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.

May Day Reflections

It's about 2 days too late but I've been sick of the internet and all who inhabit it not been very motivated lately.

This Sunday, as most of you reading this probably already know, marked the anniversary of the 1886 General Strike for an eight hour work day (8 for rest, 8 for work, 8 for recreation), and the subsequent Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, and the wrongful execution of 4 strikers accused of throwing dynamite. May 1st, May Day or International Workers' day is the commemoration of the struggles and victories of organized labor and all of those who seek liberation and economic and social justice.

Before it became a day to celebrate workers' struggles, May the First was Beltane, a Gaelic festival that, as most other spring festivals, celebrated fertility and rebirth. Call me delusional, but I like to think this is no coincidence.

Every worker victory is a rebirth. Every victory for social and economic justice and every stepping stone toward democratic liberation and egalitarianism is a small step toward rebirth. Every person who comes to find class consciousness is part of a collective, spiritual reawakening that will allow a new period of equality to grow from the ashes of the old power structures.

That's all very lofty sounding but you get the idea. Now more than ever are these things evident. Government attacks on organized labor, right wing austerity measures, supremacy of the banks and steps toward plutocratic totalitarianism have been met by increased involvement by workers' rights and democracy advocates, as well as increased support for them. The occupation in Wisconsin, the US/UK Uncut Movements, the demonstrations and riots all over Europe from Ireland to Greece, The Walks for Choice and countless other demonstrations of the people's will are evidence of a new world rising from beneath our own that just needs a few more people to push it.


This past May Day, rallies in L.A, Chicago, Santa Rosa, Honduras, Turkey, Venezuela and several other places showed their support for general progress, or protested Anti-Immigration laws and Anti-Labor laws - all demonstrating increasing popular support for change.

I am as convinced as ever that revolutionists do not make a revolution. The people make the revolution, the revolutionists only help it along. Their role is educating the masses, promoting the strikes and protests, and letting democracy take care of the rest.