Modern Indentured Servitude

I'm not normally a fan of using dictionary definitions in my writing as, after all, they are just one group of scholars' opinions on what a word means, but in this case I think the definition is general enough that Webster will suffice. The Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to indentured servitude as a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. In the 17th and 18th centuries Europeans of various backgrounds came to the states and worked for landowners. These were individuals and families who came with nothing and worked for "free" in return for having their travel expenses paid, and food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities provided. They were not technically slaves as they signed contracts that bound them to the landowner for a number of years after which they could leave. As with slavery, which was a similar situation but with individuals who were not allowed to leave, these were workers who took very little out of the profits of the landowners and were not a threat to the industry at large. They were kept at arms-length, taken care of on a very minimal basis (essentially enough to stay alive and keep working), and then put out into the world with only the clothes on their backs and a clean slate to start a life. Doesn't sound like too bad of a situation for some. In fact many today would say this is a win-win for both parties.

Here's the trouble.

On an individual level, yes, this is not a bad deal for many who were coming over to America. On a broad scale this was the beginning of tyrannical rule by the private sector of American industry. As the poor had their minimal needs met through incredibly difficult and dangerous working situations that lasted long hours and paid very little, allowed no time for education or creativity, or time to spend with loved ones, the landowners became incredibly wealthy by delegating responsibilities to low paid "supervisors" (literally slave drivers at the time) and enjoying the massive profits they incurred from the labor of others. This wealth, of course, was then passed down to generations who followed, isolating the wealth further amongst a select few in our society. As history progressed, even though slavery was outlawed, indentured servitude continues.

Consider modern day mainstream American culture. Assuming one will not inherit the wealth of his or her elders at some point in adulthood, an average American has one of two choices for his or her future. One, he or she can forgo higher education and establish himself or herself within a company after high school with the intention of making immediate money, avoiding debt and making his or her peace with the long hours, unfulfilling work and working under management that is equally uneducated, dissatisfied, and underpaid. Many of these companies will be corporately owned and run businesses in which they will never know who it is exactly they work for. Again, not a horrible option, but one in which these individuals will do far more work than they are paid for and have very minimal possibilities to compete in the free market. The second option is to incur the debt of a college education, enter the work force at a slightly higher level, with a slightly bigger paycheck, and the appearance of a better life. In reality this choice leaves an individual tens of thousands of dollars in debt leaving no viable option except to accept work at an already established company that can afford to pay back some of these loans, provide benefits and what, in the end, amounts to a stipend compared to what the company makes as a whole. Sound familiar? Contracted work for basic needs while workers scrape by and owners continue to isolate wealth among a small percentage of society.

Here's the icing on the cake.

These companies have become so large that--although the potential to start a small business is still a possibility--they can essentially move into any town they choose, put every small business out of business (aggressively and intentionally), hire the entire town to work for them, and become the only providers of goods to the very people they employ. How do you like that for indentured servitude? They own the country so long as the country continues to function under deregulated free market principles. A side note to complete corporate take over of rural towns is that when these corporations begin to lose money (as they inevitably will during the natural booms and busts of the economy) they will close down their stores in the towns that make the least profits and leave the people there bankrupt. Everyone will foreclose on their loans, people will lose their houses, and in most cases the town will be forced to transplant themselves in order to survive.

However, despite these dismal prospects of success in America, most Americans still believe in the fictitious "carrot" principles of capitalism. Though, for all practical purposes, we are all enslaved to a handful of corporate giants who continue to get wealthier as the rest of us, maybe, if we are incredibly disciplined and ambitious, may attain a middle-of-the-road lifestyle before it is time to retire. Again, not a horrible prospect by comparison to the majority of the world population, but there is yet another kicker. Our newly elected president is offering the people of America a chance to take their country back from these giants through increasing taxes on the wealthiest of us, enforcing greater regulations to provide safer, healthier, and more enjoyable workplaces, and offering more public options for gaining our basic needs for life. Unfortunately, rather than celebrating this liberation from tyrannical rule of corporate business owners the people are ironically calling the president a tyrant and a fascist. The average American household makes between $30,000 and $70,000 a year. This means the average American will not pay higher taxes for the plans Obama is trying to attain for them. Yet, they have been so duped by the people who have taken over their towns, outsourced their jobs, pay them unlivable wages, provide them with the lowest quality of food and goods while simultaneously paying themselves million dollar if not billion dollar salaries per year that they are fighting the government who wants to take some of that wealth away and use it for the good of society at large. They trust the "landowners" who have enslaved them over the people they democratically elected and have complete control over through free speech, voting power, and lobbying rights. These business owners are not people who worked hard and got where they are because the system works. They are in large part the ancestors of the very people who used slavery and indentured servitude from colonial times to increase the wealth of a few while keeping down the majority. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. There are your Bill Gates and other characters who instantly make it big, but these individuals are so few and far between that to continue policies that allow a one in three hundred million chance at becoming wealthy while the vast majority turn the tiny but numerous wheels of industry in a trillion dollar national economy while receiving very little in return seems ludicrous. Americans claim they are free, but how free can one be when the choices for life are so few and the real power brokers are not democratically elected? I personally believe our situation has resulted not from the greed of corporations, not from the constant lobbying of currupted government officials, but from the uneducated citizenry that exists in our country and the apathy of the people to fight for what will most benefit their lives.