6.1. Separation of statuses: fuchses, commiltons, philistres Relationships, rights or obligations, transitions from status to status (training, initiation rituals). Exclusion from corporations. Relationships between representatives of different corporations. Relationship between

4. DIVISION OR NATIONAL UNITY First of all, is it desirable in this case that the present territories Soviet Union remained united by one regime, or is their separation desirable? And if it is desirable to keep them united, at least to a large extent

Chapter I "On the division of labor" The greatest progress in the development of the productive power of labor and a significant proportion of the art, skill and ingenuity with which it is directed and applied, were, apparently, the result of the division of labor. The results of the division of labor for

Chapter III "The division of labor is limited by the size of the market" Since the possibility of exchange leads to a division of labor, the degree of the latter must always be limited by the limits of this possibility of exchange, or, in other words, by the size of the market. When the market is small, neither

Chapter X "On Wages and Profits Under Different Uses of Labor and Capital" The totality of the advantages and disadvantages of the various uses of labor and capital in the same locality must be exactly the same, or constantly tend towards equality. If in this

Division of labor

qualitative differentiation labor activity in the process of development of society, leading to the isolation and coexistence of its various types. R. t. exists in different forms, corresponding to the level of development of the productive forces and the nature of production relations. R.'s manifestation of t. is the exchange of activity.

There is R. t. within society and within the enterprise. These two main types of R. of t. are interconnected and interdependent. K. Marx called the division of social production into its major branches (such as agriculture, industry, etc.) the general production process, and the division of these types of production into types and subtypes (for example, industry into separate branches) - the particular production process. and, finally, R. t. within the enterprise - individual R. t. General, private and individual R. t. are inseparable from professional R. t., the specialization of workers. The term R. T." is also used to designate the specialization of production within one country and between countries - territorial and international R. t.

In social science, R. t. received a different interpretation. Ancient authors (Isocrates, Xenophon) emphasized its positive significance for the growth of labor productivity. Plato saw in R. t. the basis for the existence of different classes, the main reason for the hierarchical structure of society. Representatives of classical bourgeois political economy, especially A. Smith (he coined the term "p. m."), noted that p. m. leads to the greatest progress in the development of productive forces, and at the same time pointed out that it transforms into a limited being. In J. J. Rousseau, the protest against the transformation of people into one-sided individuals as a consequence of R. t. was one of the main arguments in his denunciation of civilization. The romantic criticism of capitalist R. t. began with F. Schiller, who noted its deep contradictions and at the same time did not see a way to eliminate them. His ideal is “a whole and harmonious person” Ancient Greece. The utopian socialists, while recognizing the necessity and benefits of R. t., at the same time sought ways to eliminate its harmful effects on human development. A. Saint-Simon put forward the task of organizing a coordinated system of labor, which requires a close connection of parts and their dependence on the whole. C. Fourier, in order to maintain interest in work, put forward the idea of ​​a change in activity.

From the middle of the 19th century bourgeois social thought is characterized by the apology of R. t. O. Comte, G. Spencer noted the beneficial value of R. t. for social progress, and negative consequences considered it necessary and natural costs or attributed them not to R. t. in itself, but to distorting external influences (E. Durkheim).

In modern bourgeois sociology, on the one hand, the apology of capitalist R. t. continues, and on the other hand, its criticism, emphasizing the fact that R. t. bureaucratic organizations and the state, into an impersonal element of "mass society" (See Mass society). However, the bourgeois-liberal critics of capitalist R. t. (E. Fromm, D. Riesman, W. White, C. R. Mills, A. Toffler, C. Reich - USA) put forward naive-utopian recipes for eliminating the vices of the capitalist system.

Marxism-Leninism gave a truly scientific assessment of R. t. He notes its historical inevitability and progressiveness, points to the contradictions of antagonistic R. t. in an exploiting society, and reveals the only correct ways to eliminate them. At an early stage in the development of society, there was a natural R. t. - according to sex and age. With the complication of the instruments of production, with the expansion of the forms of human influence on nature, their labor began to be qualitatively differentiated and certain types of it began to stand apart from each other. This was dictated by the obvious expediency, since R. t. led to an increase in his productivity. V. I. Lenin wrote: “In order to increase the productivity of human labor, directed, for example, to the production of some part of the whole product, it is necessary that the production of this part be specialized, become a special production that deals with a mass product and therefore allows (and challenging) the use of machines, etc.” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 1, p. 95). From this, Lenin concluded that the specialization of social labor "... by its very essence, is endless - just like the development of technology" (ibid.).

Production is unthinkable without cooperation, cooperation of people, which gives rise to a certain distribution of activity. “It goes without saying,” K. Marx wrote, “that this necessity of distributing social labor in certain proportions cannot in any way be destroyed by a certain form of social production, only the form of its manifestation can change” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch ., 2nd ed., vol. 32, pp. 460-461). The forms of distribution of labor find direct expression in the distribution of labor, which also determines the existence of historically determined forms of property. “Different stages in the development of the division of labor,” wrote Marx and Engels, “are at the same time different forms of ownership, i.e., each stage of the division of labor also determines the relationship of individuals to each other in accordance with their relationship to material, tools and products of labor ”(ibid., vol. 3, p. 20).

The process of distributing people in production, connected with the growth of specialization, takes place either consciously, according to plan, or takes on a spontaneous and antagonistic character. In primitive communities, this process was systematic. The tools of labor here were strictly individualized, but labor and the use of its results could not then be fragmented - the low productivity of people's labor excluded their separation from the community (See Community).

Since in the entire previous history of mankind the process of production consisted in the fact that people wedged a tool of production between themselves and the object of labor, themselves becoming a direct component of the production process, then, starting from the primitive community, the individualization of tools of labor led to the “attachment” of people to them and certain types differentiated activities. But since all members of the community had common interests, such “attachment” was of a natural nature, was considered justified and reasonable.

With the development of tools of production, the expediency and necessity of relatively isolated labor of individuals arose, and more productive tools made it possible for individual families to exist separately. This is how the transformation of directly social labor, as it was in primitive communities, into private labor took place. Describing the rural community as a transitional form to complete private property, Marx noted that here the labor of individuals acquired an isolated, private character, and this was the reason for the emergence of private property. “But the most important thing,” he wrote, “is parcel labor as a source of private appropriation” (Marx K., ibid., vol. 19, p. 419).

In pre-capitalist formations, Engels wrote, “the means of labor - land, agricultural tools, workshops, handicraft tools - were the means of labor of individuals, calculated only for individual use ... But that's why they, as a rule, belonged to the manufacturer himself. ... Consequently, the right of ownership of products rested on one's own labor” (ibid., pp. 211, 213).

As a result of the fragmentation of labor, its transformation into private labor and the emergence of private property, the opposite of the economic interests of individuals, social inequality arose, society developed in conditions of spontaneity. It has entered an antagonistic period in its history. People began to attach themselves to certain tools and various types increasingly differentiated activity beyond their will and consciousness, due to the blind necessity of developing production. This main feature of antagonistic R. t. is not an eternal state, as if inherent in the very nature of people, but a historically transient phenomenon.

Antagonistic R. t. leads to alienation from a person of all other types of activity, except for the relatively narrow sphere of his work. The material and spiritual values ​​created by people, as well as the social relations themselves, go out of their control and begin to dominate them. “... The division of labor,” Marx and Engels wrote, “also gives us the first example of the fact that as long as people are in a spontaneously formed society, as long as, consequently, there is a gap between private and general interests, as long as, consequently, the division of activity takes place not voluntarily, but spontaneously, - a person’s own activity becomes an alien, opposing force for him, which oppresses him, instead of him dominating it ”(ibid., vol. 3 p. 31).

Such a state can cease only under two indispensable conditions: the first is when the means of production, as a result of socialist revolution are transferred from private to public property and an end is put to the spontaneous development of society; second, when the productive forces reach such a stage of development that people cease to be chained to strictly defined tools of labor and types of activity, cease to be direct agents of production. Two fundamental changes are connected with this: first, the isolation of people in labor ceases, labor becomes directly social in full measure; secondly, labor acquires a truly creative character, turns into a technological use of science, when the subject stands next to the direct process of production, masters, manages and controls it. These are two indispensable conditions for achieving true freedom, comprehensive development and self-affirmation of man as a rational being of nature.

Marx pointed out that productive labor must simultaneously become the self-realization of the subject. "IN material production labor can acquire such a character only in the way that 1) its social character is given and 2) that this labor has a scientific character, that at the same time it represents universal labor, is the tension of man, not as a force of nature trained in a certain way, but as such an object that appears in the process of production not in a purely natural, naturally formed form, but in the form of an activity that controls all the forces of nature” (ibid., vol. 46, part 2, p. 110). Of course, the specialization of labor processes will inevitably continue along with the expansion of people's influence on nature. For example, a biologist will always differ in object and activity from a geologist. However, both of them, like all other members of society, will be engaged in freely chosen creative work. All people will cooperate, complementing each other and acting as subjects that intelligently control the forces of nature and society, i.e., true creators.

The shortening of the working day and the enormous increase in free time will enable people, along with professional creative work, to constantly engage in their favorite activities: art, science, sports, and so on. Thus, the one-sidedness caused by antagonistic R. t. will be completely overcome, and the all-round and free development of all people will be ensured.

S. M. Kovalev.

The history of the development of the division of labor. The defining condition of the R. of t. is the growth of the productive forces of society. “The level of development of the productive forces of a nation is revealed most clearly in the degree to which the division of labor is developed in it” (K. Marx and F. Engels, ibid., vol. 3, p. 20). At the same time, the development and differentiation of the tools of production play a decisive role in the deepening of the production of t. In turn, R. t. contributes to the development of productive forces, the growth of labor productivity. The accumulation of production experience and skills in people for work is directly dependent on the degree of labor productivity and on the specialization of workers in certain types of labor. Technical progress is inextricably linked with the development of social R. t.

The growth and deepening of R. t. also influence the development of production relations. Within the framework of the primitive communal system, the first large-scale social trade union (the division of pastoral tribes) historically arose, which created the conditions for regular exchange between the tribes. “The first major social division of labor, together with the increase in the productivity of labor, and consequently also in wealth, and with the expansion of the sphere of productive activity, under the then historical conditions, taken as a whole, necessarily entailed slavery. From the first major social division of labor arose the first major division of society into two classes - masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited ”(Engels F., ibid., vol. 21, p. 161). With the emergence of the slave-owning system, on the basis of the further growth of the productive forces, a second major social trade union developed—the separation of handicrafts from agriculture, which marked the beginning of the separation of the city from the countryside and the emergence of an opposition between them. The separation of craft from agriculture meant the emergence of commodity production (see Commodity). The further development of exchange led to a third major social trade union—the separation of trade from production and the separation of the merchant class. In the era of slavery, the opposite appears between mental and physical labor. The emergence of territorial and professional R. t.

The emergence and development of the machine industry was accompanied by a significant deepening of social production and the spontaneous formation of new branches of production. One of the most important manifestations of the process of socialization of labor under capitalism is specialization, an increase in the number of branches of industrial production. Under the conditions of capitalism, there is also R. t. within enterprises. The spontaneous development of commodity production under capitalism exacerbates the antagonistic contradiction between the social nature of production and the privately owned form of appropriation of the product, between production and consumption, etc. Describing the antagonistic basis for the development of industrial production under capitalism, K. Marx from the very beginning involves the division of labor conditions, instruments of labor and materials ... and thus the split between capital and labor ... The more the division of labor develops and the more accumulation grows, the stronger ... this split develops ”( ibid., vol. 3, p. 66).

The development of capitalism determines the economic rapprochement of peoples and the development of international trade unionism. But this progressive trend under capitalism is carried out by subordinating some peoples to others, by oppressing and exploiting peoples (see Colonies and colonial policy, Neocolonialism).

Under socialism, it is created fundamentally new system R. t., corresponding to its economic system. On the basis of the dominance of public ownership of the means of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the exploitative foundations of labor productivity have been eliminated. The differences between mental and physical labor, and between town and country, are gradually decreasing. Planned R. t. is one of the necessary conditions for expanded socialist reproduction. The system of retail trade in the USSR and other countries of the world socialist system is inextricably linked with the structure of socialist society. Under socialism, trade unionism takes the form of cooperation and mutual assistance of people who are free from exploitation.

Under socialism, social stratification finds its manifestation in the following forms: stratification between branches of social production and individual enterprises; territorial R. t. (see. Placement of productive forces); R. t. between individual workers, associated with R. t. within enterprises. Development of socialist production in accordance with the basic economic law of socialism and the law of planned, proportional development National economy causes the continuous growth of branches of socialist production, the differentiation of old branches and the emergence of new ones. The planned development of trade between sectors and enterprises gives socialist society enormous advantages over the capitalist economic system.

The socialist economy also introduces changes in trade unionism within an enterprise and in labor unionism between people of different professions and specialties. Under socialism, the cultural and technical level of workers and collective farmers is growing rapidly, and their qualifications are being raised.

Comprehensive polytechnic education and the transition to universal secondary education provide the members of socialist society with a free choice of professions and facilitate the combination and change of specialties and professions. At the same time, polytechnic education does not exclude professional education and specialization of members of society. The possibility of a free choice of profession contributes to the transformation of labor into the first necessity of life, which is one of the conditions for the transition to the highest phase of Communism a.

A fundamentally new, international socialist division of labor has taken shape between the countries of the world socialist system, which is fundamentally different from the international division of labor in the capitalist economic system and takes shape in the process of cooperation between equal states moving towards the same goal—building communism. Socialist international trade unions facilitate the elimination of the economic backwardness and one-sidedness of economic development inherited by individual countries from capitalism, strengthen their economic independence, develop their economy more rapidly, and improve the well-being of the people. On present stage socialist economic R. t. receives further development and deepening in the course of socialist economic integration (see. Socialist economic integration).

L. Ya. Berry.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

See what the "Division of Labor" is in other dictionaries:

The term R. T." used in society. sciences in different ways. Societies. R. t. denotes differentiation and coexistence in society as a whole of various social functions, activities performed by a certain. troupes of people ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

The historically established process of isolation, modification, consolidation of certain types of labor activity, which takes place in public forms differentiation and implementation of various types of labor activity. Distinguish: general ... ... Wikipedia

- (division of labor) The systematic (but not necessarily pre-planned or imposed) division of functions, tasks or activities. The Republic of Plato (Plato) mentions the functional division of labor: philosophers determine the laws, ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

DIVISION OF LABOR, differentiation, specialization of labor activity, coexistence of its various types. The social division of labor is the differentiation in society of various social functions performed by certain groups of people, and the allocation ... Modern Encyclopedia

Differentiation, specialization of labor activity, coexistence of its various types. The social division of labor is the differentiation in society of various social functions performed by certain groups of people, and the allocation in connection with this ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

A well-known economist, now an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Water Problems.

He has long moved away from the economy, which, in my opinion, is worthy of every regret.

At the theoretical seminar, which was organized by Viktor Ivanovich Danilov-Danilyan and the late Albert Anatolyevich Ryvkin, the focus was on a problem that has not lost its relevance to this day.

Today everyone is talking about the raw material dependence of the Russian economy and how to get rid of it. But it [the resource curse] didn't start in the 1990s. Raw material dependence was noticed back in the late seventies - in the eighties.

At that time, there was state planning, there was a centralized system for the distribution of capital investments. And the following was observed: a larger and larger share of capital investment was directed to the oil and gas sector. At the same time, even then it was obvious that, firstly, the remaining share of investments that are directed to the rest of the economy is declining, and secondly, this causes extremely negative phenomena in the rest of the economy. In other words, the economy outside the oil and gas complex has degraded. Everything went to the fact that soon only one oil and gas sector would remain in the Soviet Union, and all other sectors would die out, because due to lack of investment, the normal cycle of reproduction in them was disrupted.

10.08.2013 New industrialization: a breakthrough or a road to nowhere? Anna Kuzmina.

How were investment decisions made in the USSR? Based effectiveness methodologies capital investments. Even then in the Soviet Union, the methodology for the effectiveness of capital investments was based on cost-benefit approach, in some way imitating decision making in a market economy.

It was clear that the degradation of the rest of the economy is dictated to us precisely by market principles: investments were directed to where they brought the greatest income. When perestroika came and everyone started talking about the fact that now we will go straight to the market, then our group [economists, headed by V.I. Danilov-Danilyan] was horrified by this. If during the planned economy there were vague hopes that the prevailing trends could somehow be changed, then during the transition to a market economy, when decisions will definitely be made on market principles without any restrictions, what will happen in the end.

So, the application of market principles - we observed and calculated this - led to such consequences. However, the same market principles operated in the West under approximately the same conditions. At that time, which was discussed, America was not, like us, an oil country (although in part it is becoming one now). But decades before that, it had been the world's leading oil-producing power.

Why didn't market principles lead to the fact that the United States became someone's raw material appendage? Why is it there - decisions made on the basis of market principles led to the fact that not only the oil sector, but also other industries developed, and quite rapidly, which allowed the United States to reduce oil production and switch to its purchases in exchange for higher-tech products level?

This problem could be TWO answers:

Of course, this is a kind of conspiracy theory. It is known that in the West there are various think tanks - think tanks. It could be assumed that they are thinking about something strategic, going beyond the current market conditions, developing recommendations that the government follows. after all, it can make decisions based on some other, non-market principles. Examples of such non-market solutions in the United States of America and in European countries many, we carefully analyzed them.

Then, when perestroika was over, I worked in the civil service for quite a long time, and these questions turned from theoretical to practical for me: in the nineties, heated discussions were held in the state authorities on this topic and various options were tried. After all, the danger of becoming a raw materials appendage was always realized, and the majority of people who made up in the nineties (including parliament, which was then still a “place for discussion”) believed that it was necessary to move in some other direction. Various attempts were made to search for another direction, all of them ended in failure, this was fixed and at the same time required theoretical understanding.

But there is another version of the answer.

We considered not only the experience of the developed countries of the West, but also the most diverse experience of developing countries, many of which tried to different ways overcome their dependence on raw materials (create an industry, etc.). Some experiments of this kind were still going on in the 1980s, but those that ended ended up mostly in failure. And so those experiments that were still going on, most likely, should also have ended in failure. And so it happened: the Mexican, Argentine, Brazilian experiments did not lead to anything (the Brazilian one is now restarted, and we'll see where it leads - I think that nothing good should be expected now either).

It was challenge to traditional economics which tells us that all economies are the same.

A detailed exposition of the models can be found in the extensive work "Economic Growth" by Robert Joseph Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin. Without dwelling on the analysis of this direction of modern economic thought, we will only pay attention to the fact that some of the models being developed are aimed at identifying the internal structural factors of economies that determine the difference in their ability to achieve success.

I thought about it for a long time. And so, in September 2002, during one of the usual meetings on the development of the construction complex in Russia, it occurred to me, what factor should we take to understand how economies differ. It sounds very simple. Let's write it down so that it is in front of our eyes, because the whole lecture, and the whole course, will be about this:

[At the same time] It's not really about the division of labor, - a kind of marker indicating a large integral structure, its designation. This design (taking into account what I started working on in the eighties) instantly highlighted everything at once: [If degree of division of labor take as a FACTOR, it was revealed that] there is an answer to this problem, there is also an answer to this problem, it is not yet clear to this one, but what and where to look for is already clear.

It turned out like in a detective story: I racked my brains for 20 years, and then it suddenly turned out that all the numerous facts that I thought about fit into a very a simple circuit; It's immediately clear who the killer is. And as in a good hermetic detective, when the detective says: here is the killer, here is the system of evidence, you begin to wonder how you didn’t guess before, it was still on the surface.

First

At first there was fear: maybe [someone BEFORE me - already considered RT as a factor, and it turned out that after someone] I "invented a bicycle"?

Since this is so clear, since all the numerous facts fit into a fairly simple scheme (later I realized that the scheme is not so simple). I experienced real horror. Now, of course, he has already left, I once again became well acquainted with. But then I thought: what if everyone knows about it?! In the civil service, you can’t immerse yourself in science, you don’t read everything, maybe you missed something. But it turned out that no, he did not miss it.

Yes, there have been individual attempts, sometimes very bright ones, to do something in the same direction. I will talk about them along the way. But they all remained episodes in.

Second

Fear did not let go for another reason. If I had brought some new factor, a new term, a new word, but no!

Wake up any economist at night and ask, he will answer: “I know. Russia must find its place in the international division of labor.” Everything is banal, everyone talks about it.

It took eight years to answer this question. It turned out like this. It seems that there is a new approach, there are results that we can talk about. There are predictions that come true. But the basis on which we make predictions and achieve results was for a long time only a vague image.

We have a different [economic] object, one that can be applied to. We are in another lecture, but I will give you an idea of ​​what is at stake today. If a new object or even a system of objects has appeared, then a new stage has begun in the development of economic science. Of course it deserves a new name. Well, without further ado, I called her "".

Therefore, what you will now listen to is a neoconomics course.

When we changed the object, then this was followed by a whole chain reaction of revisions of everything that was said in economic theory, for a long time we got to the depths and this process is still far from complete. Nevertheless, the general contours of the approach are already clear. You are the first to listen to this in such a volume that can already be considered integral.

The first understanding (distinction), why I understand in one way, and everyone else in a different way, was formulated almost immediately, it was part of the overall picture that was revealed to me from the very beginning. In fact, we call two different phenomena one division of labor (although they are sometimes very similar and interconnected): and.

We are all well aware of the natural division of labor from the standard textbook of economics: furs are produced in the north, grapes are produced in the south, furs are exchanged for wine. is a division of labor caused by a natural advantage or disadvantage. Someone has a certain natural (as a rule, natural) advantage, someone has a natural natural disadvantage. Within the framework of this system of advantages and disadvantages, exchange, trade, is carried out, and the story about the economy usually begins with this.

When they say that a country should integrate into the international division of labor, it is precisely the natural division of labor that is meant. Usually added: to use their natural advantages in a particular area. Moreover, the list of natural advantages is far from being limited to natural ones, they just don’t write down everything, and we will deal with this again.

Back to Adam Smith, where does he start the story? From the pin factory.

Labor is divided into eighteen operations. 10 people work, so some of them do several operations. For each of these operations, no natural advantage is required. It only requires accuracy in performing a fairly simple operation.

In the natural division of labor, the natural advantages of the individual develop, [for example] the blacksmith becomes more and more muscular [for affinity with the profession, not only] more and more skillful. [probably until then] Until he gets sick. [By analogy] One who does embroidery should train the eyes to distinguish colors. And in terms of the natural division of labor, women are better colorists than men. There are gender and age advantages, and animals have them too. The young do one thing, the old do another, women a third, men a fourth. Everyone uses their natural advantages.

But in the pin factory, there are no natural advantages.

The main idea of ​​the technological division of labor is in its ultimate development: a person is a creature capable of performing [only] two functions: to monitor the readings of instruments and to press the buttons in time.

Almost any [no natural benefits] can handle it. Most of today's [labor] activities - roughly this is what it is. Even in trading on the stock exchange today, people are being replaced by automatic machines: the automatic machine can also follow the readings of instruments and press the button in time, and it does this much better and faster than a person. Of course, automatic machines regularly have failures, but people also have them.

We are told [from childhood]: one must learn a profession, but in principle [in real life] - the whole profession boils down to the fact that a person [stupidly] follows the readings of instruments and presses the button in time. Therefore, contrary to the natural division of labor, technological division of labor leads to the simplification and elimination of differences between people .

Marx considered this his most important discovery.. And at the same time - he praised Ricardo for being more closely than Smith did, associated the division of labor with a natural factor, that is, with specific labor for the production of specific things. But [if] Marx still had both kinds of division of labor in his head, [whereas] subsequent generations of economists found it difficult, and they decided that one was enough. Let's remember: all the time when we talk about the division of labor, we must understand what exactly we are talking about. All the time, when I don’t specifically emphasize, I talk about.

Within a subsistence economy, of course, he produces what he considers most useful for himself, but the concept of utility is exclusively inside his head. And this is what happens:

When making decisions - click here utility doesn't matter.. [Because] Utility is predetermined [those. product needed anyway]. We know why we are doing all this. This decision is made based only on the comparison of labor costs.

[In the human head, as it were, there is a calculation that in the presence of another manufacturer] now we we can work less to get the same utility (Or increase the utility for the same labor time).

Here is the basis of the theory of value. This is the situation that the labor theory of value considers.

And the theory of exchange [the theory of marginal utility], based on utility, does not provide for any input of labor. I have a thing: it is not known where it came from. Just eat. You have a thing: it is also unknown where it came from. We are not going to produce or reproduce them, we don’t even think about it at all.

There is a term used in Marxist literature: “flea market economics” (or “rentier economics”, Nikolai Bukharin wrote such a book). I got something from somewhere - from my grandmother, from my dad, I just found it in the attic, on the street. It is not very useful to me - so I went and exchanged it for something more useful. In this situation, the comparison is based on usefulness.

There is no regular production here, but only one-time deals, and this is a serious objection to the "utility exchange theory".

Of course, everything is not as stupid as I just described to you. Although I met with people who received a higher economic education, who did not understand such things either.

It is assumed that the undertaker (who has resources - labor, materials, etc.) every time, almost every second or at the start of each new production cycle, that is, at the start of manufacturing his product, always looking at alternatives. Kind of like “but should I start baking rolls?”. Consider the factors that determine the scale of the technological division of labor. Adam Smith has already described them quite clearly, but detailed, concretized and painted according to the fads of Marx. We can remain within the framework of Adam Smith, a lot of interesting things fit in him, one might say - ingenious; including where he did not even complete the reflection, but left important guesses and led correct examples. The only thing that spoils all this is the confusion of unbridled fantasy about the exchange. What is necessary for the division of labor? (1) The division of labor requires people . Smith looked at the economy and saw in it a lot of professions that should be in some kind of relationship with each other, he understood that two or three million people were participating in the division of labor in which he lived. He thought within the national economy [Great Britain 18th century], and within this framework, these three million had to be physically. To return to the example of Romania and the United States, Romania cannot build a system of division of labor that the United States can hypothetically build for itself. There are 20 million people in Romania and 315 million in the USA. Romania can only build a division of labor system for 20 million people, subject to the necessary proportions (more on that below). Besides, actually American system, of course, does not include 315 million, but perhaps a billion or 2 billion people. Romania is far from that. (2) Another important factor is population density. . The population of the Soviet Union at its peak was 270 million. More than the United States of America at the time. But this population lived on such a large territory that transactions between people were difficult. Adam Smith compares all the time: the city, in which you can build a high level of division of labor, and the countryside. It doesn't matter what the population is in rural areas. It can be 10 times more than in the city. But in rural areas, the level of division of labor will be lower than in the city, where the population density higher. (3) It is worth paying attention to one important point, fashionable today theme of clusters. To be honest, what they write and say about this today depresses me. To understand the role and importance of clusters, it must be taken into account that from the point of view of the division of labor, not only population density is important, but also activity density. If someone saw this link, he can take it and pull it out for outsourcing. Then this operation will become specialized, and who has done this will take advantage of all the benefits of the division of labor, all the effects of specialization. In this case, it will be possible to normalize the load so that everyone here will be employed full time, there will be no downtime, and for the same salary we will get an increase in productivity. But if we have many such enterprises that will now start using the services of a specialized company, what will happen next? It may turn out that this operation should be divided into several others, within this operation a division of labor should be carried out and its efficiency increased. The level of division of labor in the cluster will grow, and its efficiency will grow. Spin-off of a specialized company providing veterinary services And now the veterinary business has become a separate company (Fig. 2) There may already be different people. Moreover, the one who, for example, takes tests and analyzes, may not have the qualifications of a veterinarian, he can be paid less. And the veterinarian will now be responsible only for what his qualifications require. Therefore, here it is possible to increase the division of labor, and due to this factor, the entire system receives a synergistic effect. This is where synergy comes from in clusters. First of all - from the division of labor. Cluster efficiency connected with the fact that it provides a higher level of division of labor than the industry average in the surrounding economic environment. Everything else is nothing more than fantasy and chance - it is impossible to pre-select industries in a cluster and say: this is where the maximum synergistic effect will be . This process cannot be done consciously, it must be done unconsciously. And - but more on this in the following lectures - when a number of external conditions are met. Who creates this specialized firm? Most likely someone who works here and has an entrepreneurial streak, who saw everything from the inside, felt it in his own skin, was looking for how to do everything better. There are not just one such event, but many. Why do they need to be in the same place? Firstly, the market is foreseeable, everything is visible, you can see narrow places. Secondly, logistical costs are minimal. If firms were scattered over long distances, outsourcing one of the operations could be inefficient due to transportation costs, and then there could be no question of a further division of labor. And if they are in one place, then all this is visible, all this is easier to calculate. Porter sometimes comes very close to understanding how it works. But his fantasy, alas, outweighs all the time. (1) The compensating factor for low activity density is infrastructure. We cannot bring the density to infinity, concentrate all production and consumption at one point. Adam Smith puts the development of infrastructure at the forefront of a number of factors contributing to the development of the division of labor. Smith calls for the construction of roads, canals and, most importantly, what he calls for development is maritime transport. When he [in The Wealth of Nations] goes to the country that he calls Tartary, and we - Russia, then he says: Here is a good, rich country, but she was terribly unlucky. If there are rivers, they flow in the wrong direction, they freeze, there are no convenient exits to the sea: nothing will work there. But England is an island, everything is wonderful here! When we talk about the technological division of labor, we must take into account market size. The technological division of labor presupposes the presence of rigid proportions in the economic system it covers. Following division of labor condition by Adam Smith - market sizes. This was a stumbling block for me for a very long time, because this issue is related to the one to which the term "division of labor" applies and which I could not correctly define for a long time. This condition is clearly formulated by Smith, the chapter is called: “ The development of the division of labor is limited by the size of the market

Let's compare the results of the work of 10 artisans and a factory with 10 workers (Table 1). In this example, you can see say the orthodox that an expansion of the market is required, because 10 artisans per unit time will produce 10 tables, and the factory - 15. In order to realize the additional income associated with the division of labor, the market should rise by 50%. However, 50% is the maximum, because in principle, even if they sell 11 tables, they will still get some effect. Why is the market expanding? Because they can reduce the cost of the table and those who have already bought tables will buy more tables. Well, those who did not buy them at all before will start doing it. Somewhere there is a balance point where table makers can both lower their price and profit from the expansion of the market. Everything seems to be logical and corresponds to the words of A. Smith.

But it was always clear to me: what is here one, and here 10 - it matters; with the value exactly 10 times, and not by 50%, as in the orthodox example. So let's look at it now the same example a little differently (Fig. 3).

One craftsman sells his tables to someone. It can exist as long as there are, say, 10 farmers who regularly beat the tables with their fists, the tables break, and they run to him with some frequency to order them again, and at the ordered tables they feed the artisan with various tasty and healthy food. One artisan exists as long as there are 10 farmers. A factory needs 100 to 150 farmers; if there are at least 99 of them, then the factory will not exist, since it will be unprofitable. The world will live, there will be artisans, but there will be no factories. What is meant by the market here? It's not just buyers. This is a whole closed exchange system. Farmers produce something, which means they exchange with each other, and they exchange with an artisan, that is, this is a whole production system. In a production system in which the table is made in a factory way, at least 110 person (including 10 factory workers). And for a production system in which there is an artisan, it is enough 11 Human .

I will now show what Adam Smith was really thinking when he talked about the size of the market. He wrote it, but did not finish the idea a little.

Second example:

Case about a day laborer's jacket

At the end of the first chapter [Wealth of Nations books] Smith goes big enough [in which Smith is surprised that even a worker whose income is minimal can afford an excellent quality woolen jacket, since he does not have a permanent income, because he is periodically hired only for one day]. Since it [the text] is a little unfinished, it is not very clear why it was written.

You can ask questions about the book. will from time to time respond to the most interesting questions and upload video responses to them.

2. Observing for several decades a clear discrepancy between theoretical positions and observed processes, large group Western economists attempted to develop a class of fundamentally new economic growth models. Interesting review results achieved given in the book by R. Lucas “ Lectures on Economic Growth».

5. Orthodox economic theory usually assumes that this is the case.

6. If we have less than 11 people, then there will be no artisan, and farmers will be forced to make their own tables in their free time from other activities. And probably, they will take care of them more - they will beat their fists less, and they will have less strength for this. It can serve as a useful guide to his book "The Age of Growth", as Oleg Vadimovich briefly outlines the history of neoconomics and its logic.

The following videos show that Oleg Vadimovich not only predicted the crisis, as Mikhail Khazin ascribes to himself, but already at the turn of the 2000s he had a scientific justification for his theories, according to which a real crisis is not a periodic crisis at all, but the beginning of a contraction of the entire world economy, if if you want, you can even call - end of capitalism.

Dec 3 2011 Oleg Grigoriev in M. Delyagin's program "THIS IS TOPICAL". Causes and consequences of the crisis.

Neuroworld Aug 15 2012 Economist Oleg Grigoriev on the coming financial crisis. Financial crisis. What is the root of Evil? and who ate the Future?