Brad McCormick:
>Slavery by identifiable persons, or slavery by "no one" ("The
>invisible hand" which supposedly gives even the CEOs of gigabillion
>dollar global corporations no choice -- but Marx already talked about
>this
>in Das Kapital, where he observed that the only way the work day
>was shortened in 19th Century England had to be thru *legislation*,
>because the market would drive out of business any entrepreneur who
>tried to improve his workers' conditions unilaterally).
One shouldn't overlook Robert Owen and other 19th century reformers who
tried to set examples of how workers should be treated. But you are
generally correct. The only way to shorten the work week and improve
working conditions during the 19th century was through legislation, and even
then, the problem of enforcement remained. It wasn't until the union
movement of the 20th century that labour made genuine gains.
By the way, what has happened to that movement? At one time, it was a
strong force for social change. Now it seems to do little more than
represent a particular group interest, and that interest appears to be
concerned with little more than ensuring that it gets its "slice of the pie"
even if no one else gets any pie.
I like the story of the poor old Cyclopes and the clever Ulysses. However,
I
would argue that the tyrant is ourselves -- all of us. But that is for
another posting, if I get around to it.
Ed Weick
