“The idea of having to ‘earn a living’ implies that by default, you don’t actually deserve to be alive.”
James Ellars
Not surprisingly, America’s growing union movement is disagreeable to our wealthy ruling minority, because when workers stick together, they can put pressure on business owners to share the wealth—and power. Capitalism, a system of taking, not sharing, ideally works in a circle. Owners take labor from workers to produce salable items, then take money from buyers, who are workers who take wages from owners for producing those items. Those who pay for labor know that people who sell their labor will work for less if they do not believe they are worth it—hence the notion of “earning a living.” Those who need to sell their labor for survival will not get their living, unless they believe themselves worthy of collectively demanding it.
Rational agreements between management and labor about how much work for how much pay are rare. Compromises are only reached based on the skill of each side to convince the other side that it has no choice but to accept what is offered. In the ongoing struggle between owners and workers, the two sides have rarely been evenly matched. Since the Industrial Revolution began, the deck has been stacked in favor of the owners, whose close connections with the ruling classes allowed them to assume a natural sense of superiority. Laborers came from the peasant classes, who for millennia had been force-fed their inborn inferiority. The owners have always had ample financial reserves, while workers need their daily bread every day. Hungry people take what they are offered, along with reminders about how lucky they are to have jobs which enable them to eat. These attitudes still prevail throughout American society.
Plutocrats believe that they have “earned” their wealth and status by innovation and hard work. If they must pay people to make and distribute their products and services, they will of course demand that those they hire “earn their living.” Owners believe that people paying the wages are entitled to decide the pace of labor, the hours worked, and the wages earned. Workers hope to get their needed living without being worked to death. Employers, having since the beginning held the most resources, sell their products and services for high prices, while paying their required workers as little as possible—resulting in excessive profits, which encourage greed, an addiction which, like all others, is completely illogical. The addict always needs more, and will do anything to get the next fix.
Usually, workers accept the status quo, until eventually their wages can no longer cover their needs. Employers, addicted to profits, never willingly part with any of them. Workers, hopelessly overwhelmed as individuals, can only meet their needs if they reject the sentiment that employers have the authority to determine who deserves to be alive, and have enough sense of self-worth to band together democratically to take what they need. In our democratic society, we must continue practicing democracy to retain a healthy society. But political democracy is ineffective without social and economic democracy. For the laboring class to deal with the owner class on reasonably equal grounds, organized labor is the most effective and least-disruptive device we have—essential to democracy’s survival.
Between the 1930’s and 1970’s, unionization expanded in The United States, and democracy, along with the general welfare, expanded with it. Rich people stayed rich, but the masses who toiled to keep them wealthy also lived more comfortably than any commoners, ever. Workers could buy more of what they made, which increased profits. And while money of course isn’t everything, financial stability did provide workers with a substantial sense of self-worth. As a result, social stability and general loyalty to the country were widespread.
Though the wealthy stayed that way, economic gains and subsequent self-esteem among the proletariat irked some elites, who apparently needed to wield the godlike authority of deciding who earns survival. A movement was formed (led by Rand, Friedman, Buckley, and the usual suspects) which grew in influence after WWII. This movement celebrates totally selfish individualism, claiming greed to be the source of all progress, therefore the only indispensable human instinct. The movement’s leaders were, and are, hostile to all compromises with labor unions, and to society’s efforts to improve life for people who have no choice but to sell their labor. The movement’s leading lights preach that government functions beyond police and military could turn America into a communist dictatorship. They believe that unrestrained capitalism is the only system that allows true freedom for everyone—if everyone is free to get as rich as possible, everyone is set free to get rich—or die poor, but free.
The high priests of greed conveniently overlook history, which records that absolute free enterprise enabled a shrinking few to acquire enormous wealth, while most people grew poorer. They overlook the fact that plutocrats stifled democracy in order to increase their power, and that once in power, plutocrats stifled the very same free enterprise that got them there. They overlook the fact that unregulated capitalism led to wars and depressions, in which millions (mostly laborers) suffered. By the 1950’s, unrestricted capitalism’s inability to serve anyone but the rich was so obvious that few Americans favored its restoration.
Knowing they could not sell workers on the viewpoint that wealth indicated moral, intellectual, even spiritual superiority, capitalism’s preachers enlisted allies among working class racists, xenophobes, and religious fundamentalists. They claimed that “others” were lazily exploiting “real” Americans, who earned their living by working. The resulting alliance has been successful politically, while unions have lost power and influence, causing American workers to suffer a decline in their general economic conditions. Now, the rich are wealthier than ever in comparison to everyone else, while workers are expected to consider themselves lucky to have jobs. Again we learn that by denying self-respect to “others,” we lose it for ourselves.
Until the pandemic upended the status quo, plutocracy’s economic and political power enabled its members to rob and harass the majority in the lower classes, with few consequences. Racial and religious minorities now live under increasing threats. Society has been fragmented—some would say, broken. But as society struggles to rebuild after the COVID-19 chaos, the top-down power structure is again being challenged. Workers, many of whom were terminated and forced to change jobs as businesses closed, have begun to overcome their minor differences, and to sense their shared needs. With prices outstripping wages, unionization is attracting more workers, and stronger unions are striking, successfully. Workers are demanding, and getting, respect from employers, by working together for common goals.
Few workers actually advocate complete socialism, whereby workers take over the entire economy. Most understand that management is as essential to successful economies as production and distribution, and are even willing to let the bosses have a larger piece of the ample product of our industrial society, for performing their difficult yet essential roles. Workers are also realizing, again, that they deserve a fair share of the abundance they produce, and that they can get what they earn only by collectively demanding that owners share. But we must remember that greed never sleeps. Working class Americans will need to repair and maintain a democratic society to keep the economic justice they are starting to retake. We all must respect and protect the inalienable rights of everyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if we would keep them for ourselves.