Three Essays on the Social Question
Frank Thomas Smith
II. Is Slavery Really Dead?
Roberto Cavallo leaves home at 5.30 a.m. in order to arrive at
his job by 7. He is employed in a small company, which manufactures gas
heaters, where he earns $500 per month. The country is Argentina, where the
cost of living is approximate to that of the United States. Of course he and
his family (two children) cannot live on his salary, so he has a second job as
a gardener and his wife works as a maid. He considers himself lucky. The owners
of the firm, two brothers in their early forties, send their children to
exclusive private schools, own second country homes and vacation in Europe.
Slavery existed in civilized human society from
the beginning of recorded history until the middle of the eighteenth century,
when it was abolished in the United States, the last "civilized"
country in which it was officially condoned, not as the result of a
humanitarian impulse, but by means of a bloody civil war. To the Western mind,
the fact that slavery was condoned in ancient Rome, Arabia, Africa, even the
United States during its early period, is not particularly surprising. That the
most enlightened souls in ancient Greece also accepted it and found it normal
is, however, somehow shocking. How could Plato, Aristotle, Socrates justify
such an inhuman institution? That they did not bother to justify it indicates
that it was simply in the order of things and it never occurred to them or
anyone else to question it. This implies a development of consciousness, for
not even the reactionary elements today would try to reinvent slavery. In the
southern United States the real reason for slavery was the economic need for
free labor on the plantations. The rationale was that African Blacks were not
quite human and it was therefore legitimate to treat them as what were thought
to be: animals. This was probably sincerely believed by many, if not the
majority. Even the Nazis needed a rationale for the murder of the Jews: their
racial inferiority, which was a danger for the purity of the German nation.
Just as slavery was a natural condition for the
ancients, a form of modern slavery is natural for us: we do not question it.
The modern form of slavery deals in the buying and selling of human labor.
Previously the whole person, body, soul and spirit, was owned by another, was
bought and sold, abused or treated decently as animals still are, depending on
the whim of the owner. The slave was an object, an intelligent means of
production, no more. To what extent has this changed? It is no longer possible
to buy a whole person. If we compare the modern industrial worker and the
agricultural slave, we find that freedom exists today for the former, but only
to a degree. If he doesn't like his job he can quit and try to find another. If
he does, he will find that nothing has substantially changed. He still sells
his work to the highest bidder. The employer is in the position of being able
to buy (but not sell, except in professional sports) an essential part of the
human being: his work. If this sounds at first glance exaggerated, observe the
"labor market", in which the negotiations take place. Labor unions
have the obligation to obtain the highest possible price for the labor they
represent, and management attempts to buy the commodity as cheaply as possible.
Trans-national companies seek out countries where labor is cheapest in order to
invest in new plants. There is no question that labor has the nature of a
commodity, an object, an intelligent machine - still, under the capitalist
system.
The effect this has on the worker is profound.
In Third world countries, where labor is exploited through miserable pay
levels, there is constant friction between labor and ownership which often
spills over into the political arena. Demagogues or military interests take
advantage of the misery experienced by the lowest (working) levels of society
in order to seize political power. They promise the workers much and usually
deliver nothing except more misery. In any case, the development of democratic
institutions is inevitably interrupted and set back for years. Hitler and
Mussolini, to name only the most extreme examples, were originally the leaders
of workers' movements. Such demagogues are able to seize power because they are
supported by the masses. But even in economically "advanced"
countries, where workers are paid decent wages, labor dissatisfaction is always
prevalent as is evidenced by constant union demands for more pay and benefits.
These demands are made even when wage scales and benefits are adequate. The
results are higher production costs and inflation.
We can curse union lack of responsibility until
we are blue in the face, or enact legislation which limits their influence, but
it does not help because neither rhetoric nor superficial legal measures get to
the heart of the matter. The fact that workers are forced to sell their labor,
thereby consolidating their semi-slave status, results in a deeply felt
sensation of being wronged, regardless of the amount of remuneration received.
Until this situation is recognized and corrected, harmonious labor relations in
industry will not be achieved.
The question is: how can this situation be
corrected? History has shown that turning ownership and control of industry
over to the state is a grave error. There is, however, an alternative. A look
at the reasons for the astonishing success of Japanese industry reveals a clue.
Japanese industrialists are no less capitalist than their western counterparts,
but they do something essentially different. Despite their reputation for being
an ant-like society, the reality is quite different. Japanese industrial
culture considers the worker to be a human being - not a machine as in the west
- and treats him accordingly. Kaoru Ishikawa states this unequivocally in his
revolutionary book "What is Total Quality Control?" When workers are
able to organize their own work through institutions like Quality Circles and
are fully informed concerning the objectives and policies of the company they
become motivated. An organization with motivated co-workers will out-perform by
far one with unmotivated personnel. This does not mean that the Japanese have
solved the social problematic which began at the inception of the industrial
revolution. They have, however, taken a first, tentative, perhaps unconscious
step in the right direction. In their society industry is still owned by
anonymous shareholders as it is in the rest of capitalist society. The problem
of ownership of the means of production remains unresolved. Their success,
however, is certainly enhanced by the fact that foreign competition has not
been willing or able to take even that first step, despite the fact that the
philosophy behind the humanizing of industry originated with western industrial
psychologists such as Douglas MacGregor and J.A.C. Brown.
Profit sharing is another baby step in the
right direction. Unfortunately, the percentage of profit shared is usually
infinitesimal and is therefore perceived by workers as being the cynical sop that
it is.
These two steps, worker participation in
decision-making (which does not mean control of the decision-making process,
but only participation in decisions which directly affect them and their work)
and profit sharing, can be grasped as already existing methods which could be
expanded to the extent that justice is achieved. If all workers, including
managers, are part owners of the company in which they work, and if there are
no other part owners, the semi-slave status of workers would be eliminated.
This is not communism. I am not advocating that industry should be turned over
to the state which supposedly represents the workers, but that it should be
owned by all those who actively participate in it, and only by those.
The obvious objection to this concept is based
on a myth: the necessity of stock markets. Capital is indeed raised by the sale
of company stocks in the market. But the main function of this market is a
speculative one. It is little more than respectable gambling, somewhat safer
that the racetrack or Las Vegas. It is the forum in which the rich increase
their capital without the necessity of resorting to work. The myth is its
necessity. Other means of raising capital for production exist: bank loans and
bond issues. In both of these alternatives the lender may reap a reasonable
profit, but has neither a voice nor a vote in the company's policies. In other
words, he is not an anonymous owner with the capability of reaping profits for
himself at the expense of those who do the work. The conversion of anonymously
owned companies to worker-owned enterprises would be complex and would take
time, but it could be done with the necessary basis of corresponding laws,
which could be enacted by any democratic legislature not dominated by economic
interests.
Banks of course are also anonymously owned,
profit oriented enterprises. They should be required to convert to a special
non-profit-making status. Not that there would be no profit, but it would be
used only to cover the banks' own costs and reinvestment requirements. An
important and immediate benefit deriving from such a conversion would be lower
interest rates due to the abrogation of the need to pay dividends to
stockholders. Dividends are, in reality, a cost; hence, lower costs and the
resultant lower interest rates, meaning greater borrowing power for industry,
which should more than offset the lack of anonymous investment capital.
Another myth, the motivating power of profit,
will be considered in the next essay.
����������� Essay III: Motivation and Reality