I have posted this video to YouTube this morning. In it I argue that once upon a time, financial capitalism exploited slaves. Then, it exploited the planet. And now - in the absence of anything else - it is exploiting you. That's why the rich are getting richer, and you probably never will. We need to be rid of this rotten system that cannot survive unless someone or something must lose for the benefit of a few.
The audio version is here:
The transcript is:
Once upon a time -it's a great opening line for a video - the world's financial capitalists exploited slaves.
People were literally imprisoned to the task of creating profit for the world's wealthiest people.
And then, when we got rid of slavery, and eventually, by and large, we have around the world, they enslaved something else instead.
The Industrial Revolution gave them the chance to enslave the scarce resources of our finite planet to increase their profit. And as a consequence, a lot of people got very rich.
Now we know that both options are off the agenda. Slavery, because it's totally unethical. The opportunity to exploit the planet, because we're literally destroying our future.
So, they've had to move to exploit something else. And who are they exploiting? You.
You are the person that financial capital now wants to exploit to increase the profits of the world's wealthiest people. And we know it's happening.
We know, for example, in the United States, where the data is best, that middle and lower income people have not seen a real increase after adjusting for inflation in their earnings for decades, but the top earners have massively increased their wellbeing.
We've seen the same pattern pretty much happen here in the UK. Every time that productivity has increased in this country, the entire gain has gone to the wealthy.
What do I mean by productivity? Productivity is the increase in the profit made from each hour of labour input put into the delivery of a product or service.
Every time there's been a gain, whatever the reason - computerization, better technologies, whatever else - the rich have gained by increasing the profit margin. Nobody else has.
You are being exploited by the financial system to increase the profit of those who are already wealthy.
So we've been through slavery, we've been through the exploitation of natural resources, and now they're exploiting you and me and everybody else who's had to work for a living.
What do you think about that? I personally find it repugnant. That's why I believe we need to rebel against the system of financial capitalism that is constraining the well-being of well over 90 per cent of the people in the world. And when we consider the world as a whole, probably 99 per cent of the people in the world.
It's time that we called for a halt on exploitation. It's time we called for a system of economic management that let everybody flourish. But so far, we haven't got it. And without pressure from ordinary people who say they've had enough of being exploited, we're not going to get it. So change does depend on you.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It would not be difficult for Governments to set targets for income distribution and put in place measures to attempt to meet them.
What is also needed is to try and restrict the ability to make money from money, be it Usury, trading etc
American historian Joyce Appleby is credited with saying: “Exploitation is not exclusively capitalist, but wealth creation is”.
“Exploitation is not exclusively capitalist, but wealth creation is” :
Ian,
Do you believe that to be true? Even if wealth is defined in purely financial terms, I’m not sure that it’s true. I can think of a group of people using their skills and talent to enrich others’ wellbeing (e.g. music, art, therapy, sanitation engineers, political blogs(!) …..) from which the “creatives” could gain wealth. Even easier to argue providing time/to support homeless people or teach prisoners has the potential to enrich and increase the wellbeing (wealth?) of both parties? Not nearly as pithy, though!
I submit that there is another, critical but suppressed, hidden step in the sequence. Capital developed it’s modern management methods in the West Indies slave plantations (see the important work of Catlin Rosenthal ‘Accounting for Slavery’, and others in this seminal historical analysis mainstream economists/historians overlook). The collapse of slavery in 1833 however still required acceptance of the supererogation of value in the right to property (and it’s money worth on exit). Slavery thus did not end the Lockean principle to the rights in and of property, as sacrosanct (even when confronted with slavery). This crucial fact is even now, scarcely noticed. Capital knew it could rely on this fundamental principle, and apply it to labour, and separate it from the person providing it, and his/her rights to their own labour, which could be successfully contested, and reinforced by politics and law. Armed with the professionalised management concepts learned in the West Indies slave plantations and recognition that slavery of persons was not feasible, capital retained the principle that it could nevertheless own a person’s labour; and applied both the management tools and the labour concept in a new industrial setting. Employment passed the property rights in the labour of a person, as if it was detachable from the person, and becomes a property right of the employer. In consequence this abstract separation of a person and their labour has been a problematic matter through history. For politicians this was a straightforward application of a basic proposition of Locke, ensuring respect for property rights.
Yes indeed – as you say, there has always been varying degrees of exploitation under capitalism –
But under the particular stage we have now – dominated by a handful of global companies – in social media, communication, food distribution, energy, financial services, banks etc , it may need an internally generated crisis -generated by its own internal contradictions (eg 2008) , and the organised resistance by those exploited – as you say ‘pressure from ordinary people who say they’ve had enough’ .
Not easy – not pleasant, a modest start would be to ban private money corrupting politics, but there will probably be a really messy crisis first – strikes in NHS, —whatever..
It seems that the former Warsaw Pact states have been much better at keeping Funny Money out of politics
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/30/eu-countries-parties-private-donors-spain-france
Latvia is held up as a gold standard. It bans foreign donors, anonymous donations, corporate funders and trade unions with a requirement to disclose names of all donors to the country’s anti-corruption bureau, KNAB, which will check whether any violations of rules have taken place.
“Now we know that both options are off the agenda. Slavery, because it’s totally unethical. ”
Slavery exists, now. In Italy, the latifundi are back – controlled by the mafia. Circa 100% of tinned tomatoes from Italy come from latifundi – using slaves controlled by the mafia. Sure they don’t wear collars – but they are de facto slaves. Spain is not much different. “But darling both places are a long way away and Waitrose say they source ethically” – etc.
Back in 2017 I wrote a paper: fork in the road. I examined two possible routes for people: one in which there is much more localism and stuff is fixed rather than replaced – plenty of co-ops etc: & the other where you are owned, body and soul via X as a service (XaaS) – heating as a service, light as a service, internet as a service, software as a service (oh hang on we are there now!), cold as a service (you don’t own the fridge or freezer you pay rent for the appliance and the energy it uses). Give it 30 years & most people will be owned – tools with voices.
Yes indeed – renting to use some elses asset rahter than owning it either personally or communally – a depressing trend.
Have you a link to it?
The bronze age civilizations who invented money and debt, realized the debt problem because starving farmers were not good solders, so they invented debt forgiveness.
How woud this work today?
Almost impossible to imagine how the financial system could survive them
We have forgotten the wisdom and kept the debts
The Chancellor is blaming Putin and the pandemic for keeping present tax thresholds until 2028. Nuthin’ to do with me Guv. Any rubbish will do. One major reason for the ferocity of British inflation is an energy policy based on world market prices. That is bad Government policy. Underinvestment in renewables, and poor use of the oil/energy sector’s engineering skills and resources to lock them into a mutually beneficial strategy to exploit all renewable technologies. The UK has always had a close relationship with BP. It was founded by the State. Instead we have allowed the sector to make huge profits from UK renewable energy, produced at a cost far, far below world prices. All the direct fault of the Conservative government, at catastrophic cost to the population. Hunt and his Party are not fit to govern. They are incompetent. They also botched the pandemic (he is a fool to open that can of worms); and by far the biggest boost to Russia’s aggressive policy to test Putin’s perception that Europe is weak, and in decline – was BREXIT; followed by the greedy stupidity of London grad, demonstrated for 20 year, and supported fully by the Conservative government.
And Brexit and Londongrad as major factors in Putin’s calculations are never, ever mentioned still less called out by any opposition politicians or still less our supplicant media and fawning press. We really have sunk to the bottom of a near bottomless barrel.
One way to reduce the exploitation is, IMO, to significantly increase minimum wage.
Of course there would be screams from employers saying they could not afford it. But these screams have been heard every time minimum wage is mentioned. The warnings against have always proved false.
Increasing minimum wage increases salary of low earners. But it also increases salaries of middle earners.
IMO, low wages are responsible for low increases in productivity. Why would employers invest to improve productivity if they can employ people on low wages?
So increased minimum wage is a win-win – except for the wealthy exploiting us.
Higher wages also tend to improve productivity even with little or no major capital investment, simply because you have a healthier, stable workforce, who incrementally improve their performance (‘economies of experience’). Henry Ford knew that a century ago (not that I endorse him, or ‘Fordism’!) and it was extended by the Japanese, guided by Deming and others (although within a paternalistic culture, but where bosses felt a patriarchal obligation) with workers’ circles etc.
And a better, participatory ownership and management structure – worker/directors, co-ownership, co-ops etc – can bring greater equity in outcomes.