The Ethical Failures Inherent to Labor Under Capitalism
Thesis: All paid labor asks the worker to put aside personal ethical considerations.
Here are the closing two lines.
“Universal Basic Income could be part of the answer for a version of solidarity. The best type of solidarity — where you can stand up for something you think is right without the risk of not being able to feed and clothe yourself.”
I am personally not a Marxist or Socialist by the terms which I understand those ideologies. Frankly, because all ideologies are prone to failure or collapse of their internal logic under some strain of individuality. I am not a real philosopher. Nor, am I a proper journalist. My main interest has been in the revealing of psychologies through the medium of literature. A novelist is like a theoretical physicist — a journalist is like an experimental physicist (there is crossover but a general tenor of interest is usually clear). I operate primarily under the banner of theoretician and the following opinions, in my opinion, would be best expressed by a character involved in the novel situation of their existence — trying to engage with the interplay of thoughts and feelings. A service class worker who feels stuck with the obligations of pretending to care about a job which they don’t. But my writing of that story would sound too much like ‘writer with an agenda’ so might as well make the agenda clear from the get go.
Though it is obvious that this character is quite common. Average in its most depressing context. The problems for these workers seem intractable, and the villains to blame the problems on are oblique. Problems which can’t seem to be wrangled by past solutions. Problems which won’t be solved by consolidation of feeling. That is; novel unionization.
I heard a third hand account of the Starbucks’ workers unionization attempts on the east coast. A marketing writer for the company flew out to listen to their demands. What she came back with to Seattle corporate was, “I’m not even sure they know what they want.”
Hearing this did not surprise me. The curse of the caring class is not such an easy thing to elucidate. In no small part because the worker function they need to pretend is that they care. This is a preposterous position. There is no real possibilities for the worker to care. To enter these jobs which have engaged with radical failure reduction to the point where the worker’s main job is to be in attendance of and for their competency. Where a large part of said competency is pretending that service is their highest desire. Nothing left of mystery. Nothing of a power which makes one be surprised at their capacity for ingenuity. For lack of a better sentence: no more stories. So what is the only narrative? Bad people in power are trying to keep them down. Are they wrong to assume so?
Here I would reference you to the first part of my argument, a ramble into desire.
For this piece I am going to focus on the idea of the villain.
What is the worst type of villain? The kind who does bad things (murder etc) — or — the kind who convinces you to do something bad mostly with the blackmail that you have no other option?
I would suspect most people would choose the latter as the worse villain, especially with some reflection on history.
Now, is the economy full of villains? No. Certainly not. Yet there appears a consistent smattering of banal evils. That is; if you try and bother to have any ethics there’s virtually no way to not cross your ethical boundaries. Or if you try to seriously enforce the boundaries you have to be so absurdly dogmatic about it that it borders on the ridiculous (que video of vegan eating pizza and realizing there’s egg in the tomato sauce and chucking the box at the wall). Dogmatism which risks becoming the villain.
So that doesn’t seem like a solution, but one can’t do nothing. Maybe there’s some value in general casual disruption? Trying to unionize even while knowing the act isn’t going to change the part of the work you actually find most distasteful. But that idea is also depressing because it has no real outcome. Like being involved in a revolution which can never truly find the bad guy. You end up looking like you’re trying to fight phantoms. And not even in a romantic way like Don Quixote — this fight is far more sad with its anger. One doesn’t even get the satisfaction of fighting a windmill; they’re literally fighting the wind.
The wind of competency. Something I’ve smelled in the air my entire life — the strangeness of modern cities where (with a few exceptions) one needs a personal vehicle to work. The rarity and strangeness of this as compared to the rest of human history and the knowledge, now, that not only is this disruptive to the environment and climate (which is more than enough to second guess the necessity of fossil fuels) but is also a finite way of existence.
Part of my personal ethics is driving very little. This hogties my work prospects (prospects which were scarce to begin with, as I’ve blundered down the road of artistry rather than professionalism).
Granted, there’s much in a life which wouldn’t be bumped up against by making different decisions. For example; studying hard to qualify in more meaningful practice. The bootstraps argument, essentially. But this argument strikes me as an insincere piece of justification. How many doctors and lawyers and architects and engineers and chemists could the economy really support? And are these not also the professions which might ask the deepest betrayal of one’s personal ethics? Literally where in order to keep existing they have to take up a — shaky at best — ethical position and rationalize it as the only logical thing.
This is a personal story. I have a cousin who passed the bar and is in the practice of political lobbying. A few years ago in North Dakota there was a conflict with Native Americans on reservation land protesting the placement of an oil pipeline under one of their lakes. My cousin was lobbying for the oil companies. I heard his argument; that there had been paperwork and bills up for debate in the congress for a couple years. The Natives should’ve aired their protests at that juncture. Of course, from a certain perspective this is reasonable. Ethical? Doubtful. (Another example of shaky ethics would be the chemist who spends their working day manufacturing medicines with known side effects.)
It seems like one is more highly compensated the more one is willing to sacrifice personal ethics.
So the question becomes not if one is going to sacrifice their ethics but when and to what degree and magnitude. Which is where the feeling of intractability feels unbeatable. It will be asked of you regardless, might as well make a good living while you’re at it to enjoy the comforts and predictability of a service industry, which to avoid bumping up against reflection of one’s own ethical loss, is manufactured with a built in necessity for the worker to face the same ethical sacrifice as has been forced onto you.
So what or who is the villain here? Honestly, the closer I get to an explanation the farther away said explanation feels from true authenticity. The saying that, “the path to hell is paved with good intentions” comes frequently to mind. But is that feeling/thought defensible? As a metaphor it is rather too broad and I must acknowledge inside myself that my feelings/thoughts are lacking in an understanding of “getting with the program” as a consequence of training myself to think like a contrarian.
And yet I still have eyes. It is true that covering the Earth with cement and asphalt roads is certainly not hell for humans. It is the realization of travel and convenience. Yet I do contend that having an ethical sense for some of these conveniences will become more and more important — and if the average worker is restricted from being able to hold steady to their own ethical convictions there is a far greater danger of catastrophic failure.
The average worker’s primary complaint is their requirement to provide conveniences for compensation which is only sufficient to keep them alive. And as such (this is the devil in the details which I have been trying to tackle) are seemingly unable to reject partaking even if they might think different choices would be preferable (think the overworked person who gets fast food because they feel like they don’t have the time or energy to cook).
Could this be avoided? Certainly. All rituals, habits, political sentiments are manufactured to one degree or another — but when born into said sentiments they seem impossible to deny. Again, like fighting the wind.
This is why I’ve been convinced that something like Universal Basic Income will be the only way for the average worker to again find their personal ethics. If delivered correctly, with a genuine heartfelt speech and good intentions, the ethics could be built into the function. Universal Basic Income could be part of the answer for a version of solidarity. The best type of solidarity — where you can stand up for something you think is right without the risk of not being able to feed and clothe yourself.
