The views of the Division of Labour through the eyes of three of the most influential philosophers

The productive activity, especially for the sake of economic gain. The definition of labour has been constant over time, yet many have argued to what extent labour is divided. For some the division of labour represent doing what we are naturally inclined to do, to others it represents specialization in certain tasks and yet to others labour is most productive when decisions are left in the hands of the worker . There are many distinct definitions of the division of labour, yet the most famous are found in the teachings of Plato, Karl Marx and Adam Smith.
The division of labour for Plato stems from the natural capacity of human beings. Plato believes people are naturally suited for specific jobs, it is not through the acquired skill that they chose what they will do in life. He states “…we must infer that all things are produced more plentiful and easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time and leaves other things”(McNulty, 1975). Simply stating this indicates that one should not gravitate towards another job, as the result would be all but optimal for society. He states that division of labour is formed due to the diversity of human talent (McNulty, 1975). Simply put, not everyone is made out to be a basket weaver, blacksmith or baker, yet when society calls upon its members to meet its demand people while naturally do what they are naturally good at. Plato puts heavy focus on nature’s ability to decide what is best for the state or society. Plato adapts this philosophy from Socrates, whose prime example of the division of labour comes in his definition of a state. He states that in order for a community to exist they require a husbandmen, builder, weaver and a shoemaker (McNulty, 1975). The implication of listing four different jobs further supports the division of labour as Socrates does not mention the ability of one man to do all four jobs but rather one man for one job. This again is mentioned when he says ‘We maintain that different natures should do different works” (Plato, 360). Like Socrates, Plato also refer to the division of labour as the ability to posses certain aptitudes which can not be develop but are already present within someone (Plato, 360). These traits can not be learnt, nor do people have the options of choosing what they want to be. Plato states that choice may also be dangerous, as it would interfere with others who are more naturally inclined in specific areas (Plato, 360). For Plato, basket weavers are more naturally inclined in weaving therefore being a basket weaver would be the best efficient use of their skill. One who is efficient in weaving could not choose to be a farmer as his skills would get in the way of others farmers who are naturally more efficient at farming.
In Plato’s ‘Republic’ he introduces a state which is to dominate the rest of the Republic. For Plato, in order for the city to fully function and meet its own needs, each person must perform a single task which one is naturally suited for and no other (Plato, 360). Plato goes on further to outline three classes that result in further division of labour. These class are the guardians, auxiliaries and farmers.(Plato, 360). He states “…God included gold in the mixture when he was forming those of you who have what it takes to be rulers, silver when he was forming the auxiliaries and iron and copper when he was forming the farmers and other workers” (Plato, 360). Plato believes this division of labour will create order and will establish an ideal city built on natural abilities. He believes that this is a significant distinction between those who are rulers and those who are farmers. Yet, Plato expresses that those who are farmers can have sons destined to be rulers as long as they posses a hint of gold in them. He also feels that rulers who have children born with a hint of copper or iron need to banish their children to work on the farmers for the good of the city. If one does not follow this protocol, the community will be destroyed if somehow one who is destined to become a farmer ends up a ruler, “…they shall honour it and elevate it to the rank of either guardian and auxiliary because of an oracle which states that the community will be destroyed when it has a copper or iron guardian” (Plato, 360)
The purpose of the guardians is to keep the city stable and protect it from anyone who tries to overthrow it. It is necessary for the guardians to both protect the city against external enemies and internal dissension (Plato, 360). Guardians who become rulers are certain people who possess greater skills in watching over the community and care about the interest of others. In Plato’s Republic it is crucial for each person to maintain their task in order for the city to be successful. Women, like men were seen in the same regard, in Plato’s ideal state women would not stay home and care for the baby but rather perform the same tasks as men if she was found more naturally inclined to perform that task. He states “So if either the male or the female gender turn out to be better than the other gender at some profession or occupation, then we’ll claim that this is an occupation which ought to be assigned to that gender”(Plato, 360). To Plato the division of labour is not gender based, the natural evolutions that arise in human beings, weather it be male or female will determinant their role in the state and society. Therefore for Plato it is not our achieved status that one finds their destiny in life, but by ones ascribed status, this is not only beneficial to the individual but the state itself.

For Karl Marx, the division of labour puts focus on both the negative returns to workers and the positive gains for the capitalist. He states that the accumulation of capitals increases the division of labour ( Marx, 2006), and as the division of labour increases so too does the number of workers.(Marx, 2006). Furthermore, with the accumulation of capital, workers become more dependant on labour, which is machine-like and thus become depressed spiritually and physically to the state of a machine(Marx, 2006). A rise in capital is followed by a rise in the amount of labour available in the labour force results in further competition of the working class (Marx, 2006). With the emphasis on competition, the workers are made worse with wages acting like an inverse to the amount of labour supplied. This empowerment of capitalists and its expanded growth brought misery to the working class (West. 1969). The alienation of the working class by the capitalist brought feelings of powerlessness, isolation and self-estrangement upon all the workers (West, 1969).
Marx believes that in order for two commodities to be equal there needs to be another third factor that can equate the two, that factor is labour (Marx, 2001). He states that labour is the only factor of production that gives a commodity true value, yet capitalism often takes advantage of this value. Marx idea of capitalism focuses on the exploitation and alienation of workers selling their labour. Production occurs when the capitalist purchases the ‘labour’ from the worker. To Marx this labour represented the true value of the commodity, he states “labour –power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, it possessor, the individual whose labour power it is, offers it for sale or sells it, as a commodity” (Marx, 2001). The amount of labour that has gone into creating the commodity therefore reflects the true value of the commodity, yet capitalists separated the workers from the means of production (West, 1969). The exploitation comes from surplus labour, or they amount of labour that the capitalist added on top of the necessary labour to make profit. Workers were transformed into cripples and monsters having learnt specialized dexterity and were forgotten in the process of growth. (West, 1969)
Marx believed that only labour is the source of value, and if a machine were to replace the true labour of an individual, then capitalism would fall since there would be no value if a machine produced commodities(Marx, 2006). This theory has been proven false as technology advanced the productivity increased and so too did profits. However this was unseen by Marx as he continued to argue against capitalist profit and the alienation of workers. Marx ultimate goal was to get rid of capitalism and create an economy controlled by the working class. Through this there would no longer be a division of labour, but a new social reform. Marx believed that workers could put an end to capitalism through an organized revolution. He called this revolution communism, where the social working class would dictate the outcome in the markets. This would lead to no division of labour as workers would all be treated equally. With the working class replacing the capitalists, the economy would gain greater equality and control the means of production.
While the theory of a social class revolution looked good on paper, when put into effect in 1917in Russia the outcomes were devastating. It was here that socialism was instituted by a country for the first time. (Wood, 1984). The Russian revolution has been regarded as ‘Authentically Marxist’(Wood, 1984) , and in 1917 Marx views led millions of workers to strike and riot. This social revolution brought communism and Stalinism into the Soviet Union until 1991. This not only drove a bigger gap in between economic agents and the working class but also created political instability all across Europe. Therefore Marx’ views on a potential fix for the division of labour was skewed. Capitalists were receiving a surplus value off the surplus of labour that each individual would offer for sale. This created a division of labour between the capitalists and the workers that needed to be controlled. In order to control this, Marx proposed a social revolution which would liberate workers from capitalist alienation and create stability for all the workers in the labour force (Wood, 1984). This was not the case however as communism gave rise to more instability when it was put in place.

Adam Smiths views on the division of labour are expressed in one of his most popular books “The Wealth of Nations”. Unlike Karl Marx, Adam Smith believed that the division of labour was beneficial to society in many ways. In contrast to Aristotle and Plato, Adam smith believed that as long one did not violate the laws of justice he was able to purse his own way (McNulty, 1975). Plato believed one was destined for certain jobs while Adam Smith preached that one could surely be trained and put to good use. In the opening statements of the “Wealth of nations” Adam Smith states “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greatest part of the skill, dexterity, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour” (Smith, 1887). Smith further explains the benefits of the division of labour can be understood if one takes a closer look at a pin factory. He states, that an uneducated worker in a pin factory trying to make a pin from start to finish could at best make no more than 20 pins (Smith, 1887). This is due to the scarce knowledge of the individual and the amount of time wasted moving from task to task.
Smith believes that when the division of labour is put into effect, which allows the workers to specialize in specific tasks, it improves production severely. He mentions, with division of labour, production is now divided up into many different branches. This allows for three distinct characteristics to take effect. First, when a worker performs one task over and over, eventually he gets good at his job which improves his overall skill and dexterity (Foley, 1974). He states “...by reducing every mans business to some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life” (Smith, 1887) creates a much easier working environment for the worker allowing him to put all of his focus on one task. In comparison to one person doing many tasks, this division of labour allows one person to improve the way that task is performed by repeating it constantly. This increases productivity and output (Smith, 1887).
Subsequently, Adam Smith explains that since one is no longer moving from task to task when production is divided up into many branches it eliminates the time constraint that existed before. Adam Smith demonstrates this with an example of the weaver . “A country weaver, who cultivates a small farm, must lose a good deal of time in passing from his loom to the field and from the field to his loom” (Smith, 1887). By introducing the division of labour and having one person per task it allows the weaver to concentrate on weaving and allows another worker to collect wool on the field, ‘two trades can be carried out in the same workhouse, the loss of time is not doubt much less” (Smith 1887). Likewise when going from task to task, a worker does not only lose time in travelling to different locations but also change the tools he is working with constantly (Foley, 1974). This further causes a loss of time that could have been spent on production. He states when workers change tools, the ‘habit of sauntering and of indolent careless application, which is naturally, or rather necessarily acquired by every country workman…renders him slothful and lazy” (Smith, 1887).
Lastly, Adam Smith mentions when one is left to perform a specific job, workers have incentives to invent machinery that can potentially make their tasks easier (Foley, 1974). He states that there is no need for an example but rather any machinery he has seen ‘seems to have been originally owning to the division of labour’ (Smith, 1887). Smith further explains when one is left to do a specific task that he ‘should soon find out easier and readier methods of performing their own particular work’ (Smith, 1887). He gives the example of a boy working with the first fire-engines. He was employed to open and close the communication between the boiler and the cylinder. Since the boy wanted to saving time and play with his friends, he tied a string connecting the two parts together which performed the job for him. He was then left ‘at liberty to divert himself with his play-fellows’ (Smith, 1887). Only after Smith published the ‘Wealth of Nations’ it was discovered that the ‘boy’ Smith referred to was actually a ‘buoy’ found in most boiler rooms that ‘replaced’ the boys task. In either case Smith believed that when left to a specific task it is in ones nature to invent machinery that will make the task easier. This not only comes from those who use the machine but “…many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines..”( Smith, 1887).
Adam Smith believed that the division of labour was more evident in countries with high degrees of industry and improvement. He explains that not too many trades are evident in linen and woollen manufacturing sector of a country. He mentions “…the nature of agriculture, indeed does not admit of so many subdivisions of labour, nor of so complete a separation of one business from another, as manufacturing” (Smith, 1887). Smith believed that since agriculture was only a seasonal event, one must not only specialize in agriculture but also in another skill. This will not only increase ones skill in another area but also contribute to society. In chapter two of ‘The Wealth of Nations’ Smith believes that “the propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another” (Smith, 1887) is responsible for a rise in the division of labour. When examining a street porter and a philosopher Smith states that both men, even though they are very different do not possess such different traits. He states the difference does not arise from nature but ‘from habit, custom and education” (McNulty, 1975). This implies that because of habit, custom and education each person can focus their skills on specific things. If these differences did not exist everyone would have the same skills in all areas and would increase the need for everyone to perform the same task, same duties and same work (Smith, 1887). Therefore the division of labour contributes to society because it allows workers to focus on what they are good at.
Unlike Plato, Smith believed that people liked to engage in trade and exchange of different goods. This trade often arose from people appealing to their own self greed. This self greed was guided by people’s ability to pursue their own interests as Adam Smith stated “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (Smith, 1887). He suggests that when people focus on what they are good it will be beneficial to them versus trying to specialize in every job in society. Smith points out that in hunting and gathering societies it is better for one person to make bows and arrows and not hunt at all. Then trade his bows and arrows for food (Foley, 1974). This will ensure that his skill and dexterity are not wasted on hunting when one is more efficient at making bows and arrows (Foley, 1974).
Lastly Adam Smith believes that the division of labour is limited by the extent of the market. He explains that when the market is small workers cannot devote themselves to one job, simply because the output of their work would be overwhelming in the market. This specialization would create too much of one good and not enough of another. Therefore, the smaller the market the less division in labour exists and ‘every farmer must be butcher, baker and brewer for his own family” (Smith, 1887) in agricultural areas. Adam Smith also believed that there was two different types of labour. Productive labour was labour that was hired out of capital. When this labour was hired one would expect to make a profit because productive labour brought returns on investments. Unproductive labour was labour hired out of revenue. This meant that the labour hired would not produce a product for sale, like that of ‘menial servants, (are) unproductive of any value…” (Smith, 1887). Smith also states that ‘the whole army and navy are unproductive labourers’ since their services do not create a vendible commodity. Smith believed in a very limited role of the government, this ensured the division of labour was in the hands of the people and not the government.

The concept of the division of labour in its earliest form came from Plato, he states that the division of labour arises because people are just born with an ascribed status. Meaning that skill can not be learnt, no education could change what you were destined to be. Plato believes that you are naturally inclined for certain jobs, a soldier will be a soldier, a weaver will be a weaver and a king will be a king. In Plato’s book ‘Republic’ he describes a perfect state where no one is choosing their jobs but rather obeys their natural calling. He believes that God creates people who are born with parts of gold (figuratively speaking) will be kings and guardians of the state. People born with silver will be auxiliaries and those born with iron and copper will be the farmers and other workers. Farmers who’s sons are born with hearts or souls of gold can become kings while kings with sons who are born with ‘iron or copper’ must be banished to work on farms. In Plato’s state men are women are both treated equally treated. If a women is better fit to weave then she will become a weaver, this will ensure that the state is more efficient and no one ends up taking the job of one who is naturally born to do it.
For Karl Marx, capitalism has been the cause of worker alienation and the most division of labour. Marx believes that capitalists use a worker for their own gains. Those gains are put towards producing extra capital and machinery which take the jobs of workers and depreciate the value of a commodity. Marx found real value of a commodity in the amount of labour that a worker spends in making it. He believed capitalists would use this value and add surplus value to the commodity and gain surplus profits. As workers become more dependent on survival they often sell their labour to stay support themselves, with increase in capital and decrease in the amount of jobs workers often compete for wages which leads to further alienation of workers by capitalists. With machinery replacing workers, Karl Marx believes that there will be a fall of capitalism since machinery cannot produce true value of a commodity. Marx’s believed an organized revolution, or communism, was the only way to solve capitalist surplus profits. The revolution called for the social class to dictate the outcome of the market, here all workers would be treated equally and there would no longer be a division of labour. Influenced by Marx’s theories, Russia put communism into effect in 1917 which started great political and social instability.
In 1776 Adam Smith published ‘The Wealth of Nations” which had a capitalist view on the division of labour. Smith believed the division of labour, or the specialization of one worker to one certain task was beneficial to society. He believed that the division of labour improved overall skill and dexterity since workers could focus on one task while employed. Next he believed that there would be time saved while focusing on one task rather than going from task to task in different locations and switching tools in the process. Lastly, Adam Smith believed that one worker per task allowed workers to invent machinery that would make their job easier. He stated that workers will just naturally do what is easiest for them. These three concepts ultimately increase productivity and output which was good for the economy and overall productivity.

Adam Smith also believed that trading and bartering gave rise to the divisions of labour. He states that one does not have to diversify his skills into many different areas but rather focus on one specific area and later trade away his labours commodity for another. Lastly, Adam Smith believed that the division of labour was limited to the extent of the market. In a small market there would not be much trade and barter as people lived farther away from each other. This cause each person be their own baker, brewer and butcher and decreased the specialization of workers. A larger market gave rise to more division of labour, one could specialize his skill on specific tasks and eventually trade, truck and barter his way into receiving other commodities.
All three authors wrote ahead of their time, each providing a new concept never written about by others. Although each view has its distinct characteristics, each have left a mark in both the philosophical and economical society. The contributions of Plato, Karl Marx and Adam Smith have provided a solid foundation on which the views of division of labour are expressed in very unique ways.

Works Cited
Foley, Vernon (1974). 'The Division of Labour in Plato and Smith', History of Political Economy 6(2), 221-242.
Marx, K.(2001). 'Das Kapital'. Washington, DC. National Book Network
Marx, K., Engels, F. (2006). 'Manifesto of the Communist Party'. New York, New York. Old Chelsea Station
McNulty, Paul. J. (1975). 'A Note on the Division of Labour in Plato and Smith', History of Political Economy 7(3): 372—89
Plato.(360 B.C). 'The Republic'. Oxford, New York. Oxford University Press
Smith, A. (1887). 'An inquiry into the nature and causes of The Wealth of Nations, Volume 2'. London, England: George Bell and Sons, York street. Covent Gardens. West, E. (1969). 'The Political Economy of Alienation: Karl Marx and Adam Smith'. Oxford Economic Papers, 21(1), 1-23
Wood, J. (1984). 'Critical Assessments'. New Fetter Lane, England. Routledge.