History, it is said, reveals itself in a cyclical process, which has a tendency towards repetition. If this is true, by studying the past we determine what was attempted in production, transportation, education, economics, religion, law and everything that is important to the human species. By taking a backwards glance into matters of importance, we can refrain from making similar mistakes as that of our ancestors and form new ideas and strategies for dealing with those ideas that failed or were never tried in history. Connecting the dots of yesteryear can, however, prove difficult at best and only when we take events out of their original context and analyze them can we really get a true look at the big picture. It seems that throughout history there is one outstanding characteristic that societies have shared.

Marx wrote about this and suggested the only constant that is guaranteed in life is the one that never remains the same. This constant is change. Marx also believed that each society is built upon the material foundations of its process of production and that the members of society are born into a predetermined social structure that is entirely defined by the mode of production (science and technology). The social classes, then, are the divisions of labor and the interaction, which served to create conflict as one class, strives to break from the control of the higher class. To Marx, conflict was the single means by which the social structure would change and he advocated thoughts of revolution in which the lower classes challenged the controlling element and the rules and regulations in which they lived. The materialistic foundations that bound society or the social classes were he believed, “preserved by specific presets that only make themselves known” when it becomes necessary to preserve their own position in the social structure. He believed that those who owned the process of production at any given time in history are the controlling class and those who produce the labor are the working class and subject to the will of the controlling element not only in the process but in society as a whole (Capitalist).

An example of just such a present that Marx was describing can be found in the 1990s when new information technologies began to emerge and reshape the work environment from the corporate structure of nine-to-five to the new home office. The home office made possible by the technological advances in the communication industry. It even became legal and popular to take deductions for the equipment and expenses associated with maintaining the home office; so long as it did derive an income and was not reimbursed from the employers or if the home office was a sole proprietor business classification. Despite the legality of the business and deductions being taken in respect to the new home office, there was one certain agency, which sought to halt the concept and prevent further migration from the corporate environment by workers. This happening occurring in the United States and North American continent only. Marx, had stated, social classes are governed by rules and regulations that make themselves known when challenged by a lower class. In this particular instance, the preset or qualitative forces that preserved the normal mode of production was the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States federal government. In addition to challenging the deduction, the IRS forced those returns to endure the horrors of an audit procedure. This served to discourage others in the work force from attempting similar migration and / or deductions and the momentum of the home office revolution was halted. Thereby preserving corporate structure of the office environment and the work world. This is also an example of what Weber defined as bureaucracy. According to Weber, authority arises not from persons but from positions. This authority is legitimated by organizational rules and regulations in a hierarchy of work relations.

I believe the Internal Revenue Service fits both Marx and Weber’s descriptions as that which serves to control the working class. Marx said that science and technology are part of the productive forces and these forces drive the social interaction because the productive process is a collective action. Obviously, then, in our changing world, our thinking and actions must change in relation to the newest forms of technology. In the United States, we are quickly becoming an information society but that is not all, we are also producers of tangible products (those that are physical forms) which we must take to the open market in order to sell.

In the last quarter century, we have seen the practical application of science fuel an array of curious consumer goods enter the consumer market and hit the ground running. With these new forms of information technology, such as the personal computer and wireless phones, an entrepreneur or sole proprietor can be every bit as competitive as the larger corporations in the global market thanks primarily to the internet and electronic commerce. The internet also known as the World Wide Web has opened markets previously reserved for only those larger corporations with the financial capacity to venture into foreign markets. Now, of course, this is no longer a restricted place and the smallest of sellers can reach an extraordinary number of buyers thanks to companies such as eBay.com and PayPal, which is now owned by eBay.

eBay is an electronic auction site, which brings together buyers and sellers in an auction type environment. eBay acting as the host allows members to publish articles and items for a fee. In addition, as receiving payment for the item being sold is of utmost and primary importance they have purchased a service company, which is known as PayPal. This allows buyers and sellers to refrain from giving out their credit card numbers to strangers and instead use the services of an intermediary to handle the monetary exchange in an optional and additional fee for service manner. Since the success of such companies has reached the mainstream; a number of competing companies have joined them and are offering everything imaginable in terms of services and products. This aligning of companies and spirit of cooperation has created a safer electronic environment for all parties. Thus countering the single most influential drawback to such transactions, which of course is the opportunity for fraud? Those who elect not to participate in safe transactions are destined to fall victim to unscrupulous acts of another in such an anonymous environment where human never actually meets or greets another human in the virtual world. While it does seem the opportunity for fraud abounds on the internet, there is growing concern regarding identity theft for which new federal laws seek to address and discourage. Of course, in addition to these easements of electronic transactions, new technology has also paved the way for other forms of electronic commerce such as banking and postal service scheduling. These service providers are matters of convenience and can conserve not only resources but also time investment in respect to the humans.

Many suggest that information technology will transform the world of clerical duties and the office environment in much the way Henry Ford changed the blue-collar worker with the assembly line production and as Taylor did with scientific management when he created the oversight position of the manager. Yet, according to Marx, it will take a revolt by the working class to challenge the controlling elements and topple the presets that govern society. Looking to the future, the tele-news suggests coming next is something very similar to the concept of the home office we discussed earlier. The difference, in comparison, being that telecommuting remains within the confines of employer/employee relations. There is even organizational support behind this new style. The association is known as the American Telecommuting Association. The basic idea is to replace or supplement physical travel to and from the office by using modern telecom equipment to bring the office resources to the worker. (ATA).

The advantage is primarily a savings in travel time for the party not being required to commute back and forth to and from work. Whether it will succeed this time around or once again be toppled by the presets that govern is left to the future. Remember it was the Internal Revenue Service that identified itself as the preset in society that set and enforced the rules and regulations which preserved the norms Marx spoke of in the past. The main advantage telecommuting has this time around as opposed to the home office is the support of the employers as the worker continues to be defined as employee in the corporate environment. Previously, the worker was a drop out from the work force and proceeded to compete independently for work and contracts.

Numerous changes but little has improved the conditions of working life for the lowest divisions of labor. Even in the age of the Smart Machines, in comparison to the human, the machine is incapable of creative thought. Clearly, then, this smart machine is not so smart after all if the lower human intelligence and IQ can compete on even settings. At this point, there is no chance of the machine replacing the human and the equipment will remain very much dependent on humans to power it on and off. Either way it seems the mode of production, known as smart machines, exists as mere further proof of Marx’s suggestion that those who control the mode of production are members of the controlling class. What really separates the classes is the division of wealth more so than labor, and this is certainly outside the laborer’s reach or command. For the employer, however, the smart machine is simply an added cost of doing business. Whether technology has helped or hindered remains an issue open for debate.