Durkheim: Hi. Dr. Marx. Your previous tweets about me are misinformed.

Here & now, I'd like

to discuss with you our social theories so that we may have a better idea of each other's positions.
Marx: Sure! Sorry for the polemical flourishes. I just love to banter on twitter. But before any
discussion let's put all our positions on the table so we can understand where we’re coming from.
Durkheim: Ok. Firstly, it’s true that I believe it’s a net good for us to divvy up labor and allow for
specialization. I made a study that used observations of related social phenomena (or social facts)
as indicators for understanding the functions, causes, and bugs of the division of labor in history.
Marx: Creative! Rest assured; There’s no denying the terrifying power of this division of labor. I
just think its current version is insidious. Too many should be asking themselves “what use is this
freedom if I’m working nearly half my life away on horrid jobs that doesn’t pay nearly enough.”
Durkheim: Agreed. But I think you’re giving up on it too quickly. Yes, that’s a good question to
ask but after all these years, after everything it’s putting us through, a better question should be
“why society hasn’t been collapsed yet?” right? I say, it’s exactly because of the division of labor.
Marx: Good question! But for me, how needs are met, aka the economy, is the basis for history.
We get ideas exactly because it betters survival (ex. banding together). But through more accumu-
lation, societies formed harmful relations. There’s the serf-lord, and today’s worker-owner, right?
Durkheim: Wait. That’s weirdly different from my views. Where does society go from here for
you? Because I was about to say that the division of labor has functions beyond production. But
for you, is it to keep some rich? For me, it allows co-existence despite ever-growing competition.
Marx: How backwards! For me, the powerful gained beyond their needs (Before, by violence) by
leeching on workers who would otherwise starve. People were unfree because the means for people
to live came into the hands of private owners. Thus, forcing them to work for owners. Good?
Durkheim: Maybe. But consider 50 more migrants from the sticks now competing with you (or
your factory). This would force/allow the owner to make wages lower and hours longer. You need
the divvying up to deal with the inevitable ever-increasing contact of individuals as societies grow.
Marx: I’m not an accelerationist, but this is a bad form of “divvying”! Beyond innovative jobs,
people are making 18th of a pin all day. And the means for survival such as tools, and factories are
still privately owned. Workers would have had nothing to lose but are now pacified from revolting.
Durkheim: Revolutions are revolting! but I too believe capitalism is flawed. But I think gradual
perfection of the system is better than canning it entirely. Now let’s enter my social change theory.
Marx: I give you the floor.
Durkheim: Thank you. Firstly, Society has plenty of bodily functions such as economy, institu-
tions, & laws that are gradually being perfected to act as rules and regulations so that we don’t feel
a sense of normlessness which can lead to crime. Before we didn’t need to police this as much
Marx: I think I am following so far. I’m withholding judgement for now to be open minded.
Durkheim: This was only possible because people in these societies were drawn together due to
similarities. They had the same religion, beliefs, and subsisting occupation so consensus on an apt
cruel punishment was easy. This served to assure them that it wouldn’t likely happen again.
Marx: Yeah! The division of labor was merely an extension of family divvying tasks at that time
[2]. It was through violent conquest or cooperation that people were able to move to the next mode
of production, which was communal socialism. Private ownership was just developing at that time.
Durkheim: But now consensus on an “apt” punishment (and therefore community satisfaction
with it) is hard due to the myriad of varying backgrounds. People merely migrate from far and
wide to advanced societies due to sources of meeting needs being closer to each other there.
Marx: Sorry to stop you but your idea of punishment being punitive in tribal society isn’t up to
date. Plenty of cultures were more reintegrative than ours now [1]. We’ll see this in their use of
circles which school discipline offices are trying to adopt in the form of restorative circles.
Durkheim: …This changes my premises. However, it may not require me to change my conclu-
sions about punishment in traditional society as it’s still about protecting the peace of mind of the
community (collective conscience) just not via deterrence of crime but by healing relationships.
Marx: That’s right. I think I can still follow. But it blurs the line between old and new societies.
Durkheim: So, in essence we need a new of cohesive force much like collective conscience but
not based on mere interdependence through purely economic relationships and avoiding conflict
by specializing to less competitive spaces. In my writings I’ve called it organic solidarity.
Marx: Interesting! Now, I know that you aren’t merely hoping that specialization fixes everything.
Durkheim: Yes! However just because there’s division of labor doesn’t mean that this cohesive
force will happen. Much like how you can develop disorders, society too can have abnormalities
in its division of labor. We’ll both will agree that these abnormalities plague our society today.
Marx: Yes! Finally, you’re about to prescribe getting take the means of people’s survival back
from the of the capitalists by revolution! I was wrong about you. When do we storm the capital?
Durkheim: You’re celebrating too early! But you will agree that on one extreme, a in forced di-
vision of labor, factors extrinsic to people’s current abilities (such as race, gender, no means of
production,) play an unfair part in preventing improvements in their material conditions.
Marx: 🤯🤯 This is almost too good to be true! Our desired outcomes are unified.
Durkheim: Yes! Thus, I too believe that money shouldn’t hold one back from pursuing their call-
ing. Also, we should fix this with free education! The funding for such a policy will come from
the abolishment of inheritance! Also snuffing the rich kid’s chances in job they’ll be bad at.
Marx: Okay so how do you make this happen? I hope you don’t say the state. I hope it’s revolt.
Durkheim: You’ll hate this part. The other extreme is an anomic division of labor. This is when
the division of labor had developed too quickly which creates a disparity with the developing or-
ganic solidarity, but this can also occur during times of class conflict or industrial failure.
Marx: I hate it! Why can’t conflict be the means to de-clogging stagnation caused by forced
division of labor? Conflict could temporarily destabilize cohesion then we can mend it later.
Durkheim: Or it destabilizes the whole country. The cohesion between different groups will be
wounded. Norms and etiquette, in turn, will also be maladapted to this sudden change. Naturally
this lack of rules (written or unwritten) which regulate behavior invites more crime.
Marx: So, what do you suggest? By the way, I just noticed that your goals look more like true
meritocracy rather than “to each according to their needs?" What about those with special needs?
Durkheim: That really made me think. Impromptu, I’d say disability is an abnormality in people.
So parallel to my idea of the state needing to treat abnormalities in society, I'd say that healthcare
should be a part of the welfare state I envision. The gap of social of position and what normally
would have been the natural aptitude would thusly be less intense; save for some physical jobs.
Marx: It won’t be a hard ask if the funding comes from appropriated inheritance. That leaves us
wondering what happens if the state is in cahoots with those enforcing the forced division.
Durkheim: I’m lucky you’re here. To flesh out my idea of occupational groups, I need to lift your
idea of the party of the proletarians. From disgruntled factory groups, to unions, to political parties
they will accumulate power and eventually have a seat at the table in the regulation of exploitation.
Marx: it’s no dictatorship of the proletariat and you’ll still be a slave since it won’t change the
relation where the bourgeoisie’s job is to extract surplus from making wages low and work hours
high as much as you let them get away with. But I support your use of my party of the proletariat.
Durkheim: That’s surprising coming from you Marx. I hope you’re not scheming anything.
Marx: The idea is a step in the right direction for me. Revolution is plan B, if you fail. Goodluck.
Bibliography:
[1] Philip Smith (2020) Durkheim and After : The Durkheimian Tradition, 1893-2020
Restorative Circles

Brenda E. Morrison & Dorothy Vaandering (2012) Restorative Justice: Pedagogy, Praxis, and Discipline,
Journal of School Violence, 11:2, 138-155, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2011.653322

Felluga, Dino. "Modules on Marx: On the Stages of Economic Development." Introductory Guide
to Critical Theory. Jan. 31, 2011. Purdue U. November 25, 2023. <http://www.purdue.edu/guide-
totheory/marxism/modules/marxstages.html>.