| You might enjoy the This American Life episode called NUMMI: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 It looks at how Toyota took GM's worst plant and made it one of the best using the same workers. And how GM's management refused to learn lessons from that. I think the current antagonism is something that started with management many decades ago. But now it has a lot of momentum, such that people on both sides are used to it and will carry it forward. I remember reading a great zine piece from a video game tester who'd had a variety of shitty jobs. He finally found one that was really good: good pay, good working conditions, nice bosses. But he felt compelled to steal office supplies in bulk because that's what he'd done at his shitty jobs. He was sort of mystified by it, but he couldn't stop. However, there are alternatives. I live near an Arizmendi bakery [1], which is a worker-owned co-op. It's great. The food is really good, it's sanely run, and the people behind the counter seem serene and present. It's inspired by the founder of the Mondragon co-op [2]. Or you could look at companies that shift to employee ownership later. Bob's Red Mill was actually started by a guy named Bob who sold the company to his employees in 2010. [3] I don't think those are going to be utopias. But I do think they lack some of the structural disincentives against sanity and compassion that you find in the typical corporate structure, where every dollar in a worker's pocket is a dollar less in economic rents for the owners. [1] http://arizmendi-valencia.squarespace.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%27s_Red_Mill |
I think the current antagonism is something that started with management many decades ago.
I think the pattern goes back, well, as far as you want to go back. There have always been individuals who think that they* should be in charge. There's a continual 'tug-of-war'.
For centuries, only a very few people were able to participate directly - when the world largely consisted of monarchies, empires, "hoards", and all of that**. Ancient Athens, and more recent "Enlightenment" ideas about "natural rights" and "mandate of the masses" etc. have generally been unusual in practice until quite recently.***
The data strongly support much more shared power past a certain level of technological and economic development, but, even if aware of the myriad examples, people with power-lust aren't going to stop. It's directly contradictory to that worldview, ambition, etc. - in multiple ways. And, any given person is likely to tack more towards or away from such notions over time, depending on multiple factors.
Right now, it seems there's much more interest, in multiple realms, on consolidating power, again.
Caveat populus.
* Not consciously intentional play on "the royal we"
** Before that, there's a lot more variation, AFAIK, but also a lot less confidence and evidence - though, ancient Egypt and China (three kingdoms etc.) come to mind as particularly early examples with solid enough information regarding ruling over large numbers of people by individuals (and various attempts &/ smaller "kingdoms" etc.)
*** "Radical", some might say "insolent"