# Work as an Authoritarian Regime By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2024-01-24 Libertarians frequently discuss work in terms of individual freedom. If someone doesn’t like where one works, they are free to quit and find work elsewhere. Whereas that option is available to people, that is an impoverished notion of freedom. It amounts to saying people are free to starve to death. For those living in the United States, a country founded on the idea of individual freedom, work is perhaps the most authoritarian environment in which one finds oneself (except compulsory school). Most places of work are not democracies. Most places of work are authoritarian regimes. One is told when to show up, what to do, when to take breaks, what one is permitted to do during the breaks, and potentially what to wear and how to groom oneself. One can take the job or leave it. One can work or starve. But if one takes the job, one must conform and do what one is told. When enough people join and resist, change is possible. Modifications to employment expectations do occur. Establishing and maintaining this solidarity is difficult. There are always humans who are more desperate, indifferent, or opportunistic. There will always be scabs who are willing to cross the picket line. Collective advancement is so challenging to achieve because individuals tend to be self-focused. Until our needs are met, we tend to focus on ourselves. This creates a paradox. People who are subjugated and impoverished are unable to transcend themselves in solidarity to improve their situation and that of all others; people who are no longer precarious do not need to improve their situation. Systems are designed to replicate. Much of the focus of “the system” is on ensuring that those subjugated and impoverished individuals under the authoritarian regime of work never improve. They remain self-focused and see no viable path forward through collective bargaining. Therefore, the second approach becomes more interesting and potentially powerful, given that it is almost entirely neglected. What happens if those who are no longer precarious and have no direct need to improve the working conditions decide to agitate for a radical redefinition of work? What happens if the worker revolt comes from those who have beaten the system, who understand all the rules and weaknesses of the system, and who decide that the time has come to dismantle this economic tyranny? This is not an elite vanguard. Revolution must come from the people. However, those who have achieved “enough” and would rather help everyone be better than obtain even more from an unjust system are a potentially powerful cohort. The pursuit of more is never-ending. The system depends on this glitch humanity. Henry David Thoreau asked in _Walden_, “Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less?”. Most of our society is precarious. According to the Federal Reserve, the median savings account balance in the U.S. is $1,200. Replacing a set of 4 tires is enough to wipe out half of the median savings account in this country. Things are so precarious for most of us that a crisis isn’t even needed to push us to the edge. Simple things like car maintenance are sufficient to create real hardship. This isn’t because people are careless, lazy, or imprudent. It is because the system is unjust. Solidarity is needed. As hard as it is to form, solidarity is even harder to sustain. Libertarian freedom is a sad, cruel joke. The individual has become overvalued. Solidarity requires the awareness that none of us are alone in a society and that a society is not comprised of _us_ and _them_. There is only us. Here is hoping that we find effective ways to care for ourselves. #### Related Items [[Liberation]] [[Solidarity]] [[Paradox]] [[Individuals]] [[Society]] [[Authority]] [[Work]] [[American]] [[Moderation]]