Freedom, Capitalism, and Work
"The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom." -Hegel
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe
The Universal Call of Liberty
Freedom is a value held dear by people throughout history,
across all cultures. Governments of all varieties promise it to their
citizens, regardless of the actual policies they support. Men have died
by the millions believing that they were struggling for it. In nations
around the world, great and small, flags are lifted and voices raised
in tribute to it. Freedom has been described as the universal desire of
the human spirit.
But if freedom is so dear to the mind of man, we must expect
that those among us who wish to dominate others for their own ends will
be well aware of this. Rhetoric promising freedom and our almost
instinctive tendency to respond to it have been always been a powerful
tool used by tyrants and despots. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao spoke of
freedom. In fact, even the gates of Auschwitz promised it, proclaiming
"Work Makes Freedom." It is this aspect of the issue which the
following discussion will focus on.
The Master/Slave Dialectic
Drawing on diverse influences including the ancient Greek
thinkers Heraclitus and Socrates, nineteenth-century philosopher G.W.F.
Hegel popularized his concept of dialectics, which held that ideas and
phenomena are inherently bound up with their opposites in such a way
that the resolution of contradictions leads to continual qualitative
progression. One of the dialectics which Hegel chose to place
significant emphasis on was the master/slave relationship, which he saw
as a significant challenge to the advancement of freedom.
Had Hegel lived another 40 years, we can presume he would have
been pleased to see the end of chattel slavery in America, the largest
remaining slave-holding nation in the world at that time. It is not
likely, however, that Hegel would have considered this the the end of
the master/slave dialectic's relevance. In fact, Hegel's most famous
student, Karl Marx, would go on to develop a broad philosophical and
political framework based largely on the idea that the great majority
of men were exploited by the rich capitalist class, which he saw as the
new slave masters. For Marx, history was a long, gradual climb up from
explicitly slave-based societies and their feudal offspring, through
capitalism, to socialism, and ultimately to a classless society in
which all forms of exploitation from the grossest (chattel slavery) to
the subtlest (private property) would be abolished.
While few modern philosophers would agree with Marx's more
extreme prescriptions (such as the abolition of all private property),
there is a general sense in intellectual circles that much of his
social criticism remains valid. In that spirit, this essay will attempt
to argue that in the contemporary culture of capitalism, the
master/slave dialectic remains discernible.
Earning a Living
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." -George Orwell
The idea that people should work for a living is very nearly
universal in its acceptance. We grow up with this idea, seeing it
reinforced in our homes, churches, media, and peer groups from a very
early age. The belief that "decent people" are to have jobs or own
businesses is almost sacrosanct - it is rarely questioned, and when it
is, the questioners are usually censured or ostracized in various ways.
It is clear that as a society, we are convinced of the merit in the
message on the gates of Auschwitz - but it is not so clear why this
should be so.
The most common answer, that "people need to earn a living," is
obviously tautologous. It is simply an undisguised value judgment which
does not even attempt to address the issue of why people "need" to earn
a living in a world of increasing material abundance. Despite its total
philosophical vacuity, the ubiquitous statement is usually delivered
with a granite-like sense of finality, as if it were the sort of truth
that is simply unimpeachable, to be challenged only by fools and
madmen. But why should people need to earn a living?
Arguments in favor of work's value usually boil down to the
question of obligation. We are to work because "the world does not owe
us a living." But why doesn't it? After all, we did not choose to be
born. To say that we have any obligation in a transaction we did not
choose smacks of coercion and even enslavement, but those who point out
the fact that no one chooses to be born are customarily dismissed as
"childish," "unrealistic," etc. And yet, if I were to give you a candy
bar which you never asked for and wait until after you had eaten part
of it to inform you that I expected payment, how would you think of me?
Pointing to the inherent unfairness of imposing a sense of
obligation on individuals for taking part in a life they never chose is
not a denial of life's value, as some may suppose. The aim is not to
complain about being alive, but to question the assumption that life is
something we have to "earn." It is common to hear life described as a
"gift," but what kind of gift comes with an obligation? If supporters
of the capitalist "work ethic" were consistent, they would describe
life as a "sale." We are sold the right to live in exchange for a
lifetime of labor. There is clearly no "gift" element to be found in
this - at least not once we leave the shelter of childhood and enter
the adult world, where we expected to begin discharging our debt to the
world - and insisting that those who question this "need to grow up"
simply dodges the whole issue.
A better argument in favor of work centers around the actual
benefits we are provided as members of a civilized society. In
developed nations, most of us have access to clean water, safe food
supplies, public roads, free primary education, etc. Perhaps it is fair
to suggest that we have some obligation in reciprocating for these
provisions and privileges. And yet, it remains hard to see how this
translates to a requirement of "gainful employment." There are any
number of alternative ways to contribute to one's society. By writing
this essay, I am humbly attempting to pursue one such method of
contribution, for which I expect to be paid nothing, and for which I
would contend there is no tangible economic value. Most of us engage in
much more significant non-economic tasks each day - child-rearing,
community participation, self-improvement, etc. These activities
constitute a great deal of our individual contribution to the world,
and yet, they carry little weight in the public eye if we aren't
willing to participate economically. In capitalism, "the economy"
always comes first.
Economic Darwinism
But what is the economy? It is generally discussed as if it were
some force of nature, a separate entity with an identity all its own.
However, this is an erroneous conception, at least within the framework
of capitalism. Without socialism, "the economy" is nothing more than
the sum of financial transactions between individuals. The economy -
when we participate in it by buying, selling, working, or receiving
unearned benefits - is you, me, and the man next door. It is all of us,
and ideally, its overall function should be to serve our interests as
fairly and effectively as possible. But capitalism does not go this
far. It stops at the idea that the economy consists of many diverse
transactions, adding no overall "economic morality" except to assert
that everyone's self-interested transactions somehow serve the best
interest of everyone else.
Clearly, there is a fundamental deception at work here. In our
capitalist societies, the economy is described as if it were something
created to serve the common interest, but this is not the case. In
reality, capitalist economies are never "created" at all, except by
accident. It is against the basic principles of capitalism to plan an
economy. It must simply be allowed to take its natural course. Leaving
aside for the moment the fact that the United Stated and other major
capitalist nations long ago realized the absurdity and unworkability of
this and (grudgingly) instituted a number of economic regulations, we
should focus on the fact that the essence of capitalist theory remains
widely embraced, and that it explicitly encourages the formation of
master/slave relationships.
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century English philosopher, famously
described the natural condition of man in the absence of civilization
as "nasty and brutish" (among other unfortunate qualities). Hobbes held
that our default state is "a war of every man against every other man."
Pioneers of capitalism, such as Adam Smith and John Locke, must have
thought little of Hobbes' conclusion when they formulated a system in
which the common good is left to be worked out entirely by nature's
"invisible hand," which they supposed would ensure that everyone else's
interests would be served if we all served our own interests first.
It is hard to understand how these philosophers could have
looked at the eternal struggle and competition evidenced in nature (an
extension of Hobbes' "war of all against all") and conclude that man
would behave any differently. Perhaps it helped that these capitalist
pioneers believed that we were beings created in the divine image of
God - but without this belief, modern thinkers should be skeptical of
an economic theory which leaves the establishment of the common good to
the same natural motivations which govern a pack of wild hyenas
fighting over a scrap of food. If some hyenas are routinely
out-competed by their fellows, no "invisible hand" ensures their
survival. Nature is indifferent, and men not created in God's image
have natural motivations. Under naturalism, whatever sparse moral basis
capitalism might claim simply falls apart.
Some would insist that capitalism has never claimed to be
moral (outside the radical theories of Ayn Rand and certain
conservative political movements), but this assertion does not survive
even a superficial analysis. The concept of the "invisible hand" is
clearly an ethically-motivated one - we are to rest assured that
capitalism is a "good" system because it not only provides economic
freedom but also ensures the common welfare. "A rising tide lifts all
boats," we are told - but in reality, this is only true as long as we
make an unspoken pact to ignore the sinking ships.
Nature is creative but unforgiving. In an economic system based
on leaving the common good to be established by natural principles, it
should be clear that only the strong are equipped to experience the
good. How then, does capitalism address the problem of the common good
with a straight face? I would submit that it does so by tautologically
redefining the commonality to include only those well-equipped to do
well. Those who are physically, mentally, or temperamentally ill-suited
to economic activity are simply ostracized, considered irrelevant, or
otherwise removed from society's consideration. The common good no
longer applies to them, so there is no problem. Those who can do well
are are doing well, and everything is alright.
But even for those who are "making it" under capitalism, a
deeper problem remains. In the animal kingdom, the role of individuals
is governed by "dominance hierarchies," and in capitalism, which uses
the natural order as its economic theory, the situation is no
different. Consider for a moment a typical day in the life of a "free
citizen" in the capitalist world...
Early in the morning, he is awakened against his will by the
blaring of an alarm clock. In the space of an hour or less, he must
shower, dress, and cram down some kind of breakfast. Next, he begins
his lengthy daily commute, which he despises. He arrives at the
workplace and is reprimanded by an authority figure for being five
minutes late (or some other petty concern). He spends the next 8 hours
doing exactly what he is told the way he is told to do it, all the
while being expected to maintain a compliant "team player" attitude out
of gratitude to the employer for giving him the job (and out of fear of
losing it). When quitting time arrives, he repeats the morning commute
in reverse and arrive home, where he has perhaps a few hours under his
own control before he must go to bed and get ready to do it all again
the next day.
Where is the freedom in this? The simple fact is that we are
economically compelled to sell most of our waking lives to the highest
bidder, surrendering our individual autonomy to our employers or our
businesses (should we happen to be "self-employed"). What, then, is the
difference between this "economic slavery" and traditional chattel
slavery? I would submit that it lies in the control mechanisms used.
The Carrot and The Stick
A universal method of manipulating human behavior involves the
metaphor known as "the carrot and the stick." The carrot, of course, is
a perceived reward, while the stick is a perceived punishment. If the
stick is big enough, as in chattel slavery, no carrot is required.
Chattel slaves can be abused or killed at will, making fear of
punishment sufficient to ensure compliance. But the civilized world no
longer tolerates chattel slavery, so in addition to the stick, economic
slavery must rely on some kind of carrot. Today, that carrot is
consumerism.
Slaves exist to profit their masters. Employees exist to profit
their employers. Here, there is no difference. The exploited party is
used to enrich the exploiter. In order to keep people from realizing
this and to ensure that they continue to show up for work willingly and
cheerfully, some method of convincing them that the transaction is of
benefit to them must be devised. This is where consumerism comes in. By
promoting the idea that personal status and worth are determined by the
ownership of property, the capitalist masters can ensure a sufficient
supply of willing workers.
The media is a tool of consumerist indoctrination. Through a
constant stream of television programming and other media content,
advertisers are free to promote the idea that the more we consume, the
more we are worth as human beings. We are continually exposed to
glorified images of wealth and glamour intended to provoke imitative
reactions. Every little girl wants to be like the latest millionaire
pop star. Every little boy wants to be like the latest millionaire
athlete. Every grown woman wants to be like the latest millionaire
"career woman." Every grown man wants to be like the latest captain of
industry. And to get there, we are told, all we need to do is work
hard.
What we are not told, of course, is that like an illegal
"pyramid scheme," capitalist economic theory requires a much greater
supply of "losers" than "winners." In order to get rich, every Donald
Trump relies on a host of supporting workers, whose level of financial
success is inversely proportional to the number of people employed in
his capacity. The typical rich capitalist employs a few wealthy
executives, a few more comfortably affluent managers, a greater number
of middle-class office professionals, and a great many comparatively
low-paid production workers. Whether this "production work" is done on
an assembly line or a cubicle is immaterial - in fact, more and more
"white collar" companies are explicitly referring to their large
low-paid departments as "production."
But it is not enough to say that capitalism resembles a pyramid
scheme. The reality is much worse - it is also an enormous "birth
lottery." Successful capitalists like to promote the idea that their
success is due to some personal triumph creditable only to them as
individuals, but in reality, our fitness to compete economically is
largely determined by factors outside our control, such as genetics,
upbringing, environmental influences on childhood development, etc. We
are not to know this, however, for the obvious reason that it
undermines the consumerist message - "just work hard and you can have
it all, too. Bill Gates did it, and so can you!"
The simple fact that we are not all Bill Gates is never
mentioned. Capitalist societies praise individualism everywhere except
in the economic realm. Economically, we are all supposed to be
identical - at is as if we are to believe that we all grew up in the
same household, with the same parents, the same genes, the same
childhood influences, etc. As absurd as this assertion may seem it
first glance, it is clearly supported by the very basis of the "work
and consume" message - the idea that anyone can do it. Somehow, we are
supposed to believe the plainly absurd idea that any of us can be the
next Bill Gates, no matter how different our own circumstances may be
from his. It is a form of magical thinking - encouraging us to believe
that the laws of nature can somehow be disregarded. The fact that
capitalism, which is explicitly based on a natural approach, promotes
this abandonment of naturalism can only be a calculated deception - but
it is a deception we tend to willingly embrace.
We embrace the lie because we want to believe. We see
images of wealth and glamor, and we want to think that we can attain
them as well. We do not want to envision ourselves as limited,
conditioned beings. Instead, we are all inherently omnipotent - able to
transcend any circumstance and achieve the same results as the wealthy
people we are shown. The economic masters know that we want to believe
this, and they use our willful gullibility as a control mechanism.
"Success is just around the corner, so keep your nose to the
grindstone!" The promise of unlimited opportunity for everyone is the carrot dangled in front of us at all times, always just out of reach.
And behind the carrot, there is always the stick. The penalties
for economic non-compliance are substantial - social ostracism,
poverty, homelessness, denial of health care, and possibly even death.
There is a common perception that these issues are not adequately
addressed in capitalist society simply because the wealthy tend to be
heartless and greedy. While this is often true, it overlooks another
critical factor - the fact that in order to maintain profitability, the
economic masters must ensure that there is a credible threat of
punishment for work-refusal. If society were more humane, the "brutish"
natural condition of man as described by Hobbes would be less effective
in motivating people to be economically productive.
Putting it All Together
In summary, it is my contention that capitalism is an economic
system with inherently Orwellian properties. It purports to advance the
common good while disregarding the common man. It celebrates
individuality while demanding conformity. It promises freedom and
delivers chains. By willingly participating in our own pro-work
consumerist indoctrination, we sell our freedom to the merchants of
greed and avarice, who are betting their own self-interested enrichment
on our willingness to make the transaction. In most cases, it may be
impractical to "opt-out" and totally reject employment for the sake of
principle. But, if nothing else, we can at least be aware of the real
reasons why we work so hard, the real nature of freedom, and the
contradiction between the two.
In a post-Marxist world looking for deliverance, is there a
better way? As nations such as Sweden prove, there is. I call their
approach "economic humanism." It is not a precise term or a
well-defined system, but instead a broad vision of an economy that
serves the population instead of a population which serves the economy.
It is essentially a pragmatic approach - where markets work, markets
are used, and where social approaches work, socialism is used. The
overall motto is "opportunity for all, poverty for none." It is a
system in which those well-suited to employment can pursue and benefit
from it, while those not suited to economic work are not enslaved by
it. It is the reconciliation of the wealth-producing power of
capitalism with the humanity of socialism.
And, finally, it is the resolution of Hegel's master/slave
dialectic. If history is indeed "the progress of the consciousness of
freedom," the transition from traditional capitalism to economic
humanism is a great step forward.