The Empire Wins - 1
I write the first of my series of short essays, highlighting in each of them the ways the people of this earth have given over their lives to big businesses - which collectively make up what I call "the Empire". It is important to bear in mind that this Empire has no allegiance to any nation, race, community or religion. It has come to power and plans to be in power for the sole purpose of getting wealty, or if already wealthy, then even wealthier. You will therefore realise that when it comes to wealth, there is nothing like "enough" for those who are a part of this. The unspoken code being, "make as much as you can". If you are a victim to this empire's power and policies, you would already know much of what I am going to write in the following essays.
I would be incomplete in my job if I don't express my reasons to be pessimistic about overthrowing this empire. That will have a lot to do with the distinctions this empire shares with the empires humankind has known, the Romans, the Ottoman empire, the British, post war East Europe, to name a few. For the moment, I write of the first of the victories that this empire had, fought in the heart of villages and towns of 1600's England, what has been fashionably called, or I daresay hailed, as the Industrial Revolution. It's a victory that laid the foundation to much of the mayhem we have in the world today, harmless and well - intentioned though it may sound. It told those big businesses in England that the people can be defeated. But what was that victory?
Privatisation of means of production :
In truth, small amounts of privatisation always existed all over the world. I myself have heard of small groups of people in my country many years back (compare them to small business partnerships) who were given charge of small plots of land, with the status of ownership, and whose job it was to farm and sell the produce at a premium. But privatisation as it started in late 1600's England was different in three vital ways. One, the holdings were large, whatever the means of production was; that meant that these small groups could now control larger parts of the industry. Secondly, and more importantly, such groups found themselves out of the boundaries of the legal system which were in place for ordinary members of the public. And thirdly, ownership of either textile or steel had now nothing to do with either one's location or proximity of residence with respect to the holding. A man in Bristol could jolly well be the owner of minefields far north in Newcastle. Put the three factors together, and you will see the danger they posed to the living conditions of the working English public.
However, dangerous though these new terms were, they would have been impotent had it not been for one important way that was to become the signature of most modern day businesses that make our empire up, since then. Having representatives in the government. It is this factor, that was in turn responsible for these private businesses finding themselves out of the reach of the law, that made them so difficult for the public to fight against. But there were protests, as you would expect. Why should a farmer who has been living on his farm for generations love to see it go to some other man, just because he could make a higher bid for it according to his means? Vasts protests were seen all across the country; not just by those who worked in businesses, but even from many small businessmen themselves, who suddenly found themselves stripped off their means of livelyhoods.
I am particularly hitting out against the naive and modern view according to which the rise of capitalism was "natural and inevitable". As you can see, there was nothing natural in a whole nation falling prey to small groups who could now control their lives. No farmer naturally gives his land over to someone else. Capitalism as an economic system was entirely artificial and deliberate. The laws that allow such small group holding of means of production had to be passed so as to meet the interests of those it seeked, and the military strength of the nation had to be called for when the public rose in protests against this life-takeover. Rather, it is not capitalism, but the resentment and dissatisfaction about it that ought to be natural and inevitable, unless the whole nation lost it's head. I will dwell later to what made this particular fallacy about capitalism so popular.
Thus, the first battle against the people was won. It was not new in a way that Mr.Y had to work for Mr.X in order to live, that was happening anyway. But now, Mr. X was exempt of laws and regulations, albeit informal and mutual, that regulated his business. He could make Mr.Y work for hours unlike what it used to be. With a few people in control of even the essentials of a nation, Mr.Y did not fancy his chances anymore of finding another employer in case he was unhappy with his employer, Mr. X. Mr. Y, for whatever he was paid, was effectively a slave of his owner.
I admit I might have inadvertently given you the impression that things got real bad real quick. The takeover was gradual and for a long time, given on the resistance the business groups faced, certain parts of the industry took centuries to be brought under their ownership! Take the privatisation of the mines in the mid 70's for example. What I did intend to do in the previous paragraphs was to spell out the ways things did turn out to be, no matter the length of time. It tells us what the privatisation of businesses meant for the people as a whole, or might mean someday if you can name for me some industry which as as of yet untouched and under public control. And why was privatisation, along with the tradition of having private representatives high up in the politics, meant the first and in many ways the deciding victory for the empire.
I would be incomplete in my job if I don't express my reasons to be pessimistic about overthrowing this empire. That will have a lot to do with the distinctions this empire shares with the empires humankind has known, the Romans, the Ottoman empire, the British, post war East Europe, to name a few. For the moment, I write of the first of the victories that this empire had, fought in the heart of villages and towns of 1600's England, what has been fashionably called, or I daresay hailed, as the Industrial Revolution. It's a victory that laid the foundation to much of the mayhem we have in the world today, harmless and well - intentioned though it may sound. It told those big businesses in England that the people can be defeated. But what was that victory?
Privatisation of means of production :
In truth, small amounts of privatisation always existed all over the world. I myself have heard of small groups of people in my country many years back (compare them to small business partnerships) who were given charge of small plots of land, with the status of ownership, and whose job it was to farm and sell the produce at a premium. But privatisation as it started in late 1600's England was different in three vital ways. One, the holdings were large, whatever the means of production was; that meant that these small groups could now control larger parts of the industry. Secondly, and more importantly, such groups found themselves out of the boundaries of the legal system which were in place for ordinary members of the public. And thirdly, ownership of either textile or steel had now nothing to do with either one's location or proximity of residence with respect to the holding. A man in Bristol could jolly well be the owner of minefields far north in Newcastle. Put the three factors together, and you will see the danger they posed to the living conditions of the working English public.
However, dangerous though these new terms were, they would have been impotent had it not been for one important way that was to become the signature of most modern day businesses that make our empire up, since then. Having representatives in the government. It is this factor, that was in turn responsible for these private businesses finding themselves out of the reach of the law, that made them so difficult for the public to fight against. But there were protests, as you would expect. Why should a farmer who has been living on his farm for generations love to see it go to some other man, just because he could make a higher bid for it according to his means? Vasts protests were seen all across the country; not just by those who worked in businesses, but even from many small businessmen themselves, who suddenly found themselves stripped off their means of livelyhoods.
I am particularly hitting out against the naive and modern view according to which the rise of capitalism was "natural and inevitable". As you can see, there was nothing natural in a whole nation falling prey to small groups who could now control their lives. No farmer naturally gives his land over to someone else. Capitalism as an economic system was entirely artificial and deliberate. The laws that allow such small group holding of means of production had to be passed so as to meet the interests of those it seeked, and the military strength of the nation had to be called for when the public rose in protests against this life-takeover. Rather, it is not capitalism, but the resentment and dissatisfaction about it that ought to be natural and inevitable, unless the whole nation lost it's head. I will dwell later to what made this particular fallacy about capitalism so popular.
Thus, the first battle against the people was won. It was not new in a way that Mr.Y had to work for Mr.X in order to live, that was happening anyway. But now, Mr. X was exempt of laws and regulations, albeit informal and mutual, that regulated his business. He could make Mr.Y work for hours unlike what it used to be. With a few people in control of even the essentials of a nation, Mr.Y did not fancy his chances anymore of finding another employer in case he was unhappy with his employer, Mr. X. Mr. Y, for whatever he was paid, was effectively a slave of his owner.
I admit I might have inadvertently given you the impression that things got real bad real quick. The takeover was gradual and for a long time, given on the resistance the business groups faced, certain parts of the industry took centuries to be brought under their ownership! Take the privatisation of the mines in the mid 70's for example. What I did intend to do in the previous paragraphs was to spell out the ways things did turn out to be, no matter the length of time. It tells us what the privatisation of businesses meant for the people as a whole, or might mean someday if you can name for me some industry which as as of yet untouched and under public control. And why was privatisation, along with the tradition of having private representatives high up in the politics, meant the first and in many ways the deciding victory for the empire.
posted by Atanu Bandyopadhyay at
9:39 pm
|
1 comments
