Commentary on Information-Driven Economies

The following is a debate/dialogue between Rob Salkowitz and myself (Thomas), that began on August 21, 2005 after I read his article "The One-Dimensional Work World" which can be found at http://emphasisadded.com/2005/07/26.html

The exchange is an interesting one, and I suggest you begin by reading Salkowitz's article, following the link above, and continue by reading the exchange of thoughts in the order below.

Thomas (Aug 21, 2005)

The One-Dimensional Work World by Rob Salkowitz is cleverly written and insightful, though I found a few points I do not agree with. In the first place, the initial analogy implies (when inverted) that all people in our "information-driven society" who do not possess the set of skills required to become a part of the public-relations elite, are necessarily going to have to struggle for "minimum wage work" or "inferior social or economic status." I mean, is this really true? As far as I'm aware of, many labour-intensive jobs (i.e. plumbing, welding, brick-laying etc.) are paid fairly well, and for the most part carried out under safe conditions, even when compared to a lot of the jobs which are information-driven. I would go as far as saying that the working class individual (understood in this instance as he/she who performs manual work in industrialized countries) is part of what can be referred to as the aristocracy of the proletariat (as Lenin called them). Can we honestly say that today, working class as previously mentioned can be characterized as "the lowest-value rungs on the occupational ladder", one that is potentially revolutionary as a result of the exploitative conditions to which it is exposed on a daily basis? At least in those countries which form the core of the international capitalist system, we know this not to be the case. The working class has thus far failed to liberate itself from capitalism here. Whether this is a result of its own weaknesses, or a demonstration of capital's strength, matters little in this context. The bottom line is that workers (including but not only those involved in manual labour) have not broken the chains which imprison them, and thus there's a need for a vision. And so I ask myself, how credible is Rob Salkowitz’s presumably remorseful self-criticism that, despite the state of affairs to which he contributes through his work as opinion creator, he along with those like him are to be blamed? And isn't his conclusion that they should "accommodate a wider range of views and attitudes toward work" out of self-interest, essentially to preserve the present system, only a way to assure that a revolutionary agenda be pushed (yet again) into reformist channels? Rob Salkowitz doesn't seem to want a different society, but merely one characterized by a more lenient ruling class, where information workers ("intellectuals") such as him may continue to prosper in the long term, thus continuing to undermine the dream which they allegedly espouse on the working class’ behalf. Of course it is important to incorporate all opinions, particularly those committed to a radically different world. But it is important to do so with a clear motive. That is, it is important to do so to actually inspire people, to convince them that a different world is both possible and desirable, not to show our benevolent inclination by allowing a few articles of dissent here and there, out of self-interest as he says (and I would contest that to continue in such a way corresponds to our self-interest). I think that those who have had the opportunity (which remains in many ways a privilege) to study and then become part of the "intellectual class" have the moral duty to utilize their tools as opinion makers to help dismantle a system they know to be unjust. Let us become what Gramsci called "organic intellectuals", the ally of the working class, and cease to be bourgeois intellectuals committed to a fictional democracy.

(Salkowitz Aug 24, 2005)

This is a strong and well-considered response from a perspective I don't usually encounter. Thank you for taking the time. A response to a few of your comments, if I may:

1. Information and communication technology are irrefutably fueling the loss of manufacturing and low-skill information work jobs (e.g., call centers) from developed economies to low-cost labor markets. The usual solution to this problem offered by policy-makers and analysts (including myself, in my professional guise) is to retrain workers in low-value jobs to do higher-value work, presumably in other information-related fields. The more I think about this prospect, the less satisfactory I find the solution. See my related article today, here: http://emphasisadded.com/2005/08/24.html

2. In my view, blue collar jobs in construction, crafts, personal services and logistics will retain their earning power, but will require increasing levels of technological sophistication. Not every worker will consider these kinds of skills important, resulting in a narrowing of opportunity for those with less aptitude or interest in technology and process. I am a strong advocate for technology providers to create products that are as transparent as possible to skilled workers, to reduce this unnecessary level of training and distraction.

3. You write: “Rob Salkowitz doesn't seem to want a different society, but merely one characterized by a more lenient ruling class, where information workers ("intellectuals") such as him may continue to prosper in the long term, thus continuing to undermine the dream which they allegedly espouse on the working class’ behalf.” I recognize here the traditional Marxist description of the liberal bourgeoisie, to which I can only reply, “if the shoe fits, I will wear it.” For what it’s worth, I don’t presume to speak for the working class: I trust them to look after their own interests as I look after mine. However, from the perspective of bourgeois enlightened self-interest and my own moral/political values, a society where the rewards of productivity are distributed more evenly between labor and capital, and more broadly across the occupational range of labor, strikes me as more just and more desirable than the condition that we are now tending toward.

Thanks again for the thoughtful review. I will bookmark this page and post a link the next time I update my template.

Thomas (Aug 26, 2005)

The fact that numerous jobs are being outsourced to other countries is irrefutable. That is the beauty (or so we’re told) of capitalism, of globalization. It is a system based on profit, so why should it care whether workers in the U.S. or in Canada (for instance) are fired and told to upgrade their skills to meet the demands of the labour market? Now, not unlike you and many others I think that such a system is not the only way to go, and that there are alternatives. Where we disagree, I’m afraid, is on the kind of alternative.

From what I can see you’re coming from a liberal perspective while I’m coming from a socialist perspective. Nonetheless I think there’s room for compromise.

In the first place, people like you who are in a position to make a difference (by reaching an audience and influencing their opinion, setting the agenda so to speak) should begin by writing what they truly think. How much is your integrity worth? It’s one of those few things you cannot buy with a Master Card, and therefore priceless. Secondly, why do you say that you should look after your interests and the working class after its interests? From your article I gathered that we are all just people, and that despite our differences we should be able to live peacefully alongside one another and prosper. But the “looking after my own interests”, and not those of my neighbour because he is a welder, whereas I am a writer, conflicts with this main argument of yours. Such an attitude (self interest, and again I doubt it is in our interest to go down this road) reinforces the divisions which capitalism thrives on, and which we should try to destroy. If we become atomised consumers, each of us too busy looking after our own interests, we regress as a people and at the same time realize the dream of the capitalist system.

I believe it is possible to change, and even if we can only create a more lenient ruling class, I would welcome such an achievement. But this will not happen unless we are willing to change ourselves. “Intellectuals” should start by being honest with themselves and acting according to their principles. This has nothing to do with Marxist thought, it is in my opinion plain common sense.

I will be posting a critical article on the American educational system. I welcome your thoughts, and hope to continue the discussion. I have not read your newest article “Workforce Development and the Lessons of Urban Planning”, but I will do so shortly.