Cooperation

A: tansīq. – F: coopération. – G: Kooperation. – R: kooperacija. – S: cooperación. – C: hezuo 合作

Marx defines C as form concept: “When numerous workers work together side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process, or in different but connected processes, this form of labour is called co-operation.” (C I, 443 [MEW 23/344]) It designates “the basic form […], the general form on which all social arrangements for increasing the productivity of social labour are based”. It simply receives in every concrete societal formation “further specification” (MECW 30/255 [MEW 43/247]). C is on the one side a “natural force of social labour”, because the “productivity” which becomes possible through it would not be realisable by the “isolated individual” (257 et sq. [249]); on the other side, C is for labourers a coercive relation. The labour capacity expended by them becomes “social” only “once it has entered into the labour process” (261 [253]).

Marx develops further, in the case of manufacture, that C presents itself “as a productive power of capital, not of labour” (30/260 [43/252]). It confronts the workers as “a power alien to them” (261 [253]), as “a band with which capital fetters the individual workers” (262 [254]). The “co-operative character of the labour process” (35/389 [23/407]) appears to the atomised producers as the despotism of capital, since “the connexion existing between their various labours” confronts them “ideally, in the shape of a preconceived plan of the capitalist, and practically in the shape of the authority of the same capitalist” (336 et sq. [351]). The Marxist diagnosis that “in our days, everything seems pregnant with its contrary” (14/655 [12/3]) means in relation to C: it points within industrial production to the anticipation of a cooperative societal structure, which however remains in the capitalist mode of production an “accessory to capital” (30/279 [43/274]).

1. Preliminary clarification of the Marxist conception – In Capital, Marx defines C as both precondition and element of capitalist production; it “constitutes [its] starting point”, both “historically and conceptually” (C I, 339 [23/341]). In manufacture, C develops initially as “simple C”. Here “a number of artificers, who all do the same, or the same kind of work” and are employed “by one capitalist simultaneously in one workshop” (35/342 [23/357]). In contrast to this, the machine system of “modern industry” generates a “conglomeration in one place of similar and simultaneously acting machines”, and thus the “combination of detail machines” (382 [400]). Through the capitalist mode of production, C is thus applied in socially organised production.

In C I (C I, 930 [23/791]), the passage from the Manifesto is cited, that industrialization “replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association” (6/496 [4/474]). But C appears now no longer primarily as an element of the self-acting emancipation of the workers from heteronomy, but rather especially as an “achievement of the capitalist era” (C I, 929 [23/791]): it is the very social character of the capitalist labour process that makes the production of relative surplus value even possible. The break with the capitalist societalisation is not consummated in the development of C, the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production not already resolved. And yet here too, C points beyond its capitalistic form determinacy. Generally said: In C, “the worker […] strips off the fetters of his individuality, and develops the capabilities of his species” (C I, 447 [23/349]). C becomes one of the conditions that turns a fragmented ‘underclass’ into a social movement. Marx analyses this double determination of C also in the example of the stock companies and the associations (cooperatives). He understands both in C III as “transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one” (37/438 [25/456]).

2. Despotic and emancipatory character of C. In the German Ideology, Marx already argues that “social power […] which arises through the co-operation of different individuals as it is caused by the division of labour” appears to individuals, in the capitalist mode of production, “not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them” (5/48 [3/34]). In the Grundrisse he notes that the “combination” of the workers “is not their being, but rather the being of capital”. “To the individual worker it appears fortuitous. He relates to his own association with other workers and to his C with them as alien, as to modes of operation of capital.” (28/505 [42/487])

In C I Marx develops this thought further by conceiving C as a necessary “requisite of production”, which becomes a “function of capital”, “from the moment that the labour under the control of capital, becomes co-operative” (35/335 et sq. [23/350]). With machinery, the “co-operative character of the labour process” becomes “a technical necessity dictated by the instrument of labour itself” (389 [407]). C is but also an inexpensive method to increase relative surplus value: “The social productive power which arises from cooperation is a free gift.” (30/260 [43/252]) C generates, “from the fusion of many forces into one single force” in many productive works, “an emulation and a stimulation of the animal spirits that heighten the efficiency of each individual workman” (35/331 [23/345]). In the Economic Manuscript of 1861-63 Marx explains that the combination of labour functions in large industry do not constitute a “combination of activities” for the individual workers. The workers, who are “subsumed, group by group”, instead “form the building blocks” of the combination of labour by capital (30/278 et sq. [43/273]).

With advanced C, the capitalist “hands over the work of direct and constant supervision of the individual workmen, and groups of workmen, to a special kind of wage labourer” (35/337 [23/351]). Marx specifies here to identify other contradictory forms of movement of C. The capitalist form determination of C does not lead him to repudiate it as moment of capitalist rule, because its despotic form was already the outcome of the fact that with the increase in “the number of labourers simultaneously employed”, so too grew “their resistance”, and “with it, the necessity for capital to overcome this resistance by counterpressure” (35/335 et sq. [23/350]).

In C III Marx clarifies this contradictory determination. It is element and object of capitalist control and moment of the self-actuating change of the proletariat. He speaks of C as “transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated producers, into social functions” (37/434 et sq. [25/453]). The accentuated differentiation of labour in C I appears here to be an anticipation of the so-called ‘managerial capitalism’ of the Fordist phase of development. Marx analyses how “[t]he wages of an epitropos, or régisseur […] are entirely divorced from profit” and become the remunerable function of the production process (384 [400]). The enthronement of these managers in a firm’s command system follows the disempowerment of the capitalist through the development of credit, through which s/he is ejected “as superfluous [person] from the production process” (386 [401]).

In the cooperative factories, Marx saw the practical “proof that the capitalist has become no less redundant as a functionary in production as he himself […] finds the big landowner redundant” (385 [400]). These factories “show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one” (438 [456]). They designate “transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one”; they are “the first sprouts of the new within the old form” (ibid.).

Consequently, they signify “the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction, which prima facie represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production” (436 [454]). Cooperative factories show that “the present pauperising, and despotic system of the subordination of labour to capital can be superseded by the republican and beneficent system of the association of free and equal producers” (20/190 [16/195]). In the judgment of the “co-operative movement” for the International Workingmen’s Association (1867), Marx summarised, that the cooperative system, despite all perspective dimensions, by itself, “will never transform society”, which requires instead “changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves” (190 [195 et sq.]). Here is the renewed conceptual division of the free “association” from the capitalist form-determined C.

3. Factory despotism and factory council movement. – The cycle of struggle of the labour movement, in which the industrial mode of production was accepted by wage workers, but should be brought under the control of the cooperatives, gave way to a new phase at the end of the 19th century. Eric Hobsbawm (1975, 303) has shown that the first ‘crisis of Marxism’ came at the time “when the crisis of capitalism gives way to this new era of expansion, around 1897”, thus threatening to evaporate apparent certainties about the relation between crisis-ridden surplus value production and social emancipation. It was yet also a phase in which forms of union organisation were consolidated and the labour movement was able to conquer political rights. To have achieved “industrial legality” was, according to Antonio Gramsci, “a great victory for the working class” (SPW-1, 265), but it also ended for the time being the Marxian phase of the analytical engagement with the contradictions of C.

The strengthening of syndicalist movements after the end of the First World War, often in conflict with the meanwhile ‘established’ organisations of the labour movement, posed anew the problem of the relation between individual labour and cooperative labour processes. Gramsci, astute theorist of the Turin factory committees, analysed – without using the concept of C – their aspired “autonomy of the producers” (1920, SPW-1, 162). He understands their initiative as an attempt to “free [themselves] from the sphere of competition and individualism” and, with the “principles of combination and solidarity”, to change the “mentality and way of life” of the workers (SPW-1, 73). He sees the factory councils as experimental institutions for “new positions which the working class has come to occupy in the field of production” (SPW-1, 162). By “appropriation of the instruments of labour” (166) through the factory councils, the working class calls to life the dormant subversive moment present within the capitalist determined C. They signal a new relationship between individuals and the collective. Council movements are for Gramsci the outcome of “concrete experiences of its individual members”: Every worker “felt initially that he was part of a basic unit, the shop-floor work crew, and he felt that the introduction of technical innovations to the mechanical equipment changed his relations to the technician: the worker is now less dependent than formerly on the technician, the master craftsman, hence he has acquired greater autonomy and can exercise discipline himself.” (164) The technician experiences equally a change in function. One is no longer required as “trusted employee” of the industrialist and “agent of capitalist interests”. “Since the worker can do without the technician for a greater number of jobs, the technician becomes redundant as disciplinary agent. The technician too is reduced to the status of a producer, linked to the capitalist via the naked and savage relationship of exploited to exploiter. His mentality sheds its petty-bourgeois encrustations and becomes proletarian, revolutionary in outlook. Industrial innovations and enhanced professional capacity provide the worker with a greater degree of autonomy, put him in a higher industrial bracket.” (Ibid.)

For Gramsci, the fighting union, which remains limited to the framework of ‘industrial legality’, is not an “instrument for the radical renovation of society” (SPW-1, 99), as long as it remains corporatist. Necessary to the process of unleashing the emancipatory moments of the labour process is the development and embodiment of a type of organization “that is specific to the activity of the producers, not wage-earners” (100). He conceives the factory council as the first “nucleus of this organization” (ibid.).

4. Fordist class compromise and antagonistic C. – Later, Gramsci must explain that the C arising from the factory does not act alone as a springboard for proletarian emancipation, but can also operate as means for a ‘passive revolution’ of Fordist capitalism, in which “socialisation and co-operation in the sphere of production are being increased, without however touching […] individual and group appropriation of profit.” (SPN, N. 10, §9, 120) In fact, “the beginnings of a Fordist fanfare” (SPN, N. 22, §2, 287) pronounces an adjustment of C, in terms of the “best way” (Taylor 1913, 7) for the reciprocal adaptation between human and machine, and thus for the most effective valorisation of capital. The ‘time economy’ enforced in the Fordist-Taylorist factory order, which Gramsci could no longer study in its advanced form, displayed “little to no connections to the cooperation requirements of the immediate labor process” (Mahnkopf 1985, 41).

Also because of this contradiction, Marxist thinking increasingly oriented itself around the phenomenon of ‘capitalist control’ of the labour process. The class compromises in industrial relations, achieved in the expanding Fordism and the construction of the ‘keynesian state’, were thematised as ‘antagonistic C’. In a further development of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, Michael Burawoy identifies different historical “factory regimes” in which C is specifically enclosed by capital through control. He conducts his investigation during the phase of “market despotism”, when through “deskilling”, workers become appendages of the machine, and cannot resist the despotic rule of capital (1985, 123 et sq.). The global economic crisis of 1929 marked a first turning point. Successively, a “hegemonic factory regime” developed, in which “workers must be persuaded to cooperate with management. Their interests must be coordinated with those of capital.” (126) The hegemonic factory regime, and thus the active willingness of workers to subjugate themselves, comes about because Fordist capitalism constitutes a new interplay between the “politics in production” (conflicts in the wage relation) and the “politics of production” (state mediated conflicts over the regulation of wage relations), aimed towards the material interests of the workers (151). With the crisis of Fordism and the dulling instruments of intervention of the Keynesian state, Burawoy sees a new type emerging: “hegemonic despotism”, which finds expression in the “tyranny of capital mobility over the collective worker” (150). According to Burawoy, the historical phenomena of capitalist control should not be confused with the ‘integration’ of the working classes within the capitalist logic. The structural resilience of living labour constitutes rather the basis of capitalist control, which can and may not “eliminate the spontaneous C of workers that is necessary for production. Work-to-rule is the most effective means for disrupting the labour process. If capitalism ever succeeds in reducing workers to coordinated automatons, it would mean the immediate breakdown in the production process. The dream of the manager would become a nightmare.” (1983, 509 et sq.)

5. Critique of the institutional labour movement. – Concepts of ‘workforce cooperation’ and ‘workers’ control’ at the end of the 1960s are understood as critiques of the bureaucratic organisation of the labour movement. Both start explicitly with Marx’s ideas about the “direct C of individuals” (37/106 [25/114]) in socialized labour, that is, with thoughts of self-determination within the framework of heteronomy, and with Trotsky, who assigns the “slogan of workers’ control over production” to a (transitional) period of the “creation of soviets” (1932, 175).

‘Workforce cooperation’ describes “a C, which is no longer organized by hierarchy, that is, heteronomy, but rather emerges out of the creative collective initiatives of workers and employees in mastering modern technology” (Frielinghaus 1970, 122). Similarly, the concepts of workers’ control, which however emphasise more strongly the ‘transitional character’ of such forms of C. They prepare for the planned society, but are not identical to it. Plant and company are understood as both planning centre of capitalist power as well as site and action centre for anti-capitalist counter-power (Kendall 1969; Kuda 1970). Workers’ control is not conceived as a constellation in which workers already hold decision-making power, but described instead as “a system of defence mechanisms or even of veto rights” which workers fight for under capitalism (Coates 1968, 362).

Despite all differences in details, criticisms of the institutional labour movement (and the antagonistic C which it practices) insist on a difference between the forms of cooperation produced by the process of capital reproduction and ‘autonomous’ ones, developed by the working class itself. The dialectic of “capitalist C” in Marx yields potentially to a dichotomy of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ C – depending upon who puts it into practice. In the 1970s, Claudio Pozzoli retrospectively accuses the “traditional organisational forms of the labour movement” of having ultimately reproduced “the factory despotism and the cooperation relationship that dominates in the capitalist enterprise: collaboration as forced efficiency” (1974, 16).

6. Automation and C at the end of Fordism. – In mature Fordism new interpretations emerged, initially and especially shaped by industrial sociology. Analyses of “framework C” (Popitz et al. 1957, 184 et sqq. and 207 et sqq.) in Fordism showed further that laborers are socialised through the machinery processes, and that their collaboration is transmitted through the “factual evidence” that the machine possesses. Others stated processes of differentiation of traditional forms of rule in the workplace, whose ‘objectification’ had led to “changes of forms of C” - “both there, where goods, as well as ‘leadership’ is produced” (Bahrdt 1959, 116). Horst Kern and Michael Schumann spoke instead of a “technical, platoon-type” of C (1970, 123), in which the “interdependency relation also creates the consciousness of the workers, that only collectively could they master the production process” (124). If C can go beyond this to become a point of departure for an antagonism between capital and labour, remains unexamined in this study.

6.1 With the change in working conditions through automation, C must be re-examined. The Project Automation and Qualification (PAQ) interrogates the forms of C in the automized factories based on the question of how new possibilities appear within the development of C in the fetters of the capitalist mode of production. PAQ draws on the contradictory Marxian concept of C and its anthropological foundation by Klaus Holzkamp. The latter examines the dimension that differentiates the human-specific way of C from the animalistic forms of interaction. To him, what appears fundamental is the purposeful work of toolmaking with its “generalised purpose” that is fixed in the product form; these “outcomes of human labour” in their social quality constitute “the basis for the cooperative character of social life” (1973, 136). Therewith, Holzkamp connects C not only to “forms of collaborative labour among people who stand in relation to one another at the current moment”, but instead sees in the “social-historical process” that is “carried by cooperative labour” a form “of sublation of individual life sustainment into social life sustainment”, which makes possible the “individual appropriation of objectified, societal accumulated experience” (136 et sq.). Social labour, and along with it C, become a learning process. The “remaking of the world […] and the remaking of people are accordingly two sides of a unitary process” (138), but the “developed relations of production of bourgeois society […] are no longer sufficiently defined merely as being mediated through use-value objectivating C-structures” (137, fn. 46). The human being is a social being, not only in the “‘group’ or such […] but already as a single individual”; the “historical development of an objective structure of C that is given in the relations of production” represents “simultaneously a development of the specifically appropriated qualities of human beings, in accordance with the character of the societal formation respectively attained” (138, emphasis removed). Following Alexej N. Leontyev, Holzkamp can subsequently investigate the specific significance of abilities and skills for the “communicative orientation of the cooperating person” (145). C is thus at the same time an essential feature of humans, a perspective – and is used [to specify] concrete forms of collaboration.

Ute Holzkamp-Osterkamp analyses, on the basis of the “necessarily cooperative character of activities to improve the control over the general and thereby also individual living conditions” (1976, 70), the formation of specific human motivation in the area of tension between self-interest and the anticipated interest of other people, showing a scale to empirically investigate motivations and their realization. Thereby it is not just about personal advantages, but about “inclusion within a cooperative relationship” (71). When people pursue common goals through their actions, associated with “societal reality checks”, they have the possibility to develop a special “quality of cooperative emotional affinity with those people participating in the achievement of the same objective: with the growing significance of the contribution of the individuals towards the societal development, each person becomes increasingly, essentially important for the others and for the corresponding affirmation and care from them” (69). Yet, Holzkamp-Osterkamp doubts that within “antagonistic” relationships, “consciously cooperative” ones can also emerge.

6.2 For the PAQ this means making the specificity of the cooperative intercourse with the new means of production under the capitalist relations of production an object of investigation. If C is one of the essential qualities of human beings, the question regarding the kind of C shifts to the question of the possibility of how the individuals may appropriate their own human essence. “Gradualist thinking”, such as industrial sociology, is to be overcome “by a contradiction thinking”, “which, starting from the changed conditions of productive technology, seeks out the space that both opens up towards the development of the workers, and which at the same time limits it by new and changed forms of bondage. […] In the case of C, the collaboration necessary for production by machine operators and programmers is a possibility for the societalisation of both. Their mutual interdependence, their actual cooperation shows itself in their societalisation, entangled in all kinds of old forms of hierarchy, commands, qualification deficits, property relations, and shows them winning struggles.” (1980, 188 et sq.) The contradiction between the necessary collectivity and the existing private and competitive relations appears e.g. in the way that cooperative capacities are detached from the relations and ascribed to the workers as their social quality. ‘Job rotation’ and job training – implemented and organized in the framework of the project for the Humanisation of Worklife – have created the conditions under which workers act as subjects of their own development, while the organization of capitalist production, with its disposal over production, also denies them the determination of a common objective of their development. In the overarching contradiction, that the scientification of production brings with it the scientification of the personnel, while the latter is yet constrained by the property relations, workers’ efforts are analysed which seek solutions to contradictions in the form of the individual’s personal responsibility. For this process, the PAQ established the concept of “collective subjectivisation” (1981, 473 et sq.). The increasing automation of production has allowed for the emergence of a new type of worker: the “automation workers” who constitute a “collective with a conscious attitude towards production experimenters” (476). The struggles within production intensified, becoming struggles over hierarchy in the now obsolete division of labour.

6.3 The new forms of C become the subject of industrial sociology. Klaus Dörre shows, in critical distinction to the thesis of the “end of the division of labour” (Kern/Schumann 1984), that the “partially autonomous groups” which emerged with the introduction of group work certainly bring about an “activity surplus” and in this respect present “an especially suitable framework for – substantially self-directed – participation”. Yet they also stand in a “close relationship” to the C of the labour process (2002, 27), and as a result, function especially as a C of managerial-economic optimisation. From the perspective of PAQ, group work appears therefore as “heteronomy in the form of self-control”: “With C – labour divided collaboration – almost nothing changes. In contrast, the collective relationships directed against alienated labour are incorporated into collective group work, and with the adoption of group performance as an illusory ‘third cause’, they lose their potential for resistance.” (1981, 482) With the looming post-Fordist upheavals in production, not only are the traditional forms of (antagonistic) C subjected to renegotiation; on the agenda now stands much more “the self-organised convergence of the different occupational competencies, of the automation workers and engineers towards a new kind of ensemble of production intellectuals” (1987, 58 et sq.).

7. Capitalist Globalisation and the new spaces of C. – The globalisation of capital relations during the 1990s has strengthened the C of workers less than it has stoked the competition among them in the form of ‘locational policy’ and occupational ‘competitive corporatism’. Nevertheless, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri discover a new epoch of C. In global production networks, forms of “abstract C” (2001, 296) would from now on dominate which are to be transformed into “a revolutionary organization” (264). Successful capital accumulation in the age of ‘globalisation’ would enforce this form of C, because “the only configurations of capital able to thrive in the new world will be those that adapt to and govern the new immaterial, cooperative, communicative, and affective composition of labour power” (276). Thus, capitalist appropriation is faced with a dilemma: capital is certainly dependent upon the communication and creativity of living labour, but can neither “orchestrate” its productivity nor guaranty its production. “Today productivity, wealth, and the creation of social surpluses take the form of cooperative interactivity through linguistic, communicational, and affective networks.” These hold the “potential for a kind of spontaneous and elementary communism” (294). They attest to “network production”, which has emerged in the course of capitalist globalization, the capacity to create a new C out of it; it will no longer be arranged “from the outside” (from capital), but rather, is “completely immanent” to labour. Hence, the joyful message for the ruled, which as the “multitude” can do nothing else but act resistive: “the rulers become ever more parasitical and sovereignty becomes increasingly unnecessary. Correspondingly, the ruled become increasingly autonomous, capable of forming society on their own.” (2004, 336)

8. Outlook. – In stark contrast to such findings stand newer, labour sociology investigations which view the C that has evolved out of the post-Fordist labour process as having only little remaining significance as the source of self-changing praxis for workers and a basis of ‘labour solidarity’: “The working class, as it developed in the 19^th century, namely as ‘permanent reference point, as a central problem, which could move the minds and hearts over a very long period of time’ no longer exists”. It has disintegrated into “isolated, scattered individuals divided among themselves, who are permanently exposed to increasing work requirements and appear to have given up on representing their interests collectively” (Beaud/Pialoux 2004, 21). The history of societal labour shows however also repeatedly, that the potential of the capitalist form-determined C of the workers is never completely absorbed by capital. C designates something ‘unfulfilled’ in human development, which is to be set free to make possible the self-sublation of the proletariat as the “associated individuals” (6/505 [4/482]).

Bibliography: H.P.Bahrdt, “Die Krise der Hierarchie im Wandel der Kooperationsformen”, DGS (ed.), Soziologie und moderne Gesellschaft: Verhandlungen des vierzehnten Deutschen Soziologentages, Stuttgart 1959, 113-21; S.Beaud and M.Pialoux, Die verlorene Zukunft der Arbeiter: Die Peugeot-Werke von Sochaux-Montbéliard, transl. from the French by M.Wörner and A.Eberhardt, Konstanz 2004; M.Burawoy, “Terrains Of Contest-Factory And State Under Capitalism And Socialism”, Socialist Review, no. 58, 1981, 83-124; id., The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes under Capitalism and Socialism, London 1985; K.Coates, “Definitions: Workers’ Control and Workers’ Self-Management”, id. and T.Topham, Industrial Democracy in Great Britain, London 1968, 361-63; K.Dörre, Kampf um Beteiligung: Arbeit, Partizipation und industrielle Beziehungen im flexiblen Kapitalismus, Wiesbaden 2002; K.Frielinghaus, “Belegschaftskooperation”, Heidelberger Blätter: Zeitschrift für Probleme der Arbeit und der Gesellschaft, no. 14-16, 1969/70, 112-59; A.Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (SPN), ed. and transl. by Q.Hoare and G.Nowell-Smith, New York 1971; id., Selections from Political Writings, 1910-1920 (SPW-1), ed. by Q.Hoare, transl. by J.Mathews, London 1977; M.Hardt and A.Negri, Empire, Cambridge 2001; eid., Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, New York 2004; E.Hobsbawm, “The Crisis of Capitalism in Historical Perspective”, Marxism Today, October, 1975, 300-308; K.Holzkamp, Sinnliche Erkenntnis: Historischer Ursprung und gesellschaftliche Funktion der Wahrnehmung, Frankfurt/M 1973, Schriften 4, Hamburg 2006 (same pagination); U.Holzkamp-Osterkamp, Grundlagen der psychologischen Motivationsforschung, Vol. 2: Die Besonderheit menschlicher Bedürfnisse – Problematik und Erkenntnisgehalt der Psychoanalyse, Frankfurt/M 1976; W.Kendall, “A Strategy for Workers’ Control”, Monthly Digest of the Institute for Workers’ Control, vol. 2, 1969, no. 5; H.Kern and M.Schumann, Industriearbeit und Arbeiterbewusstsein, Frankfurt/M 1970; ead., Das Ende der Arbeitsteilung? Munich 1984; R.Kuda, Arbeiterkontrolle in Großbritannien: Theorie und Praxis, Frankfurt/M 1970; B.Mahnkopf, Verbürgerlichung: Die Legende vom Ende des Proletariats, Frankfurt/M 1985; K.Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I (C I), transl. from the German by B.Fowkes, London 1976; id. and F.Engels, The Collected Works (MECW), London 1975-2005; H.Popitz et al., Technik und Industriearbeit: Soziologische Untersuchungen in der Hüttenindustrie, Tübingen 1957; C.Pozzoli, “Rosa Luxemburg als Marxist: Einleitende Thesen”, id. (ed.), Rosa Luxemburg oder: Die Bestimmung des Sozialismus, Frankfurt/M 1974, 9-20; Projekt Automation und Qualifikation (PAQ), Automationsarbeit: Empirie. Teil I, Berlin/West 1980; id., Teil III, Berlin/West 1981; id., Widersprüche der Automationsarbeit: Ein Handbuch, Berlin/West 1987; F.W.Taylor, Die Grundsätze wissenschaftlicher Betriebsführung, Berlin 1913; L.Trotsky, “Workers' Control and Collaboration with the U.S.S.R.”, id., What next? Vital questions for the German proletariat, New York 1932, 166-77.

Bernd Röttger

Translated by Robert Ogman

→ association, automation, capitalisms, class, class consciousness, collective, collective action, competence/incompetence, competition, compromise, control, cooperative, cooptation, corporatism, council communism, council system, despotism of capital, discipline, division of labour, factory, factory councils, workers’ councils, fordism, humanisation of work, immaterial labour/work, joint-stock company, corporation, labour movement, labour process debate, management, machinery, mode of production, plan, planned production of a single capital, productive force, rate of surplus value, rationalisation, relations of production, surplus value, strange, alien, strangeness, syndicalism, Taylorism, trade unions, utopia, violence, power, work, labour

→ Aktiengesellschaft, Arbeit, Arbeiterbewegung, Arbeitsprozess-Debatte, Arbeitsteilung, Assoziation, Automation, Despotie des Kapitals, Disziplin, Fabrik, Fabrikräte/Arbeiterräte, Fordismus, fremd/Fremdheit, Genossenschaft, Gewalt, Gewerkschaften, Humanisierung der Arbeit, immaterielle Arbeit, Kapitalismen, Klassenanalyse, Klassenbewusstsein, Kollektiv, kollektives Handeln, Kompetenz/Inkompetenz, Kompromiss, Konkurrenz, Kontrolle, Kooptation, Korporatismus, Management/Co-Management, Maschinerie, Mehrwert, Mehrwertrate, Plan, planmäßige Produktion des Einzelkapitals, Produktionsverhältnisse, Produktionsweise, Produktivkräfte, Räte/Rätesystem, Rätekommunismus, Rationalisierung, Syndikalismus, Taylorismus, Utopie