Introduction
This article analyzes the origins of contemporary management systems, pointing to the existence of what is known as the science of control. The text argues that modern neoliberalism is not a neutral economic model, but rather the result of a long-term process of stripping individuals of their agency.
The reader will discover how a reductionist vision of the human being as an automaton became a tool of power. We will explore the mechanisms that mask coercion with the language of optimization and efficiency, and examine why reclaiming subjectivity requires institutional solidarity.
Psychological Egoism as the Foundation of Control Techniques
Psychological egoism is the belief that human actions are motivated exclusively by self-interest. In management, this thesis serves to reduce the human being to an automaton reacting to stimuli of pain and pleasure.
Such an approach allows those in power to replace dialogue with employees with the precise calibration of stimuli. If a person is merely the sum of their reactions, management becomes a technique of training—or conditioning—rather than a social relationship.
A prime example is treating people as human resources. In this framework, dignity and ethics are bypassed in favor of cost-benefit calculations on an Excel spreadsheet. This leads to a systemic restriction of freedom, as control is deemed the only realistic way to govern egoistic individuals.
Turning Philosophy into the Technology of Administrative Conditioning
Theoretical assumptions regarding pain and pleasure, developed by figures such as Locke and Bentham, became a manual for administrators. These were transformed into systems of rewards and punishments designed to enforce obedience without unnecessary emotional involvement.
In this way, law, factories, and performance evaluation algorithms become tools of administrative conditioning. The individual is expected to act not out of a sense of meaning, but out of fear of the cost of refusal.
These mechanisms mask the asymmetry of power. The formal freedom of contract is often an illusion, as the lack of material alternatives renders the sale of labor a form of coercion. Power no longer speaks of governance, but of process optimization, which hides the fact that the individual is entirely dependent on the system.
Control Creates Dependency and Labels it Nature
Historical systems, such as enclosures, sugar plantations, or factories, destroyed autonomy by stripping people of the means to live independently. When a person loses their land and tools, they become susceptible to wage coercion.
Plantations served as laboratories of surveillance, where the regulation of movement and the maximization of bodily efficiency were tested. These techniques were adopted by factories through the introduction of Taylorism and time discipline. The specialization of labor deliberately deskilled artisans to turn them into easily replaceable components of a process.
Modern digital platforms continue this pattern. Although the physical overseer has disappeared, control persists through algorithms and rankings. Efficiency becomes a mask for dehumanization, and worker resistance is pathologized as a lack of competence or laziness.
Conclusion
Contemporary market freedom often proves to be nothing more than a theatrical image—a door painted on a wall. Formally, we can walk through it, but materially, we have nowhere to go, as systems of control have colonized our imagination.
True social maturity begins with the rejection of the myth of the human being as an egoistic automaton. We must recognize that human dignity cannot be captured in any spreadsheet, and that the only alternative to the dictate of the market is democratic planning and solidarity.
Frequently Asked Questions
9. What is psychological egoism and how does it influence contemporary methods of people management?
10. Psychological egoism is a philosophical thesis claiming that human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest and reactions to pain and pleasure. In modern management, this translates into treating humans as resources and automata, allowing respect for the employee to be replaced by a technique of steering through appropriately set stimuli.
How did theoretical assumptions about pain and pleasure become a tool for the systemic management of people?
Theoretical assumptions about pain and pleasure were transformed into the language of administrative training, turning neutral psychological descriptions into instructions for managing people through stimulus technology. Combined with political arithmetic, this allowed humans to be reduced to a measurable cost and an element of a process controlled by a system of punishments and rewards.
How did historical labor systems, such as plantations or factories, use control mechanisms to destroy human autonomy?
These systems destroyed autonomy by stripping people of the foundations of life and agency, imposing time discipline, forced specialization, and the mathematization of efficiency. Surveillance techniques and movement regulation were employed, and the resulting dependency was then presented as a natural order or an objective economic necessity.
Are market mechanisms a natural law of the world, or the result of specific political decisions?
Market mechanisms are not a law of nature, but a historically constructed political order.
Why does adopting the assumption that humans are naturally selfish lead to the systemic restriction of their freedom in work and life?
Adopting the assumption that a human is naturally a selfish automaton makes strict control over them seem realistic and necessary. This leads to the construction of a world in which the individual is stripped of independent foundations for living and autonomy at work, replacing agency with obedience.
Is the voluntariness of selling one's labor on the market real, or is it merely a masking of material coercion?
The voluntariness of selling labor is often merely formal and can mask material coercion when a person is deprived of alternative means of survival. In the absence of real alternatives, the contract becomes forced by the necessity of survival and the asymmetry between capital and the worker.
How did former systems of domination and slavery influence modern methods of managing labor in factories?
Modern management has adopted mechanisms from systems of domination to justify coercion through arguments of economic necessity and the pathologization of worker resistance. Factories inherited the drive to strip workers of control over their work pace, break their solidarity, and turn the human body into a measurable, repeatable element of the process.
How did the division of labor and the introduction of machinery affect the agency of the worker and their relationships with others?
The division of labor leads to a loss of holistic competencies and autonomy for the worker, which weakens their position within the organization and makes it easier to replace them. The introduction of machines often results in the takeover of control over the pace of work, turning the human into a mere 'machine operator' or an extension of the device. Simultaneously, performance comparison mechanisms and rankings isolate workers, replacing solidarity with competition for bonuses or ratings.
Why does the pursuit of efficiency in management often lead to dehumanization and the loss of worker agency?
The pursuit of efficiency often leads to dehumanization because it treats efficiency as an end in itself, ignoring issues of power and values. In such a model, the system becomes more important than the human, resulting in the worker being deprived of the right to knowledge about their own work and their autonomy being replaced by management based on fear, norms, and punishments.
How did industrialization and the factory system change the perception of control over the worker in the 19th century?
Industrialization changed the perception of control by giving it the form of 'science' and presenting the owner's interest as a natural law of progress and efficiency. The factory became a tool for disciplining workers, stripping them of autonomy and transforming them into obedient elements of the system whose only role was availability.
How do power systems use science and the concept of human nature to justify exploitation and silence worker opposition?
Power systems utilize reductionist anthropology and social Darwinism to present exploitation as consistent with the laws of nature and biological destiny. Through the pathologization of resistance, worker opposition is labeled as laziness or a lack of adaptation, allowing political and justice issues to be replaced by the rhetoric of biological necessity.
How have old techniques of disciplining employees survived in modern management language and neoliberalism?
Employee disciplining techniques have survived in neoliberalism, merely changing form from direct brutality to a more elegant language of individual responsibility and efficiency. Contemporary concepts such as reskilling or adaptability often serve functional education for tool operation, rather than building a critical awareness of the system and power structures.
Are management methods based on control truly the most economically efficient?
Not necessarily; methods based on control and surveillance did not always increase real productivity, but served as tools of coercion cementing the power of elites. They were effective for hierarchies in terms of increasing obedience, yet in the long run, they generated burnout, turnover, and sabotage.
How has neoliberalism transformed old factory control into a modern system of individual management?
Neoliberalism has transformed old factory control into a subtler system that promotes the idea of freedom and individual responsibility instead of direct commands for obedience. It shifts the burden of management onto the individual, suggesting that any failures result from errors in self-management or a lack of the proper mindset.
How does neoliberalism control the employee if the traditional supervisor formally disappears?
Control is dispersed within the system's infrastructure, encompassing algorithms, platforms, and reputation markets. Instead of an external supervisor, neoliberalism employs internal control, transforming the worker into 'human capital' who enforces optimization and self-improvement upon themselves in the guise of entrepreneurship.
Does economic planning have to mean a return to inefficient centralism and bureaucracy?
Economic planning does not have to mean a return to centralism; rather, it can be a democratic tool for collective decision-making regarding the economy. It proposes replacing blind faith in the market with social control over key infrastructures of life, such as housing or public utilities.
How does neoliberalism utilize the concepts of freedom and entrepreneurship to weaken the position of workers?
Neoliberalism redefines the loss of security as 'flexibility' and contractual loneliness as 'freedom', imposing on workers a vision of being entrepreneurs of their own careers. Such individualization serves to break collective bonds and weaken trade unions, allowing for easier management of isolated individuals and masking economic dependence under the guise of formal independence.
Why is neoliberal market freedom an illusion, and what is the alternative to the current system of governance?
Market freedom is an illusion because neoliberalism ignores abuses of private power and economic coercion, making the freedom to exit the market merely formal. The alternative is a new balance between the market and democracy, as well as the democratic reclamation of control over key areas of life (e.g., health, energy, or housing) that cannot be left solely to the profit mechanism.
