
Sep
28
In a free-society with individuals having complete self-ownership, (Capitalist society) the production of wealth vitally depends on division of labor, a system of production in which all the labor required is broken down into separate, distinct occupations. Obviously, each individual is free and self-responsible enough to decide at his own to what occupation suits him well and serves his self-interests in most proficient way. A society of free self-governing individuals essentially depends on each individual’s self-interest and his ability to exploit his own talent and efforts for fulfilling his needs, desires and self-interests and that makes rational-selfishness as the virtue of the free individual. Division of labor increases the amount of knowledge used in production in ratio to the number of specializations and sub-specializations involved in the process of production. Auto producers have different body of knowledge than that of petroleum, refinery producers, wheat producers have different set of knowledge from both of the previous, and further they have different set of knowledge than the farmers engaged in producing other foodstuffs, vegetable growers, or dairy farmers.
In a non-division of labour system like that of socialist system or the collectivist systems, self-sufficiency becomes the central motive of individuals as they acts as collectivist and self-interest is forgotten. The total capacity of society to incur and further develop knowledge decreases abruptly as all individuals engage in acquiring self-sufficiency by means of adopting and following the common set of wealth production.
Division of Labour and Benefits of Talent
A division of labour system provides enough space and incentive for the individuals occupied in different sets of knowledge of specialization and sub-specializations to devote all their human intellect and efforts to not only use the current knowledge but also to discover, invent and innovate new ways and knowledge to increase production. Division of labour enables a society to use the benefits of geniuses to the maximum extent, while it provides maximum incentive for the genius to use his intellect in development, innovations and entrepreneurship. In a collectivist society, this is not possible, as the genius in such societies, along with other common individuals, must devote most of his time in attaining self-sufficiency first. In India, some decades ago and even at present, division of labour is not definitely present; most of the young students devote their time to achieve degrees from governmental education system in order to gain some or any sort of job in government or private service sector. Hardly anyone devotes his intellect and abilities to any set of specialization of knowledge based on his interest and abilities. Hardly anyone think of devoting his time in research works and furthering knowledge, hence, Indian society lacks innovators. That doesn’t mean that Indian society is or was incompetent of innovations and inventions in present or past, the lack of it only represents the partial slavery imposed by the collectivist system and socialist government under which, the genius amongst the collective is wasted upon. Even if some genius struggle such situation and still manages to radiate his intellect, he never gains the full essence of his own efforts and hence is lost due to the lack of incentives.
Division of labour and consistency with freedom
Private ownership of the means of wealth production is the fundamental pre-condition of the pursuit of self-interest. Division of labour essentially depends on private ownership of means of production, which is based on the nature of gains of free division of labour. The most important ones are the multiplication and transmission of knowledge and benefits of the talented. The rational idea of private property ownership comes out from the fact that individuals possess unique independent minds, which permits and necessitates them to have separate independent knowledge and to make independent judgements, decision, and act on them with his separate independent calibre. In a free society every individual gains from the fact that other people possess knowledge that he does not and an intelligence separate and often much greater than his own. To maintain maximum benefits, it is necessary that others be able to acquire and apply their knowledge in production on their own initiative with perfect decision making freedom, without having his approval, orders, permissions or license, as he would be certainly unable to give in any rational way as he necessary lacks the knowledge and intelligence that would be required to make such decisions. To act, work and produce, people must possess material means of actions and production, In order for them to act independently from one another, they must possess wealth independently from one another that is there must be private property, including private ownership of natural resources and other means of production. Private property rights are essential condition for proficient production, prosperity and more importantly individual freedom as it provides maximum space for efficient usage of resources in virtue of producing wealth hence eradicating poverty of masses.
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Division of Labor, Productivity and Prosperity of Labor”
Leave a Reply






Gopi Krishnan Says:
September 28th, 2009 at 7:54 pm“… or to pursue their talents and suffer poverty and scarcity of opportunities.”
Even if there is division of labour, wouldn’t certain people with certain talent suffer poverty & scarcity of opportunities? maybe because there are a lot many people aspiring in that industry (excess supply) or if that particular proffession does not provide much to others (less demand). for eg. singing.. even though singing is the best thing i can do in life, there might be a million others who are better at it than me.
It’s just a thought. I’m for division of labour because it is simply an extended version of the law of comparitive advantage. But to claim that division of labour will create an environment in which all those who pursue their talents will not suffer poverty is a bit far fetched, dont u think?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
September 28th, 2009 at 9:32 pmObviously Division of labour provides freedom for competition. So the best talent would be the most succesful singer, yet it is also true that in presence of division of labour, the opportunities extends too much.
Now as Indian market is opening up gradually, even with a littlemore than average singer can make a refreshed opening in music industry at very lower investments needed, obviously if you have any potential to be a profitabl singer, you will get investors, you won’t need tobe xtra rih or exeptionally talented, because Kishor Kumar(oh sorry he died) or anyone of his potential won’t be coming to compete with you. His competition would be on higher level, you may compete on local, or regional levels, you may issue your private musical album, the consumers are deciders, if your album won’t make profits,you won’t be wasting any of your potential further.
Just because you think your voice is good doesn’t make it profitable too, and as said earlier, anyone may enjoy singing, but he won’t make singing as profession if he is not getting the desired materialistic profits. The profit will indicate whether your singing potential is enough to be a professional singer for you or not.
During 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s when the entertainment industry was strictly governed by censorboards and entertainment ministry and investment was controlled, there were not as many singers nor as many opportunities as there are right now, furthermore, the best singers of those days were not earning that much profits which today even the average singers can easily make.
renegade_division Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 12:09 amSure! But if not all those people are not going to suffer poverty because there is a too much supply, then there is no other system which could get them out of poverty by allocating them to a better job.
I mean what’s the other options we have? A central Planner puts people for job? Everybody produce food for themselves, produce clothes for themselves, grow a cow for milk for themselves? Sing for themselves?
Are you suggesting that?
If 1000 people are trying to be an actor, and there are only 5 acting positions available, what do you think the rest of the struggling actors do in real life? They work in a restaurant as a waiter. Nobody really remains unemployed for long, people move in for other things, give their labor for other things.
Pravin Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 7:29 pmgiven a free market in labor unencumbered by minimum wage restrictions, employment will always be 100%
Unpretentious Diva Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pmWell, in a free market unecumbered by minimum wage restrictions or any other form of government intervnetions, the only possible form of unemployment would be self-chosen unemployment. That is, if a person willingly decides not to do work, than only he would be unemployed, otherwise, there will always be enormous possibilities of various works and jobs he may do for earning an honest living.
Failure of Democracy | Reason for Liberty Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:46 am[…] Division of Labor, Productivity and Prosperity of Labor […]