SAE Cooperation Theory Paper 3: Division of Labor / SAE 合作论 Paper 3: 分工

This paper reads division of labor in cooperation. In the cooperation this series reads, division of labor is an arrangement the two have avowed together; it is consensus, not calculation: neither law has changed; what has changed is time, resources, roles, procedure and the conditions of action. The binding force of division of labor passes separately through each party's own law, or comes from a procedure both parties have already recognized; it is not a third law standing above the two. Division of labor is a present arrangement; it can be avowed anew, and it can be changed. A change into a new shared division of labor must be avowed by both parties separately, or be made by a procedure both have recognized and that applies; this does not make either party the approver of the other's own revision and exit. Unilateral withdrawal does not impose a new arrangement on the other party, nor does it erase the effects already left. Where division of labor slides into a fixed requirement aimed at the other, by being treated as something the other may not change, by being hung on who the other is, or by being swapped out within habit, there is a tendency toward colonization: saying out loud a characterization of the division of labor slides in the direction of colonization; making it unchangeable for the other in running carries the direction of colonization. One party's own treating the division of labor as unchangeable is his self-relation; structurally it has no outward direction. This point has the same form as Marriage Theory's reading of division of labor in marriage; the two series are parallel, and each reads by this shape. Organizations, contracts, employment, and the authority that comes with positions are acknowledged but not judged, and are registered as conditions of effects; this paper reads only the side the institution does not provide for, or that goes beyond its provisions: what passes between persons. A registered partner is in a position, and belongs to the institutional side; the construct two people register is the address of attribution, not a third bearer. The non-compete agreement, which stipulates that one party may not, after leaving, go in a certain direction, is read as Political Economy reads it; the other party to the cooperation is himself the party that sets the agreement. A procedure both have recognized beforehand is handing this one matter over, not a position that legislates for the two; whether a procedure has grounds, and whether, in running, it is still controlled by the party questioned, are checked apart. This paper interfaces with Plato, Durkheim and Smith. It does not prove which division of labor is right, does not prescribe for anyone how division of labor is to be divided, and does not judge whether the obligations in a contract are legitimate. 这一篇读合作里的分工。这个系列读的合作里,分工是两人一起认下的安排,是共识,不是算计:两条法都没有改,改的是时间、资源、角色、程序与行动条件;分工的约束力分别经过两人各自的法,或者来自双方已经承认的程序,不是一条站在两人之上的第三条法。分工是现在的安排,可以重新认领,可以改。改成一项新的共同分工,须双方分别认下,或按已认且适用的程序作出;这不使任何一方取得批准另一方自身修订与退出的地位。单方收回,不把新安排强加给另一方,也不抹去已经留下的作用。 分工滑成指向对方的固定要求,被当作对方改不得的、被挂到对方是谁上、或在习惯里被偷换,有殖民的倾向:说出口给分工定性,滑向殖民的方向;在运行上使对方改不了,带殖民这个方向。一方自己把分工当作改不得的,是他的自我关系,从结构上看没有向外的方向。这一条与婚姻论读婚姻里的分工同形;两个系列平行,各自照这一形状读。 组织、合同、雇佣与位置带来的权限,认而不判,作为作用的条件登记;这一篇只读制度没有规定或超出规定的那一面,人与人之间。合伙人在位置上,归制度侧;两个人登记的那个构,是归责的地址,不是第三个承担者。约定一方离开以后不许往某个方向去的竞业禁止,照政治经济学读,合作的另一方就是设约的一方。两人事先都认过的程序,是把这一件交出去,不是替两人立法的位置;程序有没有根据,与它在运行中是否仍由被问的一方控制,分开核。这一篇与柏拉图、涂尔干、斯密对接。这一篇不证明哪一种分工对,不替人规定分工怎样分,也不判合同里的义务正当与否。