Labor acts as a core concept in building a society or nation since it helps people from different lifestyles to work together and achieve a particular goal. It exists in different types with some requiring more skill than the others do, while others tend to be of a higher rank. Despite these differences, it is hard for a particular labor work to exist without the other. Over the years, there have been positive and negative changes towards labor policies, which help improve the current labor structures. One of the major changes is the division of labor in a bid to introduce different structural groups. These groups help its members to seek better employment opportunities, benefits from the employers and other key labor concepts. However, some of the groups stand out more than the others, which in turn makes them powerful. The drift between the major and minor groups led to issues among the employees and unfair treatment by some employers. Despite its downfall, the division of labor seeks to benefit the global society and labor force, as they will receive better incentives from their employers. The research paper seeks to elaborate on the thesis by applying four sources by reputable authors.
According to Sir William Petty, the term, division of labor, elaborates those that command the sea trade, which gives them the advantage to work easier and reap better profits than others do (Smith, 2011). He continues further to state that a cloth becomes cheaper when different people or skills are put in place. For instance, there has to be one person who cards, another to spin, another to weave and another to draw. It would be clumsy to have all the operations under one person, as it will burden them, decreasing the output time and accuracy. Adam Smith discusses Sir William Petty’s economics writings in his book and shares most of his sentiments toward the improvement of labor and establishment of ranks.
According to Smith (2011), dexterity is the greatest improvement achieved after the establishment of productive powers in the labor industry. Moreover, it has been a key element in improving skills and judgment, which applies or directs its effects on the division of labor. One major change is the introduction of manufacturing industries with assembly lines, which came to revolutionize how people work and improve on their skill set. An assembly line comprises a turning belt that transfers a product through different workers, who combine its various components. These workers specialize on a particular skill, making them efficient in their work. Moreover, it ensures perfection and accuracy in the workplace, as the workers do not have to master different skillsets. They manage to build upon their current skill set and become one with it.
Division of labor is inherent in every society and divided as per gender, occupation, and labor type. The nuance of the division of labor helped shape the international and economic affairs of different societies in the past decades, and its fashion has led to the establishment of powerful groups that influence the global society. According to Smith (2011), division of labor is an important aspect that leads to different operations, trades, and employments, which differ from one another. Nations differ in the improvement of their social division of labor, bringing about superiority among different nations. The argument exists in modern societies if one considers the division of markets and labor as well as its shape, which helps in determining the superiority of a nation. Braverman (1998) affirms that labor power is a commodity organized by the desires of the employers who seek to create value for their capital. It leads to employers devaluing the labor by breaking it down into its simplest elements, creating a working population that is suitable for the needs of the capitalist.
Graeber (2015) notes that most governments like the United States and Great Britain that believe in ‘free markets’ form through the process of bureaucracy and red tape. These countries ultimately create structures of international administration namely Breton Wood, IMF, UN, WTO, and the World Bank. Therefore, it is clear that the features of the division of labor lead to formation of structures that govern the global society. As Hanlon (2016) observed, holders of power make up the rules’, which ultimately lead to powerful groupings that govern the masses, and subsequently bureaucracy always wins. Consequently, a bureaucratic culture characterized the society as a whole leading to pervasiveness. Conversely, Graeber (2015) argues that authority is associated with stupidity, which is interesting but also not true because the structure shapes up reality.
Ferdinand Mount uses an experience from his life to highlight the division of labor. He reminisces about Animal Farm, a book he read in 1945 and read it for the second time the following year (Mount, 2011). However, his father told him that the book comprises of hidden messages that he might not understand at the time. Despite the remarks, his aunt Violet congratulated him for reading the book, which was quite easy as it lacked heavy words. The book’s author, Orwell, received news from Mount’s aunt Violet on how he thought about the book and how easy it was for Mount to understand it. The example demonstrates the two sides of power, where Mount and his father have different interpretations of the book. The superiority of Mount’s father enables him to discover more from the book, while Mount only understands a shallow version of it.
The demonstration shows that people will always have an opinion towards the decision made by an individual (Mount, 2011). In fact, the key concept lies in the author’s definition and interpretation, while the readers will try to match up with the author’s point of perspective. In most scenarios, there are those who will judge it from a shallow end while a few will understand the author’s perspective. Mount brings into focus the division of power in different governments and the way the two sides of the house lack a common stance in most situations. Orwell’s essays under the topic aim to question the people and parties he worked with and not his enemies. His sentiments towards the labor values focused on equality and liberty, which made him stick to the nationalization opinions that were inevitable and desirable.
Mount (2011) describes the British oligarchy, which came about through political chaos, which led to the breakdown of the ruling regime. Its fall brought about the term totalitarian, which describes the pervasive power oligarchy had over other regimes. In the end, totalitarian regimes lasted for years though it startled people when they feel overnight, bringing into effect a void that New Men leaped to fill. However, the British oligarchy was different from other regimes as it saw the society as congested. These remarks suggest that Mount is in support for controlled power as it helps unite a nation and enable its leaders to work towards improving the lives of its people.
According to Mount (2011), a central office of power will enable the government to regulate the labor laws. His sentiments echo the British oligarchy during the Second World War. At the time, authority and power was widespread and people had authority over public and private matters. The local authority lacked enough power to undertake its revenue collection or implement new laws. The division of labor made it hard for progress to mature, crippling the activities of the few that cared about the nation. The establishment of British oligarchy enabled those in power to control various aspects of the labor laws. Moreover, it was in a position to direct different parastatals and power authority to specific departments rather than leaving it to the public.
Division of labor has two interpretations and viewpoints. Moreover, each side seems to have control of its situation, making it hard for one to rule out the best option. However, it is good to note that central power might be a hard thing to implement in most scenarios, as it requires an oligarchy system for it to materialize. Division of labor continues to stand out as a better alternative despite the fears of having a superior body. Competition between bodies ensures that its consumers have better services and opportunities, which will, in turn, improve it.
References
Braveman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: NYU Press.
Hanlon, G. (2016). Total bureaucratisation, neo-liberalism, and Weberian oligarchy. Ephemera Theory and Politics in Organization 16(1), 179-191.
Mount, F. (2011). Orwell and the Oligarchs. The Political Quarterly 82(2), 146-157.
Smith, A. (2011). An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: Cosimo Inc.
