Pompeii and Arcadia

My mental picture of Arcadia depicts what the ruins of Pompeii must have looked like when it was a thriving society millions of years ago. I picture the hustle and bustle of everyday life: people walking the streets gathering supplies for dinner, “Mom and Pop” shops running their small stores, and all people working in harmony towards the betterment of their town. But today, Pompeii no longer exists as anything more than skeletal remains. Because like Arcadian societies, Pompeii was “hopelessly Utopian”.

The backbone of Arcadia is decentralized nationalization, which is the dispersion of decision making governance closer to the people or governed body. It is a society biased towards “locally, self-reliant economics” and small, single proprietorships like those found in Pompeii. There is a constant goal of social and environmental justice, believed to be achieved through local and democratic control of the economy. But this completely unrealistic—the people of Arcadian societies are trying to live in dual worlds: one grounded in the belief of a non-GDP based economy, modest good consumption, and reverence for tradition, and the other nested in modern methods of communication, travel, and energy services.

As a society, they have imposed high taxes on what they deem to be “excessive wealth”, in order to keep all members of the society within economic equality. But this only leads to stifled economic growth caused by a reduction in skilled labor, specialty professions, and a decrease in imports. The actions that seem to establish a “fair” society will only cause the Arcadian town to slip behind modern advancements that better the human race, eventually leading to the same fate as Pompeii.

Capitalism and the Hyper-Mobility of Capital

Although Capitalism is widely accepted throughout our society, many people seem to believe that we can do better. The only problem is that no one has any alternative solutions in which we would be able to progress further under that is better than Capitalism. I believe that any system under which our economy is run is going to have problems, but one problem that is drastically out of control is that of the hyper-mobility of capital. I also believe that under Schweickart’s model of Economic Democracy, this can be slowed down if not completely eliminated. He proposes that with this system there would be hardly any capita flow across the border. Since his model proposes worker self-management, or an enterprise that is controlled by its workers, this would keep jobs in the United States, instead of sending them abroad where they can be done with cheaper labor. Sending these jobs abroad is one the main problems that exists in our economy today. Our economy is hurting for jobs. Factories and companies are being shut down all over the United States, only to be shipped to another country to be done for a lesser cost. If Capitalism continues at this rate, there will be no more jobs in the U.S., everything will be divided up by the division of labor, and sent overseas. With Economic Democracy much of this can be changed. There has to come a point in our current economy that we say enough is enough and propose a change. Although I understand that this change is not going to be easy, I think that it will be well worth it in the long run. Prices may increase at first, which may anger many Americans, but in the years to come, more jobs will stay on American soil.

Where Will It End?

I recently had an internship this summer in which I was a Mechanical Engineering intern, and therefore was constantly surrounded by technology. It was during this time in which I experienced some of what is discussed in the Baase reading. It is true that computers have made it more probable for a new type of monitoring in the workplace, but this monitoring is not always good. The first day at my new job, I had a meeting with another employee where company policies and rules were explained. It was here in which I was told that any e-mail that was sent, received, or even opened on a work computer was property of the company. They therefore had the right to view the e-mail, and do what they pleased with it. I was also informed that any web sites or anything done on the internet, could be monitored by them as well. Being new to the working world, this shocked me that they were able to legally do this.

I know that the argument can be made that it shouldn’t be a problem because you shouldn’t be doing anything but work related stuff on your computer anyway. Although this is an ideal argument, I do not think that it is true amongst common people in their everyday place of work. There are plenty of people that during work check their e-mail account that is not directly distributed by the company, visit non work related web sites, and even send non work related e-mails. If you want to browse the internet or send an e-mail during your lunch break, what gives your company the right to read that e-mail when it has nothing to do with them? Over the course of the summer, I worked hard, and finished all of my projects in a timely manner. If this is the case for a majority of employees, than why is monitoring to this extent necessary? I feel that the implementation of a more strict monitoring system need only be instated if there are problems amongst specific employees. Why should the hard workers be punished for the laziness of others? Although I had no problems that came from this strict policy, it is just the idea of being monitored that seemed to bother me. It seems as though with the advancement of technology, our money hungry capitalist economy has taken it too far. Before we know it, we won't be able to go to the bathroom without someone monitoring our every move.

Management Objectives Remain Static

Greenbaum and associated thinkers consistently make the outrageous claim that the shift in workplace dynamic is a product of not only a change in technology, but also a radical modification in management objectives. This could not be further from the truth. Capitalism has claimed a defining role in American society from the pre-colonial tobacco days, through the industrial age, and into the digital era. Management objectives are contingent upon the guiding economic system – managers in a capitalist setting will execute their tasks in a given manner, which observably differs from the methodology employed by managers in a socialist setting. Nevertheless, the consistent presence of capitalism has allowed management objectives to remain static – the pursuit of profit is the sole quest of any capitalist manager. In order to maximize profit, costs must be minimized and profits maximized. The ruthless chase of these twin ambitions defines modern capitalist management objectives, just as it has in the past. The tobacco magnets of the Jamestown era did not hesitate in assuming possession of the vast quantities of Native American land needed to grow their crop, often utilizing force to achieve their ends. This lack of concern for native populations continued through America's industrially powered push into the western wilderness – hunting and tribal grounds were seized with nigh impunity in order to facilitate the expansion of railroad lines. Today, capitalist managers continue to exploit underdeveloped populations. Actions are dependent upon objective; the clear consistency in action readily attests to a consistency in objective. The differences that do arise are a product of technology – advances in communication and transportation allow the capitalist manager access to a global reserve army of labor that was previously unusable. In conclusion, management objectives have not changed – profit has been and will continue to be the most prominent operative benchmark in a capitalist society.

Economic Democracy Hurts Quality of Life

Economic Democracy's system of fair, rather than free, trade initially appears praiseworthy. By ensuring that trading may only occur between nations of roughly equivalent socioeconomic conditions and environmental standards, the production and consumption costs in both economies will be similar. If these two criteria are not met, the imports will be subjected to protectionism in the form of tariffs designed to increase prices to the point where domestic alternatives become competitive. This implementation of fair trade seems logical – because there is little cost incentive to import goods, the vast majority of domestic consumption will be satisfied by domestic production, which severely curtails the hyper mobility of capital. By consequence, domestic employment is safer – fewer jobs will relocate overseas as the associated costs will exceed the benefits (not to mention the fact that the workers dominate the system through self management). Despite these purported benefits, fair trade is seriously flawed. Preventing cheaper goods and services from entering the market serves only to reduce the consumption levels of the importing populace – universally higher prices mean that all must make do with less, given steady income levels. As such, workers are hurt – free trade allows for greater consumption, which indicates a higher quality of life. Economies operating under Economic Democracy will continue to exist in a smaller state. In order for the production possibilities frontier (and thus the economy) to expand, high levels of imports are necessary. For much of the 19^th century, the United States engaged in such importation habits*. European governments, determining that large profits would result, readily loaned America funds to purchase imports. These purchases were undertaken in order to force our economy to grow into a dynamic entity. A larger economy means greater output, which results in greater income and consumption spending, which means that the quality of life for workers improves. Fair trade prevents such importation and therefore inhibits worker and economic progress. While it is true that more workers will be employed under Economic Democracy due to less competition, it is also true that every worker will be less well off. This is not a viable alternative.

Source (*) : "Principles of Macroeconomics, Buckles"

Division of Labor

Division of labor can be classified into social division of labor and division of labor in detail. Division of labor is so-called the derivative of the specific character of work. Division of labor practiced by capitalist destroys occupations as the workers insufficient to carry through any complete production process. Under capitalism, work is divided along the sex lines, every man or woman must do their jobs efficiently. Each man and woman has their responsible on a certain part of the processes. Division of labor provides the workers to become expert only in a certain part of job. They only do a part of the whole the processes, even though they have skills to do more than that. So with this principle, capitalist have their reason to pay the workers at a lower wages as they only do a part of the jobs. The workers have no choice and have to follow the routine and are forced to work overtime without any extra wages. This principle become more worst as the workers spend a bunch of hours only on doing the same things, the same part of the processes , which not be worth as making for a single product. We can see that, the quality of the products might be low as there is no skilled workers work in the specific portion to produce the products. However, division of labor sometimes seems like having advantages. Division of labor increases the quantity of work, where the same number of workers in the difference portion of work performing the same work.

COMPUTER and WORK

Technology allows employers to cross the line from monitoring the work to monitoring the worker –Cindia Cameron, National Association of Working Women. Here I would like to discuss about how technologies control us. Nowadays, technology has controlled our daily life. We indirectly become the 'victim' of the human creation. It is true that computer is one of a basic need today, but computers seems to be a nightmare to the workers as computers are commonly used in monitoring workers at factories and clerical offices. Bosses monitoring the worker, prodding them to work faster and discouraging conversation and breaks. All of the workers actions has been monitored, like reduce the amount of time spend on each calls, record the phone conversation. This is too ridiculous to treat the workers who work for their profit to the company like that. The employer treats the workers like robots machines not people- expected them to work more than they can do as a human being.

Work monitoring using the technology becomes more ridiculous as the employer interrupts the workers personal lives. The employer easily can read an employer's e-mail and can see where each of the workers is, even when they go to the bathroom. This has diminishes the worker's dignity and liberty and destroys confidence. Is this the real function of why the technology is invented? In some points, employer seems to misuses the function of technology. Here we can see that, technology acts beyond what they suppose to do- help human in doing work. This happened because of a small groups of people who really want to gain profit without thinking about the welfare of the workers.

Irony of Division of Labor

In the Braverman article, he never clearly states which side of the argument he favors.  He merely explains the historical concepts of the division of labor and science and how these ideas developed into a form of control over the worker.  Although Braverman provides an answer of where division of labor stems from, “apparently inherent in the species character of human labor as soon as it becomes social labor,” this does not reflect the causality of the division of labor in complete detail.  This inherent characteristic is created by the social labor norm that, if a worker provides a service (labor) he expects a return.  Thus, the force behind the division of labor is profit making/capital.

Upon creating a division of labor, the division of labor in detail breaks down the division further.  Now the worker is forced to perform a single or specific task.  Although division of labor is apparent in society, division of labor in the workplace is a way of producing efficiently.  Because the worker only does one task, he is not encouraged to know the skill necessary to create a product.  In this, the sub division of labor in detail is a detrimental harm to education.  It encourages labor standards and creates a glass ceiling for those forced into the workplace.  In order for the division of labor to succeed, there must be a form of control.  To control the labor and enforce standards there is management that oversees the entire process.  The mastermind behind the buying of commodities, dividing-up labor, etc. to create a product efficiently and at the lowest cost possible to gain more capital.  Therefore, the force behind the creation of division of labor is what makes the unskilled workers give up their freedom and become managed or governed within the workplace.  It’s a bit ironic that instead of capitalism serving the people, people become slaves to capitalism.

Architects: The Lawmakers and Codebreakers

Who controls cyberspace?  Although cyberspace is encompassed with government regulations such as copyright infringement laws, it is up to the individuals who create the compounds of cyberspace to enforce government regulations within cyberspace.  Thus, government has limited control within cyberspace.  As Lessig puts it, it is the architects of cyberspace that create the “code” or law of cyberspace. To further explore this idea, it is the “analog for architecture which regulates behavior in cyberspace.”  He says that the “software and hardware that make cyberspace is what constitutes a set of constraints on how you can behave.”  Those who create the software and hardware are the code makers working for big businesses such as AOL, Angelfire, Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Apple and a galaxy of private hosted websites.  Though, for the most part, it is the architects that work for domains like Google that create the laws of cyberspace and without public domains, cyberspace and Internet would be worthless to those that are not the code makers.  These large corporations host hired humans as the programmers that compile software for cyberspace which for serve as the new foundation of our economy.  As capital being the driving force behind competition among corporations, which in turn provides jobs, the current inclusion of hyper-mobility of capital was produced following powerful global networking cyberspace provides.  In essence, cyberspace is the link necessary for the mobility of capital, capital being labor, commodities, etc.; which create work.  In a broad sense, the cyberspace that is programmed or controlled by the coders of big businesses has the ability to influence the entire global working force.  Because these coder’s create the laws of cyberspace, the only thing stopping them from corruption and bringing down the structure of cyberspace and the global market is the two forms of regulation Lessig describes, direct and indirect.  If the laws of government have only limited regulation within cyberspace, they can constrain the choices of the code makers by the direct regulation of punishment. An indirect constraint to the code makers’ power is the very idea of large businesses providing jobs for programmers. It is not just one single company that creates cyberspace, but rather a multitude of programmers working under companies like Microsoft and Google that collaborate their efforts to create cyberspace.  In this indirect form of regulation it isn’t the government placing the constraint; it is the central idea of capitalism.  Competition among large businesses creates jobs for programmers and therefore displacing the power of the architects.