[continued from previous message]
>capacities to such an extent that many people work not only to survive
>but also to have something to do. But what kind of initiative does this
>instill?
>Let's go back to global warming, one of the most serious crises facing
>the planet. After decades of denial, politicians and businessmen have
>finally swung into action to do something about it. And what are they
>doing? Casting about for ways to cash in! Carbon credits, "clean" coal,
>"green" investment firms--who believes that these are the most effective
>way to curb the production of greenhouse gases? It's ironic that a
>catastrophe caused by capitalist consumerism can be used to spur more
>consumption, but it reveals a lot about the kind of initiative work
>instills. What kind of person, confronted with the task of preventing
>the end of life on earth, responds, "Sure, but what's in it for me?"
>If everything in our society has to be driven by a profit motive to
>succeed, that might not be initiative after all, but something
>else. Really taking initiative, initiating new values and new modes of
>behavior--this is as unthinkable to the enterprising businessman as it is
>to his most listless employee. What if working--that is, leasing your
>creative powers to others, whether managers or customers--actually erodes
>initiative?
>The evidence for this extends beyond the workplace. How many people who
>never miss a day of work can't show up on time for band practice? We
>can't keep up with the reading for our book clubs even when we can
>finish papers for school on time; the things we really want to do with
>our lives end up at the bottom of the to-do list. The ability to follow
>through on commitments becomes something outside ourselves, associated
>with external rewards or punishments.
>Imagine a world in which everything people do, they do because they want
>to, because they are personally invested in bringing it about. For any
>boss who has struggled to motivate indifferent employees, the idea of
>working with people who are equally invested in the same projects sounds
>utopian. But this isn't proof that nothing would get done without bosses
>and salaries--it just shows how work saps us of initiative.
>Let's say your job never injures, poisons, or sickens you. Let's also
>take it for granted that the economy doesn't crash and take your job and
>savings with it, and that no one who got a worse deal than you manages
>to hurt or rob you. You still can't be sure you won't be
>downsized. Nowadays nobody works for the same employer his whole life;
>you work somewhere a few years until they let you go for someone younger
>and cheaper or outsource your job overseas. You can break your back to
>prove you're the best in your field and still end up hung out to dry.
>You have to count on your employers to make shrewd decisions so they can
>write your paycheck--they can't just fritter money away or they won't
>have it to pay you. But you never know when that shrewdness will turn
>against you: the ones you depend on for your livelihood didn't get where
>they are by being sentimental. If you're self-employed, you probably
>know how fickle the market can be, too.
>What could provide real security? Perhaps being part of a long-term
>community in which people looked out for each other, a community based
>on mutual assistance rather than financial incentives. And what is one
>of the chief obstacles to building that kind of community today? Work.
>Who carried out most of the injustices in history? Employees. This is
>not necessarily to say they are responsible for them--as they would be
>the first to tell you!
>Does receiving a wage absolve you of responsibility for your actions?
>Working seems to foster the impression that it does. The Nuremburg
>defense--"I was just following orders"--has been the anthem and alibi of
>millions of employees. This willingness to check one's conscience at the
>workplace door--to be, in fact, a mercenary--lies at the root of many of
>the troubles plaguing our species.
>People have done horrible things without orders, too--but not nearly so
>many horrible things. You can reason with a person who is acting for
>herself; she acknowledges that she is accountable for her
>decisions. Employees, on the other hand, can do unimaginably dumb and
>destructive things while refusing to think about the consequences.
>The real problem, of course, isn't employees refusing to take
>responsibility for their actions--it's the economic system that makes
>taking responsibility so prohibitively expensive.
>Employees dump toxic waste into rivers and oceans.
>Employees slaughter cows and perform experiments on monkeys.
>Employees throw away truckloads of food.
>Employees are destroying the ozone layer.
>They watch your every move through security cameras.
>They evict you when you don't pay your rent.
>They imprison you when you don't pay your taxes.
>They humiliate you when you don't do your homework or show up to work on
>time.
>They enter information about your private life into credit reports and
>FBI files.
>They give you speeding tickets and tow your car.
>They administer standardized exams, juvenile detention centers, and
>lethal injections.
>The soldiers who herded people into gas chambers were employees,
>Just like the soldiers occupying Iraq and Afghanistan,
>Just like the suicide bombers who target them--they are employees of God,
>hoping to be paid in paradise.
>Let's be clear about this--critiquing work doesn't mean rejecting labor,
>effort, ambition, or commitment. It doesn't mean demanding that
>everything be fun or easy. Fighting against the forces that compel us to
>work is hard work. Laziness is not the alternative to work, though it
>might be a byproduct of it.
>The bottom line is simple: all of us deserve to make the most of our
>potential as we see fit, to be the masters of our own destinies. Being
>forced to sell these things away to survive is tragic and
>humiliating. **We don't have to live like this**.
>Source:
>
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
