This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries] On: 26 September 2013, At: 08:03 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Economy and Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reso20

The romance of labour

Tony Cutler Published online: 11 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Tony Cutler (1978) The romance of labour, Economy and Society, 7:1, 74-95, DOI: 10.1080/03085147700000018 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147700000018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Economy and Society Vol 7 No 1 February 1978

Review Article by Tony Cutler

The romance of 'labour'

Texts Reviewed
H. Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, 1974. Brighton Labour Process Group, T h e Production Process o f Capital and the Capitalist Labour Process. Conference of Socialist Economists, T h e Labour Process and Class Strategies, 1976.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The central issue raised by the works under review here concerns the status of the concept 'capitalist labour process'. The analysis of the pertinence of this concept involves both posing why production processes in capitalist economies should be referred t o a universal concept of 'labour process' and why 'labour' should play the privileged role which this implies. The works we are considering here attempt to establish the privileged role of 'labour' in relation to two key arguments, both in different ways derivable from Marxist concepts. In the first case 'labour' plays a key role for the reason that it is argued t o be the sole agent of the creation of value. Consequently labour is not merely the source of 'surplus-value' but is also the condition of existence of the reproduction of the value of 'constant capital' (raw materials and means of production). As the production of 'use-values' and the production of surplus-value are both deemed to be sine qua n o n of a capitalist mode of production then ipso facto labour plays a privileged role. We will leave aside the theoretical basis of this argument1 concerning ourselves simply with its internal logic and from this point of view it is to be noted that the extraction of surplus-value is treated by the works under consideration as an object of capitalist calculation. For example Braverman argues:

. . . When the capitalist buys buildings, materials, tools,

machinery, etc., he can evaluate with precision their place in

The romance of 'labour'

75

the labour process. He knows that a certain portion of his outlay will be transferred t o each unit of production, and his accounting practices allocate these in the form of costs or depreciation. But when he buys labour time, the outcome is far from being either so certain or so definite reckoned in this way, with precision and in advance. This is merely an expression of the fact that the portion of his capital expended on labour power is the 'variable' portion, which undergoes an increase in the process of production; for him, the question is how great that increase will be. (Braverman, 1974: 57-8.) While Braverman is not entirely consistent with respect t o this a r g ~ m e n t ,it ~ plays a central role in his book. This central role derives from what he conceives as the problematic character of the 'exploitation of labour'. For Braverman the conditions t o which workers are subjected in capitalist production processes are inimical t o the realisation of the 'essential' character of 'human labour'. Consequently 'labour' is seen as continually seeking t o subvert these production processes and the primary object of capitalist enterprise calculation is t o prevent such subversion. The distinctive capacity of human labour is . . . its intelligent and purposive character, which gives it infinite adaptability and which produces the social and cultural conditions for enlarging its own productivity, so that its surplus product may be continually enlarged. . . . But if the capitalist builds upon this distinctive quality and potential of human labour power, it is also this quality, by its very indeterminacy, which places before him his greatest challenge and problem. The coin of labour has its obverse side: in purchasing labour power that can d o much, he is a t the same time purchasing an undefined quality and quantity. (Braverman, 1974: 56-57.) The Brighton Labour Process Group are somewhat more qualified though the logic of their position is not radically different from Braverman's they argue:

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

. . . The labour process requires the participation of the labourers who may have objectives other than valorisation, and may resist the revolutionising of the labour process. (p. 5, my emphasis.)3
For Braverman it is a universal that 'labour' resists its insertion within capitalist production processes and that the primary object of capitalist calculation is t o break down this resistance. Naturally t o argue in this fashion requires that universal characteristics of 'labour' be designated and this is what Braverman seeks t o d o in

76

Tony Cutler

the first chapter of his book. For Braverman 'human labour' is defined by its 'conscious' character - 'In human work, the directing mechanism is the process of conceptual thought' while for Braverman conception always precedes execution this link is not necessarily one which applies t o all human subjects, The unity of conception and execution may be dissolved. The conception must still precede and govern execution, but the idea as conceived by one may be executed by another. The driving force of labour remains human consciousness, but the unity between the two may be broken in the individual and reasserted in the group, the workshop, the community, the society as a whole. ( pp. 50-5 1 emphasis in the original.) The 'capitalist class' are victims of a kind of 'ruse of reason' for Braverman, but as unwilling victims they seek t o control the 'variability' of human labour and a substantial proportion of his work is designed t o show how. This search for control is based for Braverman on the concentration of the tasks of 'conception' in the hands of the 'capitalist class' and its 'functionaries' with the working class restricted t o the 'execution' of work tasks. Essentially the 'capitalist class' is seen as deploying two means to effect this end at distinct points in time. In relation t o this schema Taylorism plays a dual role, on one hand as a more primitive form of the separation of conception and execution, on the other as an exemplar of the theorisation of the separation. Braverman tells us:
A comprehensive and detailed outline of the principles of Taylorism is essential t o our narrative, not because of the things for which it is popularly known - stopwatch, speed up, etc. - but because behind these commonplaces there lies a theory which is nothing less than the explicit verbalisation of the capitalist mode of production. (p. 86,)

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

While, however, Taylor functions as a kind of paradigm theorist of capitalism in respect of advocating the concentration of the tasks of 'conception' in the hands of the management his position is equally a kind of primitivism. This primitivism arises from the fact that Taylor's objective is t o sub-divide work tasks with the aim of assigning minimum times for their accomplishment. As such the focus of enterprise calculation for Taylor is on a set of work tasks defined by reference t o agiven set of means of production. Consequently Taylorism literally can in no sense be treated as an exemplar of capitalism tout court but is 'superseded' by the continuous mechanisation of work tasks. This 'supersession' is only a change in the method of achieving the same end:

The romance of 'labour'

77

The capacity of humans t o control the labour process through machinery is seized upon by management from the beginning of capitalism as the prime means whereby production may be controlled not b y the direct producers b u t b y the owners and representatives o f capital. Thus, in addition t o its technical function of increasing the productivity of labour - which would be a mark of machinery under any social system machinery also has in the capitalist system the function of divesting the mass of workers of their control over their own labour. . . . Machinery offers t o management the opportunity t o d o by wholly mechanical means that which it had previously attempted to do by organisational and disciplinary means. (Braverman 1974: 193 and 195; emphasis in the original.) So labour is not only central from the point of view of its unique position as the sole 'exploitable' element of the production process but equally in terms of its 'variability in performance'. The strategy t o control labour makes no sense outside the combination of centrality to the accumulation of capital and its supposedly problematic character in relation t o its 'performance' in the production process. There is n o possibility of presenting the argument against the concept of 'exploitation' here. To d o so would require a complex and necessarily extended discussion of its theoretical foundation in the concept ' ~ a l u e ' . ~ 'Exploitation' stages a confrontation between the general categories of agents labourers, who produce surplus value, and non-labourers, who appropriate it. In the theory of exploitation labour is constituted as a generality because all distinct labours have a common attribute (a value-creating power) and the identity of those distinct labours is established through the equation of their products in definite ratios in exchange (abstract labour). The concepts of value and exploitation therefore legitimate the hegemonisation of the analysis of production processes in Marxist discourse by the general category of labour. If these concepts are not pertinent then 'labour' loses the social form of generality given it through commodity production (abstract labour) - labours are no longer equated in this social measure. How then is it possible t o retain a general category of labour? What is it that the different types of tasks performed in different processes of production have in common? Here we come up against another theoretical element in the Marxist general concept of labour, the anthropology of humanism.' What is it that equates the operations performed, say, by a goldbeater in a handicraft jewellers and an operative who supervises a tape-controlled drilling machine? The fact that members

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

78

Tonv Cutler

of the species horno sapzens are present? But Marx himself shows us that different types of production do not assign the same place t o 'human' skills, motions and attributes. Skills, for example, are relative t o definite production processes and are acquired (in what sense are they 'human'? ). The role of an element in a production process (whether it be a human subject, a machine or a technique like control theory) can only be examined relative to the part it plays in the process and the determinants which cause it and not something else to be employed. What is the general meaning and pertinence of 'labour', why should it be the focus of analysis of processes of production? We have seen that if the concept of exploitation and its foundation in the theory of value is challenged then the analysis of the 'labour process' ceases t o have a theoretical unity. This nnjty can only be compensated for by a simple philosophical anthropology. Indeed, this anthropology is important and active in the texts considered here. This is evident in the second area in which the privilege of labour is defined, the inherent resistance of labour. In both Braverman's book and in the Brighton group text the separation between conception and execution is taken as a primary and direct objective of capitalist enterprise calculation and in Braverman's book as a universal object of resistance on the part of 'labour'. Implicit in these arguments are two distinct claims, first that essential characteristics of 'labour' can be defined which are necessarily at variance with the conditions t o which labour is subjected in capitalist production processes and second that there is a general structure t o the capitalist production process or a 'tendency' towards such. These conditions simply follow from the concept, if there is t o be a universal recalcitrance on the part of labour this can only be by reference t o intrinsically 'harmonious' or 'natural' conditions of labour. If recalcitrance on the part of 'labour' is t o be universal then it must be a universal feature of production in capitalist economies that these processes take a single general form involving the separation of execution and conception. The idea of a separation of execution and conception is the definition given by Braverman t o the familiar concept of a separation of mental and manual labour, this formulation is adopted t o avoid the ludicrous implication that there is a pure 'mental' or 'manual' labour. In trying t o concretise this concept Braverman makes reference t o the philosophical concept of consciousness, 'Human work is conscious and purposive . . .' (p. 45.) It is for this reason that the separation of conception and execution deviates from the 'model' of human labour and, for Braverman, engenders resistance.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The romance of 'labour'

79

The problematisation of the theoretical foundations of the general category of labour undermines this central focus of the analysis of the labour process, the separation of conception and execution. This concept requires that there be a unitary and general concept of 'labour' which can be subjected t o this division. It requires that 'conception' and 'execution' have the same stable and general meaning which is applicable t o different types of processes of production, that conception means the same thing in one as it does in the other. Braverman as we have seen achieves this generality and stability through an anthropological and privileged concept of human labour. Conception is the same because it results from human purpose. Conception and execution are ideally united in the person of the subject. In this concept of labour a certain type of production process (conceived as humanharmonious) is privileged, handicraft labour (under conditions of independent production or the 'conscious' association of the producers). Despite his pleas t o the contrary this specific type of production process is made the measure of all production. In it conception and execution find their unity in the hand and brain of the subject (a conception which is in itself a romanticisation of petty production and involves an anthropomorphic stance on its conditions of work). The privilege of 'human' labour takes it as obvious that man (in the form of a humanised 'ideal' handicraft production) is the measure of all other production processes. Consequently, although this task is never attempted in the works under consideration, a corollary of their arguments will necessarily be the positing of an anthropomorphic view of the means of production. The means of production are measured by reference t o 'man' because the separation of conception and execution by 'mechanisation' is a re-distribution of a pre-given set of functions from 'man' t o 'machine'. Such a view embodies the paradoxical idea that 'innovation' in the means of production is simply the creation of a 'mechanical' mirror for 'man'. Such a view is therefore based on the idea not only that scientific practice is the realisation of a pregiven natural world but that the world is anthropocentric. This form of analysis supposes that other processes separate these (humanly) united tasks for reasons of human interest (by reason of the action of other subjects, the exploiters, who appropriate the functions of 'consciousness' t o themselves). Socialism will remove the interdiction on human labour placed by these interests and will unite conception and execution in a harmonious-human form on a higher technical level (in the conscious association of the producers). But in what sense is there conception in general or execution in

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

80

Tony Cutler

general such that this history of the subversion and return of a harmonious human state can be written? The notion of conception used in this case supposes that economic subjects are reducible t o human subjects and economic calculation t o a unitary e ~ p e r i e n c e . Do ~ handicraft producers organise their work by means of 'human' thought and experience in general (categories which are philosophical and not unproblematic givens), or rather by means of definite techniques of calculation and under definite conditions. Are the planning and decisions undertaken by a complex enterprise solely a product of the 'thought' of its operatives, or are they not in some measure products of the form of organisation, the techniques and the instruments of calculation used? A petty producer and a large corporation may be comparable as economic agents, they may for example both have t o make decisions about analogous products which compete in certain markets. The corporation (an economic subject) is not a human subject. Its calculation and 'conception' cannot be equated with a human 'consciousness' (nor for that matter can the individual petty producers' practice be referred t o a philosophical anthropology as if organisational forms were equally irrelevant here). 'Conception' is unified by a philosophical concept of man (which makes human subjects its exemplars), and by the anthropomorphic reduction of economic subjects t o this conception of human subjects. Without anthropology the problematic of the labour process ceases t o have a pertinence. A concept of man is its measure and the fate of the concept its sole concern. I stress the word concept, for this 'conscious' and 'purposive' essentialism has precious little t o d o with the doings of definite men engaged in production. The other side of the argument is the claim that it is a universal characteristic of capitalist production processes t o effect a separation between 'conception' and 'execution'. As we have already seen Braverman treats this separation as a direct effect of capitalist enterprise calculation. However, such an argument is unsustainable since capitalist enterprises do not calculate in value terms. However, it would still be possible t o argue that a by-product of the calculation of capitalist enterprises is t o establish production processes which have as an effect the separation of 'conception' and 'execution'. Such a separation is seen in the works under consideration as characteristic of highly mechanised production processes. This is because mechanisation is seen as allowing both the execution of work tasks and the transfer of the product from one stage in the production process to another t o be precisely timed: this allows the optimal integration of the production

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The romance of 'labour'

81

process and the reduction of the time spent on each work task t o the minimum. This is because the mechanisation of production processes is usually accompanied, it is argued, by a reduction of the work tasks t o a number of simple, sub-divided operations, the whole being co-ordinated by the factory management. These processes are assumed t o be the most cost-effective and they are generally thought t o eliminate less mechanised processes which are assumed t o be necessarily less cost-effective. None of the works under consideration produce a rigorous presentation of this kind of argument and if it is subject t o an examination of its conditions of operation it can be easily shown t o be fallacious. T o argue in Marxist terms that there is a 'tendency' in respect of production methods involves fulfilling three conditions: (i) that the internal structure of industrial sectors are deducible from the concept of mode of production, in this case the Capitalist Mode of Production; (ii) that the technical innovations are deducible in the same way; (iii) that the structure of consumption and the composition of the social product is deducible in the same way. It must be possible t o deduce the internal structure of industrial sectors for a number of reasons. For example, since the main object of introducing new means of production is t o reduce unit costs the enterprise must calculate on a certain minimum level of output t o sustain a fall in unit costs. Clearly a sector where output is less concentrated at the enterprise level7 necessarily creates obstacles t o the introduction of means of production involving substantial initial costs as they cannot be spread over a 'high' volume of output. Another reason why the structure of a sector is pertinent concerns the length of production runs. I t is common t o find both that highly mechanised systems are designed for specialist production of either a single product or a particular limited combination of products and that they are designed t o produce long runs. This means that it is often uneconomic for enterprises using highly mechanised production to change their 'mix' of products or to produce short runs. Consequently it is often advantageous for such enterprises if they can sub-contract orders t o smaller enterprises not subject to these constraints. Consequently the introduction of highly mechanised production processes may be facilitated by the existence of smaller enterprises in the same sector. I t is necessary t o deduce the character of technical innovations because innovations have radically different effects on the minimum volume of output in a given sector and thus on how many enterprises may operate in a given sector. It is quite incorrect t o think that innovations necessarily favour high initial-cost, high-

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

82

Tony Cutler

volume output; for example, both small electric motors and working in plastic have reduced the initial capital required t o set up manufacturing enterprise^.^ As we have already demonstrated that the structure of a sector is pertinent in relation to the production methods used in that sector then the character of technical innovations can be seen t o be pertinent for the reason of their impact on the structure of industrial sectors. The structure of consumption and the composition of the social product is pertinent for the simple reason that different materials lend themselves in radically different ways to mechanised production processes. This may be due to the actual physical material used or t o the differentiation of the product ('fashion' changes in relation t o articles of clothing for e ~ a m p l e ) . ~ Consequently if we are going to talk of tendencies then it will be necessary t o deduce the pattern of consumption and the composition of the social product. As far as technical innovations are concerned, the Marxist concept of capitalist mode of production involves the conception that since capitalism progressively abolishes 'craft' labour it opens the possibility for the application of natural sciences t o production.1 However, as we have indicated the basis for a tendency would have t o involve the deduction of the effect of an innovation on the structure of a sector. Clearly no such conclusion could be drawn from the abstract conditions of the application of science to production processes. As far as the character of consumption is concerned Marxist theoretical arguments only operate in respect of a given composition of consumption. For example, the idea that the 'value of labour power' is constituted by the socially necessary labour-time required t o produce the commodities 'necessary t o reproduce labour-power' gives no independent means of ascertaining what these commodities are. On the contrary they are usually directly derived in a circular fashion from the empirical character of consumption patterns. T o deduce the internal structure of industrial sectors would be t o argue that the 'capitalist mode of production' entails a given model of entry and exit of enterprises to industrial sectors. This argument runs into a number of problems. As we have already indicated the character of production processes is reiated t o the nature of the material worked, and in turn the nature of the means of production utilised will condition the minimum scale of capital required t o enter a given sector. The minimum level of capital required t o enter a sector will also be conditioned by the character of technical innovations. Since both these conditions are required t o account for the structure of an industrial sector and since these con-

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

T h e romance of 'labour'

83

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

ditions are non-deducible from the concept of a 'mode of production' then ipso facto this condition is non-deducible. Equally, of course, entry and exit are conditioned by the availability of finance and by the initial capitalisation of an enterprise, for example, an enterprise which is initally over-valued1l will always find it more difficult t o earn a 'satisfactory return'. Clearly, again it is quite impossible t o deduce variable conditions of financial markets from a concept of 'mode of production'. I t is thus possible to see that the conditions for the argument that capitalist production processes 'tend' towards a separation of 'execution' from 'conception' founders on the fact that the concept 'capitalist mode of production' cannot yield the conditions for such a 'tendency'. Consequently not only do we have an indeterminacy with respect t o what the 'tendency' is t o 'tend' towards, but logically the concept 'capitalist mode of production' as defined in Marxist terms would not allow us to define such 'tendencies'.' In addition t o the discussion of the relationship of labour t o 'paradigm' capitalist production processes the works under review discuss the deployment of what may be called 'types of labour and labour-power' or what is usually grouped under the rubric of skill levels and 'de-skilling'. In contrast t o the argument, very common in economics and sociology during the 1950's and 60's' that capitalist economies would be characterised by increased demands for 'skilled' labour the consensus in the works under consideration is quite the reverse. For instance the Brighton Labour Process Group argue that: Deskilling is inherent in capitalist labour process because capital must aim at having labour functions that are calculable, standardisable routines; because this labour must be performed at the maximum speed and with the minimum of 'porosity'; and because capital wants labour which is cheap and easily replaceable (op. cit., p. 25). The term 'de-skilling' is now increasingly functioning as a common slogan of theorists of the 'labour process' but again it is not as unproblematic as it initially appears. This is again because the use of the concept 'skill' requires the specification of a pertinence. It is by no means self-evident why specific tasks or occupations should be classified 'skilled' or 'unskilled7 nor are the terms used with any necessary consistency. Marx's usage was t o attempt t o define the pertinence in terms of the place of a 'type of labour-power' within a given mode of production. This led him t o argue in respect of the capitalist mode of production that,

84

Tony Cutler

The distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests in part on pure illusion, or, t o say the least, on distinctions that have long since ceased t o be real, and, that survive only by virtue of a traditional convention; . . . (Marx 1961: 197 footnote 1). The pertinence of the skilled/unskilled distinction rested on the operation of what he thought of as an artisan labour process. The distinction was pertinent because the specific knowledge and manual dexterity of the artisan was a 'given' of the 'labour process' in a simple logical sense. This usage may be compared with the way 'de-skilling' is often used: this is in terms of a conception of 'skilled' labour which is often more or less identified with 'craft' labour and 'unskilled' labour as the performance of fragmented detail tasks. If Marx's argument is followed, however, such a conception would not be pertinent because artisan or 'craft' labour-power is only pertinent vis-2-vis a 'labour process' where, by definition, labour-power of a given type is indispensable. Marx regarded the skilled/unskilled distinction in this sense as not pertinent to a capitalist mode of production, with its corresponding 'labour process', since no particular 'type' of labour-power could be classed as given in respect of the mode of production. It is to the credit of the Brighton Labour Process Group that they are aware of this difficulty in the conventional view of 'de-skilling' although they leave the problem somewhat up in the air: one of the aspects of de-skilling they tell us:

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

. . . Is the replacement of the relationship between labour and tools by the relationship between labour and machines. Basically this comes t o the replacement of the craftsman by the machine operative. It could be that these two relationships are simply incommensurable so that t o speak of de-skilling here is confusing (in as much as the notion of de-skilling seems to imply a quantitative unilinear scale of some kind, whereas craft and machine-operative skills may require different scales). . . (p. 25).
What, however, the Brighton group do not bring out here is what governs the usage of these concepts in Marxist arguments and how this relates to the concept 'mode of production'. Thus 'deskilling' defined as 'craftsman t o machine-operative' is in fact a comparison of a 'labour process' characteristic of distinct modes of production1 i.e. what is confused is a term apparently defined as internal t o a 'mode of production' ('de-skilling under capitalism') with terms defining labour processes characteristic of distinct modes of production.

The romance of 'labour'

85

If this means of characterising 'skill' is jettisoned, however, a distinct pertinence is required. The Brighton group give in fact two distinct pertinences. They suggest that 'de-skilling' must be looked at in terms of the supply of labour-power, 'capital wants labour which is cheap and easily replaceable.' (ibid.) But like Braverman they want t o see 'de-skilling' in terms of the exercise of control over labour within the production process. We have already discussed the latter type of argument, for t o be sustained it involves the postulate that 'labour' is universally recalcitrant; an assumption which has already been criticised. The link between 'skill' and the supply of labour-power is a different problem, however. Here the clear pertinence t o the distinction is in terms of whether labour-power with a set of capacities is available t o undertake a given range of tasks. This is the kind of procedure adopted by Bright in his article 'Does Automation Raise Skill Requirem e n t ~ ' . ' Bright ~ produces a scale of mechanisation based on the criteria that a 'higher', more complex level of mechanisation involves a transfer of functions to machines. The question Bright wants t o pose is t o what extent the demands on labour-power change when there is an increase in mechanisation measured on his scale. Bright's procedure is, however, radically different from the proponents of the idea of 'de-skilling'. Although he uses the term 'skill' in the paper it is effectively simply translatable into capacities required of labour-power. In other words it is not defined in the dichotomous terms skilled1 unskilled which operates in the Marxist concept of the artisan labour process. For Bright distinctions in requirements are only significant in respect of the supply of labour and in turn in respect of the relation of a given work-force to different levels of mechanisation. Bright's problems are thus 'managerial' in a broad sense, his problems are the relevance of the existing capacities t o the range of work tasks required, the 'relevant' wage levels etc. Further Bright's argument is in terms of a given 'level' of mechanisation. While he studies the experience of a range of industries in terms of a scale of mechanisation he certainly does not posit any 'tendencies'. The proponents of 'de-skilling', however, do posit a 'tendency' t o produce processes which 'de-skill'. The problem is that the Brighton group produce two distinct pertinences. They want t o consider 'de-skilling' in the light of labour-supply considerations and in terms of the 'separation of conception and execution' as a means of control of labour. The distinct pertinences, however, produce totally different concepts of 'skill'. As we have already seen in an argument such as that of Bright's 'skill' divisions

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

86

Tony Cutler

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

are measured by reference t o a given set of work tasks, in other words there is no 'essential' scale of skill but one which simply changes with reference to the work tasks under consideration. In contrast the division of 'conception and execution' is thought in terms of a necessary polarity, the craftldetail labour distinction. As we have already seen this distinction must be essential for it works within a circle of mutually defining terms. The need for supervision arises from the infraction of the 'natural' form of labour and the consequent recalcitrance of 'labour', the recalcitrance engenders the need t o separate conception and execution, the separation engenders recalcitrance and so on. We can therefore see that 'de-skilling' is quite falsely used t o cover both these pertinences. In the first case the dichotomous concept of skill is in no way necessarily pertinent, in the second case it plays a defining role. Equally the treatment of the 'deskil1ing'-labour supply relation in the Brighton group's analysis is much less rigorous than Bright's. For Bright the relationship is simply one between capacities of labour-power and tasks. There is no implication that this relationship accounts for the supply of labour since there is no reason why 'skill level' should determine labour supply.'' This is, however, not simply a lapse, there is a crucial difficulty stemming from the treatment of problems of the distribution of labour-power as effects of the production process and this is most clearly highlighted in Braverman's treatment of the Industrial Reserve Army. For Braverman the Industrial Reserve Army includes: The masses of labour sloughed off by the rapid mechanisation of industry (and this includes not just those who lose their jobs, but, much more important numerically, those who keep coming into the employment market a t a time when traditional opportunities for industrial employment are shrinking. (p. 382.) and

. . . The masses of former agricultural labour in the colonies and neocolonies. These masses are thrown off by the process of imperialist penetration itself, which has disrupted the traditional forms of labour and subsistence. . . . Thus Western Europe and the United States now draw upon a labour market which extends in a broad band from India and Pakistan in the east across northern African and southernmost Europe all the way t o the Caribbean and other portions of Latin America in the west. Indian, Pakistani, Turkish, Greek, Italian, African, Spanish, West Indian and other workers supplement the indigenous

The romance of 'labour'

87

underclass in northern Europe and make up its lowest layers. (p. 384-5.) At the same time, in a process which cuts across racial and national lines, the female portion of the population has become the prime supplementary reservoir of labour. . . . Women form the ideal reservoir of labour for the new mass occupations. (p. 385.) The concept of Industrial Reserve Army embraces both a determinant and a postulated function. However, in so far as we talk of a 'tendency' t o produce an Industrial Reserve Army or relative surplus-population it is necessary that such a 'surplus population' be treated as an effect of the determinant. For Marx the accumulation of capital is accompanied by a rise in the organic composition of capital:
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

Since the demand for labour is determined not by the amount of capital as a whole, but by its variable constituent alone, that demand falls progressively with the increase of the total capital, instead of, as previously assumed, rising in proportion t o it. It falls relatively t o the magnitude of the total capital and a t an accelerated rate, as this magnitude increases. With the growth of the total capital, its variable part or the labour incorporated in it, also does increase, but in a constantly diminishing proportion. (Marx 1961: 629.) Thus The labouring population. . . produces along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which itself is made relatively superflous, is turned into a relative surplus population; and it does this t o an always increasing extent. (op. cit.: 631.) Clearly then it is impossible to talk of an Industrial Reserve Army outside this set of determinants. In contrast Braverman's 'Industrial Reserve Army' is radically heterogeneous. For Marx the Industrial Reserve Army is constituted by a process whereby a given working population is subject t o a 'tendency' t o expand production without a corresponding growth in employment, the rise in the organic composition of capital which functions as the 'motor' of this process is equally for Marx progressive. I t is important t o realise that Marx's argument is theorised in relation t o a hypothetical working population such that the tendency operates on the working population. What goes on outside this working population is simply not relevant t o the argument. Thus the formation of the Industrial Reserve Army is achieved,

88

Tony Cutler

Independently of the limits of the actual increase of population, it creates, for the changing needs of the selfexpansion of capital, a mass of human material always ready for exploitation. (op. cit. : 632.) This is a necessary requirement of Marx's argument since if the tendency is t o operate then it is necessary that the 'pool of labour' be constituted by the 'correct' determinants; thus Marx's postulate that the exterior of the theoretical working population is irrelevant. We can therefore see that Braverman's example of women as part of the Industrial Reserve Army is a quite inaccurate usage of the concept. The changes in the employment of women are not in terms of a given working population but effect the boundaries of the working population i.e. allow for the wider entry of a social category into the work-force. Since the process described by Braverman here is a process of entry by a group which was subject t o a lower work-force participation rate then in no sense can this group be classed as part of the Industrial Reserve Army. This applies a fortiori to Braverman's treatment of immigrant labour. However, the analysis of immigrant labour raises another important question. In discussing a 'tendency' t o produce an Industrial Reserve Army it is necessary t o stress that such a tendency is defined in relation to a mode of production, in this case the capitalist mode of production. Often, however, a tendency defined in this way is assumed t o operate unproblematically in a given national economy. l 6 This is quite illegitimate because they are radically different concepts. For example, in relation t o the example we are considering here a national economy involves the role of manpower policies in the light of a government economic policy, legal regulation on the movement of labour both internal t o the national state and in relation t o immigrant labour etc. Neither of these features are in any way entailed in a concept of 'mode of production'. Where processes defined at the level of the mode of production are assumed t o operate within national economies the sleight of hand is exercised by effacing the pertinent differences between the two fields. Braverman's usage here is, however, a particularly paradoxical example of this practice. In his definition of women as part of the Industrial Reserve Army Braverman takes up in his 'proof' statistics relating t o a given national economy, i.e. in so far as a tendency operates it is 'realised' within given national economies. However, when discussing immigrant labour we move from a given national economy t o international movements of labour so that the tendency is realised both within a given national

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The romance of 'labour'

89

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

economy and on a world scale. This means that the national economy plays a totally different role in the two cases. In the case of women the national economy is the medium for the operation of the tendency, i.e. the argument operates as if any apparently capitalist national economy could function as such an exemplar because the differences between 'capitalist' national economies are not pertinent. When, however, we come t o the case of immigrant labour it appears on one hand that the world economy is the sphere of realisation of the mode of production and that differences between national economies are pertinent. Differences between national economies appear t o be pertinent because Braverman posits a set of countries 'exporting' labour (broadly speaking the 'under-developed' countries) and a series of labour 'importing' countries (the 'advanced capitalist' countries). However if the differences between national economies are pertinent it is hard to see how this can be consistent with Braverman's initial argument. If we treat any national economy as a 'realisation' of the capitalist mode of production (presuming that it exhibits the necessary 'pertinent' features) then we assume that in any such national economy the tendencies of the capitalist mode of production operate by definition. In this case this would mean that all such national economies generate Industrial Reserve Armies. If so why, it might be asked, is it the case that the 'import' or 'export' of labour should be deemed pertinent at all. Braverman's argument is continually dogged by his confusion over the concept of Industrial Reserve Army. This leads him t o treat any pool of labour-power utilised by advanced capitalist economies as an Industrial Reserve Army, thus manifestly contradicting the unifying feature of an Industrial Reserve Army as defined by Marx. Thus women entering the labour-force are clearly not displaced by changes in the organic composition of capital and immigrant labour is obviously not a homogeneous group. For Braverman the Industrial Reserve Army becomes merely a conventional term totally split away from its theoretical significance. In none of these arguments is there any grasp of the problematic character of the concept 'Industrial Reserve Army', and the nature of the link between determinant and function. We have already discussed Marx's conception of the determinants of the Industrial Reserve Army, the 'function' is discussed in the following terms: With accumulation, and the development of the productiveness of labour that accompanies it, the power of sudden expansion of capital grows also. . . . The mass of social wealth, overflowing with the advance of accumulation and transformable into

90

Tony Cutler

additional capital, thrusts itself frantically into old branches of production whose market suddenly expands, or into newly formed branches, such as railways etc., the need for which grows out of the development of the old ones. In all such cases, there must be the possibility of throwing great masses of men suddenly on the decisive points without injury t o the scale of production in other spheres. (Marx 1.961 : 632.) The determinant of the Industrial Reserve Army is argued by Marx t o arise from the effects of the rise in the organic composition of capital which in turn arises out of the supersession of the constraint of the supply of labour under a capitalist mode of production. This constraint arises it is argued from the finite limit t o the working day, t o the intensity of labour under given technical conditions and the finite limit t o the working population. However, the production of an Industrial Reserve Army precisely nullifies the pertinence of the latter condition and in discussing the function of the Industrial Reserve Army we can discern an important contradiction in Marx's argument. When the function of the Industrial Reserve Army is discussed it is in terms of the labour requirements of specific capitalist enterprises. However, where the determinants of the Industrial Reserve Army are discussed it is in terms of the total social capital. In other words the limit on the working population is posed as a global limit of the mode of production, a limit on the accumulation of capital in the context of given technical conditions. Capitalist enterprises, however, as Marx himself argues, d o not make calculations in such terms. Indeed in the first chaper of Volume I11 of Capital, Marx argues that enterprise calculation is undertaken in factor-price terms, i.e. that a 'cheap' 'factor of production' is substituted for a 'dear' one. If we take this argument seriously we can see that the process which purports t o form an Industrial Reserve Army i.e. a permanent surplus population in fact would d o nothing of the kind. In so far as capitalist enterprises follow Marx's conception of calculation then the effect of the displacement of labour that it depresses wages, as Marx argues it does, would be t o engender substitution of labour for means of production. In other words if factor-substitution plays a key role in the determination of the 'surplus population' then it logically cannot produce a 'permanent pool' but rather a fluctuating group whose size varies with relative factor prices. In this sense if function and determinant are linked then the prescribed function could not be performed. As we have seen above Marx conceives the function of the Industrial Reserve Army as allowing for the rapid expansion of

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The romance of 'labour'

91

production without affecting the labour supply of other sectors. This implies that a permanent pool exists t o fulfil1 such needs, but if the size of the pool is dependant on relative factor prices then logically no permanent pool could exist; congruence of rapid expansion of production with an available supply of labour could not be subsumed under the tendency t o produce an Industrial Reserve Army but would simply result from a conjunction of two quite different sets of determinants. We have sought to show the major defects of the texts under review; now by way of a conclusion let us attempt t o signal the basis of these defects. We have already indicated that the 'labour process' as analysed in the texts is treated, however unrigorously, as deducible from the concept of mode of production. National economies are thus treated as 'realisations' of 'tendencies' defined in respect of the mode of production. This practice simply effaces the differences between these theoretical concepts, since as we have indicated 'modes of production' are not characterised by features which constitute the 'boundaries' of national economies at given points in time, such as currency, monetary policy, regulation of the movement of labour etc. As we saw in the case of Braverman's treatment of the Industrial Reserve Army these factors are introduced in an ad hoc and contradictory way to 'supplement' what is non deducible from the concept of capitalist mode of production without seriously confronting the latter's theoretical insuffiency. In this respect it is worth pointing out some important theoretical differences between the two concepts. Mode of production implies a set of universal features which are concretely realised, temporality being treated internal t o the mode of production as a development of itself, i.e. in terms of tendencies. A national economy is quite distinct from this position in the sense that the character of its boundaries are variable. To take an example pertinent t o our concerns here an economic policy of capitalist nation-states on unemployment is of recent date and involves specific conditions. Such a policy, for example, is not conceptualisable in terms of an argument where employment levels are seen as a function of real wages set by bargains between employers and workers. This is simply because in this case the 'regulator' of the level of employment is the set of individual bargains. Thus, for example, a central plank of Keynes' argument against the classical theory of employment is aimed at destroying such a position. For Keynes the argument is not pertinent for the reason that wage 'bargains' are not made in terms of a set of commodities but in money

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

92

Tonv Cutler

terms, the 'bargain' sets the money-wage not the real wage.17 In so far therefore, as the regulation of employment is t o be an object ipso facto it must be an object of government e'conomic policy. This is a quite different situation from the kind of administrative intervention envisaged, for example, by Beveridge before the First World War and effected in the introduction of labour exchanges. For Beveridge the 'problem of unemployment' is primarily a facet of localised labour markets which expand the size of the 001s of available labour beyond the 'optimum'. The key example o this problem was casual labour, particularly studied by Beveridge in relation t o dock labour. There Beveridge identified a 'vicious circle' effect. Any strategy operated by the worker within the structure of casual labour would necessarily reinforce the problem. Thus if labourers stayed at a single wharf in order t o improve their chances of work this would simply increase the localisation of the labour markets and consequently increase the size of the 'labour reserve' in the docks. However, the 'mobile' worker moving from wharf t o wharf would simply increase the element of randomness in obtaining employment by increasing competition at the wharfs thus reinforcing casual labour.'' The point here is that while Beveridge and Keynes can be said t o 'favour state intervention' this omnibus category is quite meaningless. In Keynes' case wage bargains are not able t o regulate employment levels since such levels are not set by these bargains. For Beveridge, however, the casual labour problem is the 'exception which proves the rule', the labour exchange is in fact the 'realisation' of 'free market' principles. Thus as we have seen in Beveridge's argument casual labour is accounted for in terms internal t o itself. Keynes' argument takes seriously the fact that wage bargains are effected in money terms. The second key problem in the texts under consideration is that they do not examine the significance of the separation of economic enterprises in capitalist economies nor its corollary, the term and character of capitalist enterprise calculation. This leads to what may be called a 'productionist' error. It is implicit in all the works under consideration that capitalist enterprises are concerned t o extract surplus-value more or less as a direct object of calculation. We have already indicated the problems of this position but it has further important ramifications. The stress on the production process assumes that capitalist industrial enterprises are more or less solely concerned with producing commodities and selling them and that their calculation is entirely governed by these concerns.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The romance of 'labour'

93

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

However, capitalist calculation does not involve the positing of a pregiven privileged source of funds. Naturally, in the case of industrial capitalist enterprises since the means of production acquired represent a deployment of capital, then equally the means of production are a potential source of income t o the enterprise but this in no way precludes alternative sources playing a major role or a predominant one; for example, the flow of funds from the acquisition of financial assets. Similarly an industrial enterprise is by no means restricted t o what is conventionally thought of as industrial calculation. Thus, for example, industrial conglomerates use calculations concerned t o realise capital gains, engendering a basis for cumulative acquisitions by acquiring enterprises with high earnings relative t o their capital value. Such calculations are by and large indifferent t o the sphere of operation of the enterprise and are based on leaving the management of the industrial plant t o the existing management.19 The texts under consideration all share the idea that 'labour' exhibits some universal characteristics which are denied under conditions of capitalist production processes. This position consequently implies an ontological andlor epistemological stance. It would not be germane at this point t o discuss the general characteristics of this position but it is easy to see that it leads t o a series of contradictions. As we have already seen the 'alienation' of labour is conceptualised in terms of a movement from 'conscious' labour t o the 'mechanical' performance of detail tasks in a repetitive manner. In turn this is personified in representative 'labourers', the craftsman, the 'unskilled' labourer. This dual role for this dichotomous position, as means of criticising capitalist production processes and as tool for their analysis, raises a particularly acute problem. For Marx as we have seen the skilled1 unskilled distinction is pertinent t o a pre-capitalist mode of production. In this respect the critique of alienated labour is necessarily a critique, in Marxist terms, from the standpoint of a pre-capitalist mode of production. Clearly then, whether one accepts this particular way of characterising the position or not, it is clear that the 'ideal' role played by 'craft' labour is no accident, notwithstanding disavowals on the part of many of the authors concerned. The analysis of the 'labour process' is certainly fashionable but this fashion seems part of a 'classic' line, and we can be sure that this 'new' line will evoke a nostalgia all too familiar.

Tony Cutler

Notes
I would like to thank Paul Hirst for help in re-writing the article and 1. Barry Hindess and Athar Hussain for useful comments. For example, 'The point at which the worker is cheaper than the 2. machinery which replaces him or her is determined by more than a mere technical relationship: it depends as well upon the level of wages, which in turn is affected by the supply of labour as measured against the demand.' (Braverman 1974: 237.) This is not to say, however, that Marx is consistent on the question of calculation since while he treats capitalist enterprise calculation as being undertaken in cost terms there are also points, not just used for exemplary purposes, where enterprise calculation is undertaken in value terms. It is unclear here, at least to me, what is meant by workers whose sole 3. object is 'valorisation'. See Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain (1977) Part I. 4. See Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain (1977) Part I and Ch. 11. 5. See Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain (1977) Ch. 11 and (1978) Part 11. 6. This is because calculations of this type are made at enterprise level, 7. not plant level. See for example, Prais (1976) pp. 52-53. 8. See for example, the classic analysis of Bright (1958: a: Ch. 1). This 9. book is an outstanding work on the question of mechanisation of production processes. 10. See, for example, Balibar's analysis in Althusser and Balibar (1970: 241-243). 11. Obviously the valuation of a company depends upon the prevailing conditions of capitalisation, these are necessarily 'conjunctural' in character. 12. The teleology of 'tendencies' often distorts the posing of interesting questions, thus, for example, Sohn-Rethel tells us, 'The more a modern plant is utilised below its rated capacity the higher rises the unit cost of its output, and this coincides with the need for lowering prices and decreasing cost to meet an insufficient, if not receding market demand. The modern plant economy has made production inadaptable t o the postulates of a market economy.' (C.S.E. 1976: 31.) Unfortunately Sohn-Rethel fails t o consider whether the constraint on the operation of plants of a high fixed cost, high volume character actually limits their incidence. Recent evidence (see Prais (1976)) suggests that concentration is much more marked at the enterprise level than at the plant level, and advantages of scale are primarily financial. 13. More precisely 'craft' and 'mechanised labour processes' are not identified with particular mode of production in a unique way; thus a number of 'pre-capitalist' modes of production would be characterised by 'craft labour processes' and presumably both 'capitalism' and 'socialism' would be characterised by 'mechanised labour processes'. 14. Bright (1958: b). 15. Obviously, for example, the capacity to organise trade unions directly affects the conditions of labour supply and such conditions d o not correspond to the capacities of the labourers involved in any universal way. 16. On more general ramifications of this problem see Hussain (1977). 17. See Keynes (1973) Ch's 2 and 19. 18. See Beveridge (1930: 81). 19. See for example Lynch (1971).

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The romance of 'labour'

References
Althusser, L. and Ballbar, E. (1970) Reading Capital. London, New Left Books. Beveridge, W. H. (1930) Unemployment: A Pmblem of Industry. London, Longmans. Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York and London, ~onthl~kevie Press. w Bright, J. (1958: a) Automation and Management. Cambridge, Mass., Haward U.P. Bright, J. (1958: b) 'Does Automation Raise Skill Requirements?' Harvard Business Review, vol. 36, no. 4. Brighton Labour Process Group (1976) 7'hc Production Process of Capital and the Capitalist L.abour Process, Xerox. Conference of Socialist Economists (1976) The Labour Process and Class Strategies. London. Stage 1. Cutler, A. J., Hindess B., Hirst, P. Q. and Hussain, A. (1977 and 1978) Marx 'S Capital and Capitalism To-llay, vols. 1 and 2, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hussain, A. (1977) 'Crises and Tendencies of Capitalism', Economy and Societn/, vol. 6 , no. 4 . Keynes, J. M. (1973) The General T h e o y of l:mployment, lnterest awd Money. London, Macmillan. Lynch, H. H. (1 97 1 Financial Performance of Conglomerates. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U.P. Marx, K. (1961) Capital, vol. 1. Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House. Prais, S. J. (1976) The Evolution of Giant Firms in Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge U.P.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

Some important VAN GORCUM - titles:

The ethnological notebooks o f Karl Mum. (Studies of Morgan, Phear, Maine, Lubbock). Transcribed and edited with an introduction by Lawrence Krader. 2nd ed. 1974. 15 X 23. XI1 + 454 p. Cloth f 87,75 ISBN 90 232 0924 9

In the series DIALECTIC AND SOCIETY have been published till now:
1. KRADER, L.: The Asiatic Mode o f Production. Sources, Development and Critique in the Writings of Karl Marx. 1975.16 X 24. XIV + 454 p. Cloth f 98,90 ISBN 90 232 1289 4 A major task of this book is to set forth in ordered outline the theory of Marx's economic formation of society preceding the capitalist in history. Here a new theory of the relation between capitalism and the Asiatic mode of production in the development of political economy is offered. 2. KRADER, L.: Dialectic o f Civil Society. 1976. 16 X 24. XI1 + 279 p. Cloth f 59,OO ISBN 90 232 1428 5 For the comprehension of modern society, the central place is given to the history of its basis, the succession of the Asiatic, servile, and modern modes of production, then to its superstructure, the state.

VAN GORCUM PUBL.

- P.O.

BOX 43

ASSEN (Holland)

Notes on Authors

Greta Jones studied history at University College, London and completed a Ph.D. at the London School of Economics in 1974 on 'Darwinism and social thought'. Since then she has worked as a Research Fellow in the Department of Astronomy and History of Science at Leicester University on the question of the popularisation of science. At present she teaches in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and History a t the Northern Ireland Polytechnic. Adrian Weights born 1951, obtained B.A. (Hons) in sociology from Liverpool University in 1975. A present a research student in the Department of Sociology at the Liverpool University, writing a Ph.D. thesis on the sociology of Max Weber. T o n y Cutler teaches sociology at Middlesex Polytechnic and is co-author of Marx S ' Capital and Capitalism T o d a y with Barry Hindess, Paul Hirst and Athar Hussain, published by Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frome and Londort

Forthcoming
4

ETHNIC A N D RACIAL STUDIES

A n e w i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f ethnic, c u l t u r a l a n d r a c e r e l a t i o n s Editors: J o h n Stone, Fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford, and Research Officer i n Race Relations at the University of Oxford N o r m a n Fainstein, Department of Urban Affairs and Policy Analysis, New School for Social Research Susan Fainstein, Department of U ~ b a n Planning, Rutgers University H e n r i Giordan, fcole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
Articles scheduled for Volume l Number 1 include: A. R i c h m o n d Migration, ethnicity and race relations A. M a z r u i Negritude, the Talmudic tradition and the intellectual performance of Blacks and Jews M. Cross Colonialism and ethnicity: a theory and comparative case study J. H u r s t f i e l d 'Internal'colonialism : White, Black and Chicano self-conceptions C. C o u l o n French political science and regional diversity Review articles: A. H. Halsey Ethnicity : a primordial social bond ? A review of Ethnicity: Theory and Experience edited by Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan Short reviews: John Stone Race Relations by Oliver C. Cox Kenneth K i r k w o o d Interethnic Relations by Emerich K . Francis Frances Svensson Ethnicity and Mobilization by Tom G . Svensson Stephen B u r m a n Red, Black and Green by Alphonso Pinkney Chris M c C r u d d e n Housing and Race by David H . McKay Hannan Rose Race and Ethnic Relations by Gordon Bowker and John Carrier Race, Ethnicity and Social Change by John Stone Editorial matters-articles, books for review and other contributions may be sent to any one of the editors.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

ETHNIC A N D RACIAL STUDIES will be published four times a year--January, April, July and October. The first issue will appear i n January 1978. The annual subscription rate for Volume 1, 1978 is 9.00 (US $18.00); f6.00 for BSA members, $12.00 for ASA members. Subscription orders and requests for further information should be sent to : Journals Manager, Routledge Journals, Broadway House, Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 1 EN, England

ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL

39 S t o r e Street, L o n d o n WC1

Two new volumes in the series

Studies in Social Discontinuity

Revolution at Work
Mobilization Campaigns in China
Charles P. Cell
Autumn 1977, 240pp., f 10.65/$14.95 0.12.164750.1
Revolution at Work presents the first quantitative research on China's mobilization campaigns. Accepting the challenge of vast methodological difficulties, the book gathers the best available data - from both refugee interviews and documentary sources - on 36 selected campaigns, and uses these data and scaling techniques t o derivevalues for three major variables in each campaign: level of mobilization, achievements, and shortcomings. I t then evaluates the achievements and shortcomings, relative t o level of mobilization of the three basic types of campaign: economic, ideological, and struggle. I t concludes with a discussion of the implications of Mao's death for their continued use in China's strategy of socialist transformation. Social scientists interested in social change, political or comparative sociology, and comparative politics will find this book an invaluable source of new perspectives o n social transformation. I t s evaluation of the campaigns, based on the most solid evidence available, will make i t essential reading for sinologists and other specialists in the Far East.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:03 26 September 2013

The Livelihood of Man

Karl Polanyi
Autumn 1977, 304pp., f12.40/$17.50 0.12.548150.0
For the past century or so, the market has been the chief force directing Western societies. B u t for most of human history, society's economic processes were ordered b y custom and interpersonal bonds, or by authority. with markets playing a subordinate role. N o w the adequacy of the market's direction is coming under increasing challenge. However, the economistic bias of orthodox Western economic theory makes it difficult t o conceptualize new alternatives t o direction by the market, even as i t distorts our picture of past alternatives. Drawing on the evidence from primitive and early state societies, the book describes the different ways in which social, political, and cultural institutions ordered their economic processes. I t concentrates on the history of trade, money, and exchange institutions in non-market societies, and closes with a study of the political economy of these institutions in the context of ancient Athenian society.

Academic Press
London

New York

San Francisco

A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers

24-28 Oval Road, London, NW1 ,England l l l Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003,USA