'The Book' - Blog 13

Chapter three continued...

The chapter then looks at the traditional argument that technology gives rise to this alienation of labour. The authors do not agree with this statement. Within the confines of existing technologies work could be organized in such a way that it is more satisfying to workers. The authors feel this is happening because employers are unresponsive to workers needs.

The second idea is that the 'captains of industry' do not want their authority threatened. If technology actually worked along side employees and gave them more power instead of fragmenting jobs then the power balance of the top down (hierarchy division of labour) would be disrupted. The third idea is that alienated labour is not a technical process, but is driven from a social process. This is because the majority of labour is done by individuals and not machines. Computers do hold a vast majority of power but it takes a human to make it work. Thus capitalist production is at heart a social and not merely a technical process. And alienation is a class and not a technological phenomenon. Therefore technology should not produce alienation of labour. (Technology is not an independent force it is guided by corporations.) Technology is a tool that is used by the upper management / corporations to exert control over their employees.

The next idea that the authors tackle is the long held assumption that the hierarchical division of labour is actually the most efficient way to run a corporation. The authors do not agree. Some may say that the hierarchical division of labour is the most efficient way due to the fact it was so successful when it was first implemented during the industrial revolution. The authors would argue that the only reason it was so successful was due to the fact that there was a tapping into cheap labour, an extension of work hours and an increased (forced) pace of work. This reminds me of the Christmas Carol play / movie. The authors feel that this top down form of control is actually a form of social and economic control. It justifies having the subordinate relationships that exist within the workplace today. An employees lack of control through fragmented jobs justifies the control upper level management has. It is a policy of divide and conquer.

The hierarchical division of labour maximizes the control of management, increases the accountability of workers by fragmenting jobs and responsibility, thwarts the development of stable coalitions among workers.

The next section of the book is titled the structure of economic inequality. It looks at the roots of inequality which is found in the class structure and the system of sexual and racial power relationships. The school system perpetuates this structure of privilege. It does not produce it, but only reflects it. This is why school is a weak tool for economic equality. When 1960 rolled around the natural tendency toward equality was not so. This was despite the fact that there was a vast increase in education opportunity and increase in social security, income equality still had not changed. The degree of wealth inequality had not changed much since WWII.

Historically there was persistent income inequality. There was a distinction made between the inequality of economic opportunity and the inequality of economic outcomes. The liberal reformist focused on the economic opportunity and not the economic outcome. They felt that the economic outcome was not an issue, under healthy competition the best person would be hired for the job regardless of their race and ethnicity. Yet income inequality still existed! The authors believed that economic opportunity and economic outcomes are inseparable and both are related to market and property relationships.

To be continued ...