Atlas Needs Us, We Don't Need Him - Addendum

While waiting for a prescription at the pharmacy, I got into an argument with my mom. It started with my mentioning a book I got at a thrift store called Organization Theory, and progressed into an argument about relations between management and workers. Her point was that the union in the company she works for (Dyncorp International) promotes hostility between corporate and the workers and, instead of cooperating toward the same goal, the workers are preoccupied with trying to leech as much as they can from the company.

My point was that the conflict of interest inherent in the setup precedes the existence of unions. The company's goal is maximum profit, where the workers' goal is making a decent living. One goal comes by the detriment of the other; even the higher paid airplane mechanics make nothing close to the value their labor creates. The union forms because the company has an enormous advantage in the pursuit of its goal, having absolute power through the ownership of capital, and the workers require some kind of leverage in the pursuit of their goal. This leverage comes from their numbers, and the fact that it is their labor that creates the company's wealth and allows its accumulation of capital and power.

Her argument reminded me of my earlier post, Misconceptions Addressed: The Need for the Rich. She claimed that that workers are not qualified for management, and that there must always be some hierarchal structure to maintain order and ensure everyone is working toward the same goal.

Even if this were true, and workers are incapable of management, why should person A. who is qualified for management make as much more as he does than person B. who is qualified for building airplanes? Even if managing the workplace does require qualified hands, why should that position be one of so much more power and importance than that of designing, building and shipping the products? Being qualified to manage does not make you superior to one who is qualified to run machines, build airplanes, build houses or any other job as vital to the creation of value as any other.

If managing does require high qualifications (and you'll find, in many cases, it doesn't), why couldn't the workplace still be run democratically with those oh so qualified people acting as consultants and explaining which decisions would be detrimental to the well being of the organization, and which would be beneficial? If this were the case, the qualified consultant having no position of power or ownership, his/her advice would be unaffected by the incentive of profit and would actually be for the benefit of the workers.

This is all assuming the need for management is legitimate. After all, what purpose does it serve other than ensuring the workers are working toward the company's goal: profit? Degrees in Business Administration primarily teach capitalist economics, accounting and the psychology behind motivation and productivity, the focus of which is profit for the owners of capital - something incompatible with cooperative and democratically run business. Productivity is still important, but when workers are paid more closely to the value their labor creates, motivation for productivity is hardly a problem.

For about a year and a half I worked at a small restaurant. The "manager" was the owner of the property and, after my first couple of months working there, had practically disappeared except when collecting her profits.  The half a dozen or so of us who worked there managed everything ourselves: schedules, bills, supplies, menus and even the health department. We knew what needed to be done and how it needed to be done much better than the owner did because we knew how a restaurant worked first hand; we were more than capable of managing ourselves. Ms. Sparling knew nothing, but she still reaped the profits at the end of the day. Imagine how things could have gone if we were working for ourselves and each other, instead of the owner?

Of course, not every workplace is a restaurant, and sometimes some knowledge about accounting is required, but for this I refer you back to my question about consultants; this person still does not deserve a position of authority over others whose jobs are as vital to the creation of value and the functioning of the workplace as his/hers.

Many claim "entrepreneurs" are necessary for the creation of jobs, that without profit they would have no incentive to create the jobs and that, because they took the risks and invested the capital to do so they deserve to reap exorbitant profits at the expense of the workers' labor. However, as I addressed in the first part of "Atlas Needs Us," the demand for products and the need for innovation exists independent of the profit motive. If people need it, people are going to make it; if some new innovation is required, someone is going to provide it. In fact, without the profit motive as a factor, these innovations are more likely to be made based on what is most needed and efficient, rather than what is most profitable. The capital "entrepreneurs" provide is usually accumulated from other endeavors in which profit was made from others' labor (and is usually a product of class and racial privilege), rarely is it accumulated from that person's own work (I've also addressed Meritocracy).

Crucial to the maintenance of capitalist exploitation, as well as to the perpetuation of false consciousness and the rationalization of any authority is the belief in the champion who is smarter, stronger, more creative, harder working and more rational than the rest of us: the person whose benevolence and moral superiority provides us with what we have and should be grateful for. This godliness makes him deserving of power over us and makes his exploitation of us not only justifiable, but morally right. We're taught to accept and rationalize his injustices while scrutinizing the shortcomings of our own brethren, all the while convincing ourselves that, if we can impress him and work the hardest for him, we too can become like him. This is a sentiment very much at odds with the principles of democracy. This is a sentiment of self loathing.

Misconceptions Addressed: The Need for the Rich

Or: Atlas Needs Us, We Don't Need Him

I got into a lengthy discussion with my grandmother, yesterday, that was set off by a set of side-by-side columns in the Washington Post. The column I had commented on was one that speaks against taxing the rich based on fairness. The conversation that ensued -which was initially about an analogy used by the columnist that I thought was intellectually dishonest- elevated to being one about entrepreneurship.

I've addressed before, and I eventually managed to make clear to her, that the American Meritocracy is a myth because, despite the few rags-to-riches stories that are over-emphasized to appear typical, the odds against a person of little privilege "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps" are phenomenal.

What the discussion came down to was that, according to her, the rich are overpaid for many things, but they are still necessary as our society's source of management and innovation. If they weren't there to take the risks and start the businesses, where would the innovation come from?

I managed to make my point clear enough, but I had one of those, "Goddamn it, that's what I should have said!" moments later on in the evening.

What I should have said was "Creators gonna create, Mimi."

That's the real gist of it. Production of commodities is driven by demand. Demand comes from need, and need existed long before -and will continue to exist long after- capitalist middle-men. We planted and harvested corn because we were hungry, we built houses because we needed shelter, we invented games because we were bored. Need drives innovation and need drives production, not a dollar bill on a fishing pole. If we need it, we will create it somehow; and if Jonas Salk (inventor of the Polio vaccine) had "gone Galt," someone else would have done what he neglected to do.

Just like haters gonna hate and masturbators gonna masturbate, so are creators gonna create and innovators gonna innovate. You don't become a doctor or teacher for the paycheck, you do it because you have a desire to heal and teach. Salk didn't invent invent the Polio vaccine because he got paid, he invented it because there was a need for it and he had the desire to fill that need. This, of course, isn't to say that these innovators and inventors shouldn't be reimbursed for their contributions to the public, only that their motivations are not, and should not be, simply to exploit society's needs for a profit.

In industry, innovation would be better to come from the engineers and workers motivated by efficiency and practicality, rather than coming from executives and marketers motivated by profit alone. How many revolutionary innovations do you think have been ignored because they did not promise a hefty return on someone's investment? How many more do you think have been outright sabotaged, despite how they might have helped mankind, because they threatened to hurt profits? The incredibly slow progress of the search for alternative energy is a perfect example. Because oil is more profitable right now than alternative energy, and because alternative energy is a threat to oil profits, the free market suffocates efforts to advance it.

Again, I'm not proposing that everyone just do everything they do for free (although I'm not saying that wouldn't be great, either). I'm saying that, when we need something, we are going to find a way to get it with or without those who would exploit that need for profit.

Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that very few of the super rich in this world actually are the innovators and creators that bring our civilization progress and prosperity; quite the contrary. The conservatives and Ayn Rands of the world would surely like us to believe this, but it is simply not true. The majority of our super rich are those born into relative privilege (most of whom were born into exorbitant privilege), and either utilized that privilege to jump into management positions, or used their unearned wealth and property to invest in the creators and innovators who have no other way of doing what they do best.

On Leftist Unity

One of the most important concepts in leftist ideology is that which emphasizes the importance of supporting all workers' struggles against the ruling classes. Considering the variety of thought and the infighting that occurs between various facets, being able to unify under a few basic and fundamental commonalities is extremely important.


Common Goals:
The Spanish Civil War of the mid to late 1930s gives us one of the best examples of a successful, decentralized socialist society, but it also gives us the best example of how having a lack of a unified platform can really blow up in your face. Portrayed by Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is a great deal of infighting amongst the anti-fascist forces. The Anarchists, the bourgeious-democratic republicans and the various Marxist facets of the POUM all had different plans for post-war Spain. This infighting and failure to determine a common coalition platform hurt morale, and the overall "revolutionary spirit" of the Republican Left diminished as the war went on.

This is why it is extremely important to emphasize the common goals between differing leftist tendencies. Anarchists and Marxist Leninists do not have to necessarily be enemies, for instance. What we need is not to recruit as many people as possible to one group, but to create a coalition built on the common goals of those groups.

The difficulty in finding those commonalities rests on the fact that these different groups and ideologies have differing strategies for attaining the same goal. Both Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists, for example, hope for a stateless and classless society. The difference is that Marxist-Leninists would utilize a transitional socialist government, where anarchists would do away with the state immediately. Solving this problem rests on compromise and collaboration. An immediate goal needs to be established. The nature of the immediate goals depend on the nature of the coalition, and once those goals are reached, the hammering out of various other details may begin.

When it can be harmful
Supporting any opposition to the ruling elite is important to the health and efficiency of the movement, but there are many who seem to misunderstand. There are many who seem to believe that supporting any struggle against the ruling elite also means never questioning it; they refuse to criticize any regime that opposes "western" imperialism, no matter how worthy of criticism those regimes are. Supporting that opposition does not mean ignoring, accepting, or apologizing for the failures of those involved. Qaddafi's Libya, for instance, is defended by far too many people because it, especially in light of recent NATO agression, is an enemy of American and European economic willpower. Libyan opposition forces are called "counter-revolutionary," and "reactionary" despite the fact that Libya's government and its plethora of human rights violations are far from "revolutionary."

The Libyan "Opposition," on the other hand, is by no means immune to criticism simply because it opposes a tyrannical government. These groups are very thoroughly infiltrated by CIA influence and would likely only establish a bourgeois-democratic puppet government completely subservient to Western economic interests.

The opposition to the elite should be supported, but should never be beyond criticism.

Defeating the Moderate Advantage
Another obstacle faced by the Republican Left of the Spanish Civil War is one that the Left in the United States, as well as numerous other countries, still face. In any coalition of people and ideologies advocating reform, it is usually the least radical group whose demands are met (this is leaving out hostile coups and the like). Their platform is the least challenging, their transition is the least difficult and their ideology is the least at-odds with the status quo. In the Spanish Civil War, that group was the Republicans. In the United States, that group is the Democratic party, which many would-be socialists, anarchists or reformers side with. Because of its very moderately left leanings, it is perceived as more likely to gain ground in our political climate. The goals it seeks are small and still fit into the current socio-political structure while slightly acknowledging left wing sentiments. The result is, at best, minimal change.

This is a daunting conundrum, and one faced by both the left and the right, but its solution is simple.

Class Consciousness
The single most important part of any opposition to exploitation and tyranny is class consciousness. This should be the immediate goal for every leftist. Educate and agitate. Help people understand the nature of the current power structure and the nature of their place in it. Even those who simply understand those fundamental truths we know so well and don't necessarily act are still a part of the public's opinion. If the exploitative nature of capitalism (hell, even the simple fact that the rich are not looking out for you) becomes commonly understood, the entire society shifts.

This is why it is important for the left to be unified. We all have different ideas about stragegy and about post-revolutionary organization, but all of our ideals are built on the same truths. All of our ideals are built on class consciousness. Instead of telling everyone we can why Anarchism is the best ideology, or why the Soviet Model is the best system, we should all focus, as our immediate goal, on making those truths we have in common as understood as possible.

As American as Apple Pie

Over the last few months I’ve come to realize that many anarchists and socialists in the U.S focus a great deal on the radical traditions of Europe (Spain, France, Russia, Greece, etc) while ignoring the fact that the United States has a very rich Socialist tradition. In fact, many on the right seem to ignore or are unaware of the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist, and that the song “This Land is Your Land” was not only written by a socialist of sorts, but has strong social justice overtones.

Consider the many acheivements of our labor movement, the influence over politics and culture that early 20th century anarchists had, the leftist influences over the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-war movement, and all of the folksy radicalism of the depression era. Hell, even the term “redneck” was originally a name for striking (more like coup-attempting) coal workers in West Virginia who wore red bandannas on their neck to show solidarity.

As we speak, inner cities are full of people dedicating their time to making their communities better places to live and organizing community members in collaboration with local unions, as well as young people dedicated to fostering class concsiousness through direct action. Campuses are full of students dedicated to social justice, or at least to educating others about it.

Why shouldn’t there be such a rich radical tradition in the U.S? This is, after all, the world’s beacon of neo-colonialism, corporatism, plutocracy and bourgeois dominance. Considering that, it’s a breath of fresh air to think about how consistently present the people’s opposition to power has been in this country. Even a number of our “founding fathers” had the basic ideals (or at least claimed to) that leftism draws from: democracy, equality and liberty. Some, particularly Madison, even proposed agrarian reform very early on.

Pundits and politicians paint the Capitalist system as source of American Pride, and all forms of socialism as somehow anti-American. This is a myth perpetuated by the oligarchy who has a great deal to gain from that reactionary sentiment among the people. Really, though, if Capitalism were so American, why would its opposition be such a huge part of our history, just as old as the Capitalist system itself? It’s knowledge that threatens their power