The Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism: How Market Tyranny Stifles the Economy by Stunting Workers (43 page)

More than a century ago, the British novelist H. G. Wells, while capturing the technical shortcomings of Procrusteanism, certainly exaggerated, when he suggested:

Were our political and social and moral devices only as well contrived to their ends as the linotype machine, an antiseptic operating plant, or an electric streetcar, there need now be no appreciable toil in the world and only the smallest fraction of the pain, the fear, and the anxiety that now makes human life so doubtful in value.
⁶²

Wells seems to imagine that the problem is technical—something that could be taught in a business class on human relations. Life will always contain a certain amount of hard work, and even drudgery, but modern technology is rapidly diminishing the necessary amounts of both. This decline would be far greater in a more rational society without the unnecessary trappings of Procrusteanism.

Going beyond Procrusteanism, a more sophisticated society would make work conform more to the needs of the workers rather than the reverse, which is the norm today. The resulting freedom and creativity could unleash a burst of productivity, that could actually diminish the need for drudgery.

No Fairy-Tale Ending

Mythological metaphors, such as the story of Procrustes, may be particularly appropriate for getting a handle on a society with a less-than-firm grasp of reality. This book has argued that the fate of working people is Procrustean: they are expected to sacrifice themselves to work in order that the market can provide them with things. The market is supposed to care for their needs in this way, but in reality, working people merely function as a means to an end (human capital), rather than as an end in themselves.

The Procrustean analogy does fall short in one sense. The current economy certainly stretches the poor to conform to the iron bed; at the same time, the rich can recline on a comfortable bed that is decidedly not Procrustean. Rather than cutting down the rich to fit them into a restrictive iron bed, the economy showers them with even more rewards, according to the earlier-discussed Matthew Effect.

The saving grace of the Procrustean economy is supposedly its capacity to mobilize labor and resources efficiently. Instead, the case is made in this book that the Procrustean economy fails miserably in that respect, especially in its ability to take advantage of the full capacities of the people who do the work.

A post-Procrustean economy would value possessions only if they elevate the quality of life. Anyone who suffers under the illusion that markets adequately supply the means to improve the quality of life needs only turn on a television set. Here is a technology with the capacity to uplift and enlighten people. Instead, it becomes nothing more than a means to promote consumption, while distracting and misinforming us.

How do we go about creating a non-Procrustean economy that could actually accommodate people? In such an economy, new technology would not threaten people with unemployment or reduced wages but instead would offer them an opportunity for more leisure or at least better working conditions. On a more profound level, a non-Procrustean economy would be arranged so that people would have an opportunity to find fulfillment on the job—not just satisfying
themselves with monetary rewards for following the commands of their superiors, but also providing a chance to act creatively in a way that actually provides enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment.

Just as Procrustes turned the countryside into a wasteland, the modern Procrusteans are doing enormous damage to the economy, which, ironically, is their pride and joy. So while the Procrusteans can bask amid the luxury that the economy provides them, they do nothing to maintain the real foundation of the economy that ultimately sustains them—the people who do the work and the environment in which they live. As a result, a creeping depression has been engulfing an increasing share of the population in the United States for almost four decades.

In contrast to the shock of the Great Depression, a slow decline can cause acquiescence, like the proverbial frog that fails to react when the temperature of water gently rises to the boiling point. In any case, under no circumstance will the story end like the Procrustes myth. No heroic young king will bring retribution. Only with hard work, courage, and imagination will people be able to slay the monster and begin to create a wholesome way of life.

Any efforts to create a better way of life will meet considerable resistance from people who presently enjoy a disproportionate share of wealth and privilege. Support for Procrustean ethic will not come just from the rich and powerful. Many of the less fortunate, who will benefit the most from a new system, will also remain unconvinced of any benefits, or even fearful of change.

However, with enough patience and dedication, change is possible. We will begin to see that a more equitable society actually improves our physical and mental health, even for those of us who would otherwise sit near the peak of the social pyramid. In fact, in a post-Procrustean economy, the class lines, which economics has worked so hard to mantain, would finally disappear.

Conclusion

This book offers a dual critique of both economics and market relations. Its message is that because of the exclusion of the issues of work, workers, and working conditions, both economics and market relations impede the development of the human, as well as the productive, potential of society.

Economists generally accept Lionel Robbins’s definition of their discipline as “the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means that have alternative uses.”
⁶³
Economists find confirmation in this approach in their experiments with rats, but neither their studies of humans or rats offer much insight into human behavior. Instead, most economists fail to understand the pitfalls of their restrictive vision.
⁶⁴

Rather than studying human life, economists have created a fictional concept of the
homo economicus
, in which commercial activity exists separate from the rest of life. Fictions are often necessary abstractions to help people get a grasp on a complex subject, but simplifications should not come at the expense of excluding essential aspects. This book concentrated on only one: the absence of work, workers, and working conditions.

The concept of an economy is another example of a simplification that obscures reality. I can do no better than cite the words of the French historian Fernand Braudel:

The worst error of all is to suppose that capitalism is simply “an economic system,” whereas in fact it lives off the social order, standing almost on a footing with the state, whether as adversary or accomplice; it is and always has been a massive force, filling the horizon. Capitalism also benefits from all the supports that culture provides for the solidity of the social edifice.
⁶⁵

A person who cooks a meal at home for a worker contributes to productive activity just as certainly as the worker in the factory. A parent who nurtures a child is making an investment in future production,
as much as an executive who decides to invest in a new piece of equipment. Leisure-time experiences that make workers fuller people are also productive.

Of course, non-commercial activities, such as food preparation or the nurturing of children, are more than acts of economic production, but the exclusion of their contribution contaminates much economic analysis.

Yet economists often become indignant when people question their approach, in effect treating skeptics as either fools or enemies of science. This stance reminds me of the Hindu fable about a group of blind men feeling different parts of an elephant, each convinced that the animal is something altogether different—a snake, a rope, a tree. Although they “feel” part of the elephant, they stand convinced that they alone understand the elephant. Unlike the blind men, who must have been aware of their physical limitations, economists put themselves forward as objective scientists, who see no need to engage those who fail to appreciate their rigor—which sometimes resembles rigor mortis.

The blindness of economics is self-inflicted. Many economists are absolutely brilliant. As people, many economists are also warm, generous, and socially conscious. Yet the discipline maims itself by imposing a restrictive frame of analysis that narrowly defines its boundaries.

The blindness of business is somewhat different. The human relations perspective described in the previous chapter is correct. Business often leaves money on the table because of its short-sighted practices. But I argue that the problem goes deeper—that markets have something tyrannical embedded into their DNA.

The blindness of market society is even more troubling. The modern world faces urgent global challenges, such as global warming. Finding solutions will require a better system of social organization than relying on individualistic, profit-maximizing behavior.

Environmentalists have long recoiled at the way economists have downplayed negative environmental consequences as externalities because they are non-priced. Feminists have resented the absence of women’s (and men’s) non-commercial activities from economic analysis. In the same spirit, this book has criticized the intentional exclusion
of work, workers, and working conditions, reminding us, as Marx recognized, that “the secret of bourgeois production [is] that it is dominated by exchange-value.”
⁶⁶
Solutions depend on the creation of a cooperative system that can take a long-term perspective, nurturing both people and the environment. At this moment, I think back to Michelangelo’s
Bearded Slave
, hoping that this book has contributed to the realization that Procrusteanism is a dangerous barrier to progress in meeting the pressing problems that face the world today. I can only hope that the message of this book might contribute to a rethinking of economics, releasing it from its stolid ideological confines.

1.
Jacob August Riis,
The Making of an American
(New York: Macmillan, 1922), 253.

2.
Paul Krugman and Robin Wells,
Macroeconomics
, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 2009), 488.

1.
Robert Harris, “How Kinnock Could Ruin the Lady’s Waltz, Labour’s Challenge,”
The Times
(London), May 7, 1989.

2.
Charles Darwin,
The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex
(1871; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 3.

3.
Edmund Burke,
Thoughts and Details on Scarcity
, in
The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke
,
The Revolutionary War, 1794–1797, and Ireland
, Vol. 9, ed. R. B. McDowell and Paul Langford (1795; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 137.

4.
Howard E. Fischer,
Arizona Star,
December 8, 1999, quoted in John E. Schwarz,
Freedom Reclaimed: Rediscovering the American Vision
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 6.

5.
Frederick Winslow Taylor,
The Principles of Scientific Management
(1911; New York: W. W. Norton, 1967), 7.

6.
Max Weber,
Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology
, 3 vols., eds. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (1921; New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), 636–37.

7.
Max Weber,
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings
(1904–5; New York: Penguin Classics, 2002), 121, 13.

8.
Albert O. Hirschman,
The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).

9.
Adam Smith,
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
, 2 vols., eds. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (1789; New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), I.ii.2, 26–27 [Note that the
Wealth of Nations
references are to book, section, and paragraph].

10.
John Maynard Keynes,
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
(London: Macmillan, 1936), 374.

11.
F. Y. Edgeworth,
Mathematical Psychics: An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences
(London: Kegan Paul, 1881), 16–17.

12.
See Michael Perelman,
The Invention of Capitalism: The Secret History of Primitive Accumulation
(Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2000).

13.
Thomas Robert Malthus,
An Essay on the Principle of Population: Text, Sources and Background, Criticism
, ed. Philip Appleman (1798; New York: Norton, 1967), 100.

14.
Lawrence A. Weschler,
A Miracle, A Universe: Settling Accounts with Torturers
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1990), 147; also cited in Naomi Klein,
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
(New York: Henry Holt, 2007), 116.

1.
Greg LeRoy,
The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation
(San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2005).

2.
Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh,
The Top 200: The Rise of Global Corporate Power
(Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies, 2000).