Social Presets in America
by As Karl Marx suggested, social classes are governed by rules and regulations that make themselves known when challenged by a lower class. Thereby preserving corporate structure of the office environment and the work world. This article discusses the possibility that the Internal Revenue Service fits both Marx description as that which serves to control the working class.
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.
Liked it
