The Collective Working Force
Adam Smith had explained how the division of labour increases productivity. Proudhon (1843: 357) stresses the importance of this analysis, but thought that Smith did not understand the fecundity of this principle: he did not state “the law of the collective working force”.
When a clock is made by 50 workers rather than by one alone, this is as if it had been produced by one worker with 50 heads and 100 arms. The workers do not act independently of each other: they are associated and, in this way, co-responsible; they are not competing with each other, but solidary. This means that it is impossible to evaluate the contribution of each worker to the product. The division of labour and the collective labour force are two sides of the same law.Proudhon then uses the concept of a collective force to analyse the distribution of income. As the force of 100 workers is incomparably greater than 100 times the force of one worker, this force is not paid with the wages of 100 workers. The difference between the value of the product and the amount of the wages does not legitimately belong to the capitalist. It is between the workers and the capitalist that the product must be shared, and the law forbidding the coalitions of workers must be repealed.
How to divide the product between workers? According to the Saint-Simonian motto: to each depending on his capability, to each capability depending on its works; or according to Fourier’s statement: to each depending on his work and capability? Proudhon discards these view. He does not deny the diversity of tasks and talents but, as associates, men are equal and one of them must not be paid more than another.