Trade unions and progressive movements rightly demand better wages and working conditions for employees to improve society. But the question of what good work actually means is rarely asked. And how everyone can benefit from it.

“Good work” cannot be defined in abstract terms. But there are criteria that provide a framework. Work should provide useful goods and services that enable an acceptable standard of living for all. Degrading, unwanted activities should be reduced as much as possible. Production should also be organized in such a way that workers can identify with the output and it not destroys the environmental conditions we rely on.

Capitalism: No Good jobs?

It is easy to see that capitalist production, especially under the rule of globally operating corporations, runs counter to the concept of good work. Entrepreneurs and capital owners determine what jobs are available. They decide on the resources, work processes, and results. 

In addition, production is by no means started in order to produce useful things, but rather to generate profits. Negative effects such as environmental destruction, poverty, social inequality, the promotion of conflicts and wars, etc. are constantly externalized. Workers are both a cost factor and a potential disruptive element that must be controlled. 

Degraded to mere tools of production in capitalist enterprises, employees are constantly threatened by rationalization and “de-skilling”. This is because companies strive to minimize labor costs and enable flexible interchangeability in the battle for market share and returns. 

Of course, there are still good jobs and satisfied employees in capitalist economies. But good work is a very scarce commodity in capitalist-organized production, if it can exist at all – according to the criteria mentioned above.

This is due to the fact that the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a small class structurally undermines democracy and thus the basic principle of good work, which should consist in the expansion of freedom, creativity, and self-determination of people.

More than Better Wages 

Right from the beginning of industrial capitalism, there was therefore massive criticism of the specific organization of production. From Karl Marx to the “Lowell Mill Factory Girls” in the US to socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg, workers, activists, and social critics attacked the undermining of good work by capital-driven societies. 

Anarchists and libertarian socialists simultaneously demanded that the means of production be placed in the hands of those who work in the factories. While in real existing socialism the means of production were monopolized by a party hierarchy and workplace co-determination, as practiced in some countries such as Germany, tended to paralyze workers’ control over production, the idea of workplace democracy remained alive in civil society.

There are also a number of examples where the idea of worker self-management has been put into practice, from cooperative movements and the market socialist model in Yugoslavia to companies that were run and/or managed by their employees, such as the “Fábricas Recuperadas” movement in Argentina in the early 2000s or the Mondragón corporation in Spain.

Give Society a Human Face Again

In addition, a more fundamental critique of the concept of work in industrial society developed, particularly in the post-war period. It was shaped by different currents that can be traced back to conservative, traditionalist, religious, or left-wing and progressive attitudes.

But they all share more or less the same assumption that production in an industrial society cannot create fulfilling work that is appropriate for human beings and a way of life that is compatible with social community and respect for nature. 

On the contrary, it is argued that assembly lines, mines, a network of high-speed transport routes, artificial malls and shopping worlds are constantly destroying nature, craftsmanship, and rural activities, and thus, step by step, the basis of what constitutes good work and good life. 

From critics of civilization such as Robert Jungk and Ivan Illich to the British economist Ernst Friedrich Schumacher and today’s post-growth movements, there are calls to free ourselves from the constraints of technology driven “higher, faster, further” in order to give society and the working environment a human face again.

So, in view of the devastation wrought by modern societies, do we need a major transformation away from industrialism in order to strive for a better, ideal working environment? 

Industrial vs. Agrarian Society

The undesirable developments of capitalist industrialization are certainly obvious. They have exacerbated crises that today threaten the survival of the species. However, “saving” our way out of the social and ecological crisis through industrial contraction or overcoming it in a post-industrial society is misleading. 

The climate and global poverty crisis can only be solved through technological solutions within the framework of industrial society. The global energy question will by no means disappear in a post-industrial world, even if demand in industrialized countries and among the wealthy must be reduced, in some cases significantly. 

Furthermore, capitalist exploitation and destruction on the one hand and technological progress and industrialization on the other have historically gone hand in hand. But they are not two sides of the same coin. 

Technology is more or less neutral. It depends on how it is used. Its character changes depending on the social institutions in which it is embedded. But this also applies to other forms of civilization, such as agrarian societies, which have produced some of the most repressive systems.

Three Arguments

There are a number of frequently cited arguments put forward by industry skeptics and critics of growth to prove that there is no alternative to the exit of industrial society or its decline if we want to enable good work and good life. Three of these are: 

1. Industrial production creates degrading working conditions and an increasing number of “superfluous people.”

2. Technological progress and industrialization are not neutral. Their destructive dynamics are ultimately uncontrollable. 

3. An acceptable standard of living for all is not or no longer achievable industrially due to planetary boundaries. 

The question is, however, whether these arguments are convincing. Is it really true that degrading industrial work, destructive progress, and planetary boundaries make it necessary to reorient society away from industry? Is this the only way to achieve good work? Let’s take a look at the arguments.

Modern Workplaces

In every society, there is work that is uncreative, stressful, or unwanted, not just in an industrial society. But an advanced technological society has the means to reduce many of these activities.

It is true, however, that capitalist industrialization created hellish working conditions that robbed workers of their skills. The reasons for this, however, do not lie in technological progress or industrial production. On the contrary, it was the prevention or misdirection of industrial development that degraded workers. 

A look back at the history of automation shows that its introduction was deliberately designed against the needs of the workers. It led to the “de-skilling” of workers, as David F. Noble impressively shows in his 1984 study “Forces of Production”.

Today, most assembly line work can be done by robots with sophisticated sensors, at least theoretically. This would be a welcome relief for workers from mindless tasks. They could turn to other, more creative work. Artificial intelligence could also be used in this way. 

Certainly, industrial corporations continue to pursue other goals. But here, too, it is not robots that are laying off workers, degrading them, and making them superfluous.

Farming and craftsmanship are often held up as examples of authentic and fulfilling work. But that’s not because there are fewer types of farming and craftsmanship that are stressful, unhealthy, and mindless – cotton pickers in India know all about it. 

The constraints are enormous in some cases, at least in their pre-industrial, non-automated form. Self-sufficiency in agrarian societies is usually a lonely and harsh struggle for survival. Free time, education, cooperation, and exchange across local boundaries are the exception. 

The Blocked Industrialization

The same applies to the technical and industrial progress as a whole. Here, too, it can be shown that the destructive effects are by no means a direct consequence of technology and mass production. 

Take the engine of industrialization, fossil fuel energy production. In itself, this is a good thing. It enabled machines to be operated, which relieved the burden on people. It made mass electricity generation possible and set locomotives, cars, and trams in motion. 

Many useful things have come out of it. But the negative effects were obvious from the start.

Air pollution from coal burning in city centers, and later lead-containing exhaust fumes from car traffic, caused serious, often fatal respiratory diseases in humans and serious damage to the environment. Today, the burning of coal, gas, and oil in the wake of the climate crisis threatens the survival of humanity.

However, this devastation is not a natural consequence of industrialization. Air pollution could have been reduced and prevented from the outset. Air purification technologies (first used in stone processing) and filters were already available in the 19th century. 

Throughout the course of industrialization and up until the 1970s, little or no value was placed on human health and environmental protection. This was not due to energy technologies, but to companies, investors, and the political class. 

In addition, a better and cheaper alternative to fossil fuels has been available for decades: renewable energies. Countries could have switched to generating electricity from solar, wind, water and geothermal energy long ago if powerful economic and political interest groups had not prevented or slowed down the transition.

Certainly, there are technologies that have no useful purpose. Artillery, atomic bombs, etc. are among them. Given the risks and better alternatives, nuclear power plants are not an acceptable form of energy production for many people. 

But in the end, it is the use that counts, and the social organization of production and life that determines the means. Societies should therefore find ways to use the best available technologies for common good purposes.

Limits

But is an acceptable standard of living for all even industrially feasible given the planetary limits? 

“Acceptable standard of living” is, of course, a relative term. Acceptable means something different to a Western European or North American than it does to someone in Mozambique or a family in a crisis region. 

The United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI) is not an ideal measure of living standards, but it does provide a point of reference. The HDI shows that economic development correlates with life expectancy and quality of life. 

According to this, the average Norwegian, German or US American enjoys a high level of material security, even though the neoliberal shift since the 1970s has led to increasingly unequal distribution of resources in industrialized nations, in some cases to a drastic extent. 

The relatively high standard of living in rich countries applies to food, housing, medical and emergency care, cities and infrastructure, nature conservation and environmental protection, social institutions, education and schools, working conditions, leisure time, mobility, etc. This results in a wide range of opportunities and freedoms for individuals and society as a whole. It does not guarantee happiness per se, but all of these things are certainly not detrimental to life satisfaction, civil society, and political culture.

However, according to these criteria, the majority of the world’s population is far from enjoying an adequate standard of living. Often, even basic needs are not met. 

In countries without an own industrial core, families live in extremely precarious, sometimes catastrophic conditions. Many are exposed to hunger and poverty without any protection. Most have no adequate access to electricity, health care, social services, functioning infrastructure, and administration.

Behind the misery lies a fundamental lack of industrialization in the “hungry states”. As the German economist Friedrich List concisely put it in the 19th century, Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans had the “ladder kicked away” from under them, the ladder on which Europeans and Americans climbed to industrial and economic heights. Advanced economies such as Egypt and India were held back by colonial powers and then exploited.

Enough Green Energy

But can we still afford an acceptable standard of living for everyone, including the poor parts of the world – after all, this would mean billions of people consuming significantly more? Isn’t an industrial society for everyone ecologically destructive and incompatible with sustainability? Don’t climate change and raw material shortages show that we in the rich countries are living beyond our means and have now reached a limit that forces us to choose a different path? 

It is true that capitalist industrialization has damaged the environment in many ways. A radical industrial, and above all energy, transformation is therefore necessary, which, had it not been repeatedly blocked, would not be such an urgent issue today. It is also true that there are a number of possibilities in the industrialized countries that actually exist to get rid of “ballast”, as growth critics like Tim Jackson demand.

But industrial contraction or a post-industrial society are not the solution. Even if industrialized countries were to reduce demand and living standards by 50 percent over the next twenty years, that would not solve the climate problem. 

The regression would cause an economic and global catastrophe with unforeseeable consequences. Only technologies such as the rapid expansion of alternative energies and a greenhouse gas neutral infrastructure can slow down the climate crisis. What we really need is a Green New Deal, as economist Robert Pollin suggests, that would also create millions of good jobs for the working class.

Industrialized countries will certainly have to temporarily reduce demand over the next two decades in order to prevent dangerous global warming and give developing countries the necessary leeway for restructuring. In the long term, however, there is no shortage of renewable energies for creating a generally acceptable standard of living under industrial conditions. It is merely a question of political will and implementation, not technical feasibility. 

After all, the neo-Malthusian catastrophe, according to which not everyone on earth can achieve an acceptable standard of living because we do not have two planets, is not a law of nature. Resources can be conserved and recycled using green energy. To achieve prosperity for all, we therefore do not need endless growth, which is truly an absurd idea on a finite planet, but rather endless inventive spirit.

When Does Industry Make Sense?

However, this does not mean industrializing and digitizing everything without rhyme or reason. No one would want to defend the existing agricultural industry against sustainable agriculture, for example. 

The disadvantages are obvious. Huge monocultures, artificial fertilizers, chemicals and manure on fields, unacceptable factory farming, the dangerous use of antibiotics, and highly concentrated seed, chemical, and food corporations have severely damaged the environment and rural life and pose enormous risks such as pandemics. 

But it is only an industrial society that has made it possible to establish sustainable agriculture under conditions that allow for an acceptable standard of living and free from the constraints and limitations of agrarian societies. 

So when we talk about good work, we should ask ourselves how we can loosen and finally disconnect industrial societies from their capitalist constraints in order to enable a good life for all. A sensible way forward would be to progressively use the available technologies for the benefit of society. They could bring about better quality of work, more control and self-management of workers in companies, thereby strengthening the position of the workforce vis-à-vis management. 

In any case, unions should fight back when new technologies are used to degrade workers with bullshit jobs and ever-increasing surveillance. Ultimately, it is a political struggle over the use of technology that is as old as industrial capitalism itself, as exemplified by the machine breakers (“Luddites”) in the 19th century.

It goes without saying that an army of robots and AI servers in the hands of corporations, investors, and a global business class without adequate public control does not serve the people or improve the workplace, to the contrary. But as said, machines, cars, information technologies, and automated mass production are not the problem. Industrial society is not a dead end from which we must free ourselves. 

Rather, it is better suited than other forms of civilization to promote freedom and creativity, i.e. good work and good life for everyone. This is true even, or perhaps especially, in a world where technology can replace many mindless jobs.


Email