Labour sector and war

Those who are born without property, or the means to make a living from property, have only their skills or labour to earn a living. As the nation is built up by the work of the people so the people who labor deserve, to have not only their basic needs met, they deserve political power and opportunities to participate in the policy decisions that affect the nation’s future security and prosperity.

The nations where the labourers have had political rights to participate at all levels, have been secure and prosperous and also advocate for and advance freedom.

The interests of the labour sector are closely tied to the chances of success in war, with a positive correlation of access to political power by those without capital, (that is, property from which money or profits can be made) to winning not only battles, but ending wars on terms that yield lasting and equitable peace.

The enmity the combat foot soldier feels toward the enemy is not based on greed, rather it is a desire to have the enemy stop the warmaking, whereas the people with capital desire the benefits of victory that come with conquest and forcible submission under unfavorable terms, which in turn leads to more bloody conflicts.

The interests of the labor sector are for peace and upward mobility, while the interests of the capital sector are for maintaining the status quo, with the repression and oppression that is compelled to keep others in their places in the status heirarchy.

The societies dominated by the part of the population with an interest in maintaining their dominance over others by keeping others out of policy decisions are also very bad at winning wars, because winning war is not in their interest, rather having a nation at risk of going to war is an excuse to suppress dissent, so they keep the nation in a risky state constantly. The approach of oppressive governments is to suppress the labour sector, to keep the benefits of access to public office to themselves, despite the concomitant threats to the nation’s existence, but that imminent threat is used as an excuse to suppress dissent and access to public office.

The nation which keeps the labour sector out of political office is vulnerable to the nations that allow such access, and will always lose their wars to the nations with strong labor participation in public affairs. They have always lost such wars, which is why the history of Republics (meaning, Res=Affair, Publica=Public, ie, governemnt is a public affair) is one of conquest and empire building, and the history of the decline of Republics is one of decreasing access to public office by the labor sector.

The problem in nations struggling to leave second or third world status is the leadership that is invested intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually in sustaining a status quo that keeps labor out of public affairs. The quality of life is low and the security is tenuous and the freedoms are scarce, but the elites are not adversely affected by the widespread poverty in those nations because they are living separately from the majority which has no adequate voice to make the changes that would otherwise bring, prosperity, security, and freedom.

It is the duty of the military therefore to have a commitment to bringing access to public affairs to the labour sector.

KIRAN KHAN

Lahore