in a society in
which people control their own conditions of work, for a machine to
relieve arduous toil and yet not entail boredom." It would
appear from this, that he thinks that machinery and mass production
are the same
thing and, consequently, thinks that
members who state that there will be no mass production methods under
socialism are saying that all machinery will be abolished. This, of
course, is nonsense.
In closing, he says, " but don't
expect society to abandon social production of most chairs and
tables." Here, again, it would appear that he equates social
production with mass production—presumably there was no "
social production" until mass production methods were employed!
I agree with Comrade Parker when he
says he sees no reason why it should not be possible in a society in
which people control their own conditions of work, for machines to
relieye arduous toil and yet not entail boredom. But mass production
methods preclude the operative from control of their work, compelling
them to:
(1)Standardise the machine processes.
(2)Operate a single process.
(3)Standardise the products.
All three points of Parker's
description of mass production, as contained in the encyclopedia to
which he refers us, demand that people must submit absolutely to a
central directing authority. To standardise the machine processes
must produce the excessive division, of labour which Parker himself
agrees is harmful.
To operate a single process produces
boredom, and I certainly question whether it relieves arduous toil.
Parker certainly gives us no evidence of this.
To standardise the product must mean
dictation to the consumers as to what they must have. This is in
opposition to a basic socialist principle—Production for Use.
Production for use does not mean merely the absence of exchange; it
also means that the needs of people will determine production.
Again, all these descriptions of mass
production methods demand the development of mono-culture and the
division of society into large towns and rural communities, which
must prevent the all-round development of the individual.
Parker again shows that he does not
know mass production methods when he sees them. When dealing with
monotonous and repetitive work, he says, " Mass production is
said to involve monotonous and repetitive work. So it docs. But so
does a great deal of non-mass
production. I wouldn't like to argue
that writing figures In a ledger all day is much less repetitive than
operating an automatic machine."
Surely the clerk who is writing figures
in a ledger all day is just as much engaged in mass production
methods as the operator of an automatic machine.
Time Saving
Parker says, " Time is worth
saving on any job under any system, because it enables us to
undertake other jobs or to enjoy leisure."
Time saving does not mean the opposite
of wasting time—it means doing everything in the shortest possible
time. In fact, the people concerned with saving time are usually
found trying to kill time. - Why does everybody want to do things in
the shortest possible time? Because of the dictates of market
production. It would be interesting to hear what Parker has in mind
when he writes of leisure. Also, why should people within socialism
want to " Save time from productive work in order to enjoy other
experiences "?
The terms "productive work"
and "leisure" can only exist when people are engaged in "
getting of living ", i.e. productive work, and when a person is
doing something for his own pleasure, hobby or recreation, called
leisure. The terms have no reference to what is being done, but why
it is being done.
Under socialism there will not be the
condition* nor the idea of "getting a living". Socialism
means to me a way of life in which people will have recognised that "
the primary necessity of life is WORK." (Marx).
Then Parker tries his hand at speed. He
says " Pace-making is certainly a feature under capitalism, but
remember it is not the machine that sets the pace, it is the boss."
Of course, it is the machine that sets the pace. Certainly it is the
employer who agrees to the installation of the belt system, but once
installed, the pace is set.
Mass production machinery and methods
are a product of property society in which things and services are
produced for a market. In society where there is no property, there
can be no place for the whip as used in past society, nor its modern
counterpart —• whipping-up machinery, and methods. People will
work because they want to and will need no whips, no threats, no
promises, no punishment, ho reward.
It is easy to write " There are
many ways in which mass-production will be different: under socialist
conditions," but nowhere in the article, or in discussions, have
I been told anything about these differences which will make mass-
production methods attractive within socialism. I do hope we shall
hear from members about these differences.
From my point of view, mass production
methods are even less attractive than the cartoon illustrating
Parker's article. Some of us, however, can find solace in the fact
that neither of these abominations will exist within society where
ALL work is useful.
A. Turner.
