Review of Labor by Andrew Herod Wiley (review)

A Mild Critique of Global Capitalism

A title like Labor inherently alludes to (intentionally or not) Karl Marx's Capital, and we indeed discover that Andrew Herod cites the nineteenth-century foundational work favorably. Nevertheless, exactly how and to what extent Labor extends, revitalizes, or applies Capital does not unfold immediately. Whereas Marx proceeds boldly, Herod proceeds cautiously in tone, substance, and conclusion.

The book begins by adding the concept of "human" to "labor," that the people who work all over the globe are and have always been human, with all the hope and suffering that entails in global capitalism. Beginning with the North Atlantic slave trade, Herod points out that slaves were not just mere productive units in abstract vessels of labor, but in fact human beings whom the owners forcibly removed from their families and homelands to dominate and exploit for profit—or at least this is my summary. Herod portrays labor relations more technically and congenially (a tone some might perceive as more scholarly) as both a cognitive-emotional subject as well as an object of analysis (and, presumably, exploitation). Does anyone disagree with this? Some cold-calculators and racist ethnocentrists may not care about universal human rights and dignity or see slavery as problematic, so maybe the message goes out to them? Despite this initial note of possible injustice (and key point from Marx, that human labor is indeed human), Herod refrains from a direct indictment of global capitalism. His scholar-speak allows critique without apparent bias, but will disappoint readers looking for passionate engagement with the intersection of race-gender-class. Instead, he would like us to consider some demographics.

Cognizant that labor migration is a central aspect to… what? Perhaps a worker's perspective—the global exploitation and/or emancipation of workers worldwide? Perhaps a capitalist's perspective—the flow of capital and global supply chain management? Neither: Herod's non-perspectival orientation describes forced and unforced migration, as people either flee a lack of opportunity and oppression or seek greater prosperity elsewhere. Is there a difference? Does anyone willingly leave a home or homeland that provides fulfillment and prosperity? Using statistics, Herod ably demonstrates that labor migration relates directly to economic growth, regardless of the specific type of economy, whether manufacturing, natural resources, or technology. We also see the ethnic and gendered nature of global migration, internal migration, all kinds of migration that altogether create gender, intellectual, and overall workforce imbalance that makes rich regions richer and poor regions poorer.

Yet all is not well in the richer regions either. Adding well-chosen case studies to statistics, prosperity and impoverishment synergistically promote an ascendant precariat class (84) of people who can lose their high or low livelihood at any time. Herod sees this as an inherent compatriot of neoliberalism, and that sure seems logical—as we remove traditions, regulations, pensions, social-safety nets, and anything else that inhibits the acquisition and expanse of capital, the entire political-economic system transforms people back into that abstract quantity of labor thingy Herod cautioned us about earlier and which he seemingly established as an essential moral violation. Yet moral violations even on a global scale do not supersede unbiased scholarly detachment, apparently, so Herod avoids any particularly vehement critiques, lest we miss the concurrent benefits that the "new" economy offers compared to the "old" economy. Old economy—picture industrial stacks pouring out soot and armies of workers drudging in and out of factories on rigid timetables imposed by nameless and faceless bureaucrats. New economy—picture sparkling high-rise offices, immaculate robotic and renewably powered production facilities and self-scheduled intellectual workers. To his credit, Herod recognizes this "new" economy as mostly propagandistic fiction (my phrase), or at least open only to select higher-level precariats and global capitalists. Indeed, Herod argues (139) more decisively that, in political-economic terms, the "new" economy is not really any different than the "old" economy. Access to global labor, for example, means that those sparkling offices conceal the masses of...