Jihad vs. McWorld - Benjamin R. Barber [26]
The virtual corporation also exists in the labor market as an employer of “virtual” rather than actual laborers. The ideal virtual laborer is a robot: an interactive, “intelligent,” fully programmed worker capable of working twenty-four hours a day with no sustenance and minimal upkeep. What a poignant marriage: in McWorld’s chilly new cyberspace, yesterday’s invisible hand reaches out to grasp the invisible body of tomorrow’s newly born virtual corporation to guide its spasmodic newborn movements toward an eternity of profits, almost entirely without the intervention of a visible human hand.
Many modern nation-states have generated national industrial policies aimed at strategic coordination of economic policy and domination of international markets by their business corporations on the theory that the nation’s citizens will somehow be benefited by supporting corporations even if corporations decline to return the favor. Yet although full employment is a public good, it is not a corporate good. Business efficiency dictates downsizing, which means capital-intensive production, and capital-intensive production means labor-minimizing job policies. Translated into English this means firing as many permanent workers as possible and eliminating their costly benefit and pension packages. In their place appear machines, robots, and multiplying (so-called) “temporary” jobs, which are actually long-term jobs without long-term contracts, long-term security, or long-term benefits. Unemployment may eventually weaken the market by debilitating potential consumers (you can’t buy unless you earn), but corporations taken one by one are necessarily rabid competitors with (at most) a quarterly earnings horizon. They must be “lean and mean” to prevail. The “fat” here is workers and a corporate diet spells permanent “structural” unemployment for increasing numbers of workers.
American agriculture remains a dominant producer for world markets, but where once it took 80 percent of the workforce to grow crops, today it takes 2 percent. Manufacturing is following agriculture. IBM sloughed off labor fat to the tune of sixty thousand workers in 1993 to the general applause of market analysts, and it secured private advantages in the international computer market whose public costs will not be seen for several years and whose consequences will in any case not be directly borne by IBM.17 Nineteen ninety-three was the year of “downsizing” (a euphemism for layoffs and firings) for many larger corporations, including a number that were in the black and were acting “preemptively.” The only thing laborintensive about modern manufacturing is the cost-cutting. Fearing inroads by generic brand companies, Procter & Gamble announced plans in 1994 to eliminate 13,000 jobs (and to close 30 of 147 plants) over a three-year period, while Eastman Kodak intends to cut 10,000 jobs through 1995 as part of its “restructuring.” In the Common Market, unemployment is over 11 percent and in France, with a declining Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it is higher. The global recession has eased but jobs are unlikely to reappear in prerecession plenitude, as the American recovery of the mid-nineties is already proving. Many of the new jobs are lower paying service positions, often without benefits or safety nets. Downsizing is after all a global market strategy responding to the new economics of the automation/electronic information age, and McWorld’s labor market has little interest in employment per se and even less in protectionist governments monkeying with labor supply and demand.
There are of course timorous and weak businesses (they hardly meet the criteria of capitalist ventures at all) that, like the ailing unions, welcome the attention of an interventionist government. But they belong more to a vanishing mercantilist economy