16 October, 2013

Follow up: Controlling the Workers

In a previous post (Capitalism as Favoritism,15Mar09), I mentioned the concept of business owners wanting "a workforce they can control." I am sure I could have been more clear, and since I want everyone to understand what I mean, that's what I intend to do here. Some may cringe at the mention of "Marxism (historical materialism)" or "Socialism", but I am interested here in analysing a problem of Capitalism and certainly relevant concepts and definitions can be found in both the former "-isms".

The idea is that those who own land and/or businesses (bourgeois: those who own the means of production) want to control those who do the work and/or buy the products (proletariat: workers/consumers). Not that bourgeois want to make the decisions for others, just keep workers less prone to demand better than they are getting. There are a number of ways to go about this, e.g. distraction, political correctness, creating division, etc. The idea being to collect as much power, prestige, and/or wealth as possible, using others to achieve this end.

This hasn't changed much in at least three thousand years. I would go all the way back in time through the Westward Expansion, Industrial Revolution, Colonization and Imperialism, Middle Ages, Renaissance and feudalism, Enlightenment, Dark Ages, the Fall and Rise of the Roman Empire, even to Egypt and Mesopotamia. I am not as familiar with "Eastern" cultures in India, China, or elsewhere, but I imagine many of the same conditions and drives exist in humans worldwide. This is not to say that a majority of citizens subscribe to the notion of ownership and control throughout history and in every culture, just that there are usually greedy, selfish individuals whose desires drive them to overpower others in their pursuits.

In the end, both the desire to gain and maintain power and control as well as the path to getting it has not changed much. This involves gathering a bunch of others together in support of your goals, generally by appealing to their self-preservation. This could mean threats, promises of reward, or just a notion of simplicity. What I mean by this last bit is that not everyone wants to be a big-shot; for many,  it's enough to be told what to do and let someone else worry about long-term issues.