nakedcapitalism | precarity is the result of the shift in the last couple of
generations of business revenues away from workers and towards profits,
or capital, if you prefer. And that most people are far too complacent
about that because they have deeply internalized prevailing
market/neoliberal ideology.
Robert Heilbroner identified this tendency in his 1988 book, Behind
the Veil of Economics. A major focus was contrasting the source of
discipline under feudalism versus under capitalism. Heilbroner argues it
was the bailiff and the lash, that lords would incarcerate and beat
serfs who didn’t pull their weight. But the lord had obligations to his
serfs too, so this relationship was not as one-sided as it might seem.
By contrast, Heilbroner argues that the power structure under capitalism
is far less obvious:
This negative form of power contrasts sharply with with that of the privileged elites in precapitalist social formations. In these imperial kingdoms or feudal holdings, disciplinary power is exercised by the direct use or display of coercive power. The social power of capital is of a different kind….The capitalist may deny others access to his resources, but he may not force them to work with him. Clearly, such power requires circumstances that make the withholding of access of critical consequence. These circumstances can only arise if the general populace is unable to secure a living unless it can gain access to privately owned resources or wealth…
The organization of production is generally regarded as a wholly “economic” activity, ignoring the political function served by the wage-labor relationships in lieu of bailiffs and senechals. In a like fashion, the discharge of political authority is regarded as essentially separable from the operation of the economic realm, ignoring the provision of the legal, military, and material contributions without which the private sphere could not function properly or even exist. In this way, the presence of the two realms, each responsible for part of the activities necessary for the maintenance of the social formation, not only gives capitalism a structure entirely different from that of any precapitalist society, but also establishes the basis for a problem that uniquely preoccupies capitalism, namely, the appropriate role of the state vis-a-vis the sphere of production and distribution.
The bygone decade is marked by a radical change in relations between employers and employees. According to recent research by the Bank of England,
the labour share of income in the last thirty to forty years
significantly fell in the USA and in other advanced economies as well.
The decline of influence of labour as well as new technologies adopted
by big corporations have led to new forms of employment: mostly
flexible, low-payed, unstable jobs that are underregulated by labour
legislation.
The state of things in capital-labour relations with constant
redistribution of wealth and power to capital owners is without
exaggeration class warfare (an expression, with a good reason, constantly used by Bernie Sanders). Ideology is ready as a powerful weapon in this class war. Media, internet, books and experts
strive to persuade workers that this state of insecurity is necessary,
normal or even desirable. And the defenders of flexible and unstable
jobs claim that this is objective logic of economy which has nothing to do with political decision-making.
