Just as a critique of feudalism would do. The argument seems to be that the feudal lord and the exploited serfs are necessary to the development of society, therefore the motivations of the feudal lord and the suffering of the exploited should be defended.
Real investment in poor countries focused on producing decent jobs that don’t exploit workers who otherwise have little alternative to submitting to that exploitation?
I mean, when you find that you’re defending Chinese state capitalism, it should give you pause.
Great - the good news is you can get started yourself!
Export industries in China are the least state owned in the country, and for a few decades were the main driver of private enterprise growth, employment, and regions exiting from poverty. That particular comment of yours is not grounded in any facts, just online snark.
Oh, sure, it’s internet snark all around.
It’s true that one aspect of human society is that the powerful will oppress and subjugate the weak until the weak get tired of it and do something about it, but this fact is not a thing to applaud or encourage on the grounds that it is ultimately good for the weak. It’s like saying war and pestilence and famine are good for the weak, and we should have more of it, because every advanced society had to endure it.
KevinC
4371
Why would you think sweatshops are a natural state? Was colonization and subjugation of people by Europeans a natural state? Or was it just a matter of the strong abusing and profiting off of the suffering of the weak? Sweatshops and the like are just a continuation of that abuse of the powerless by the powerful for their own self-aggrandizement.
Those conditions are fucking horrible and appalling and they’re often (but not always) for the enrichment of Western corporations who can and should provide better working conditions. A lack of options for these people is not an excuse to work them like slaves in dangerous conditions.
Maybe what sweatshops need is some good marketing. The brand is terrible. No one wants to work in a “sweatshop” because sweat implies grueling work, a hot environment, and aching muscles. How about “perspiration communities” as a new brand? That sounds like a fun yoga workout with some light production!
TikTok get on it!
This is a great point. You can argue that feudalism is a natural stage in the development of more primitive societies, but in this case it is the advanced societies that are essentially funding the depredation. We, who have developed beyond that point and now know better, are the ones ultimately doing this.
Timex
4374
Because the only advantage that those workers have in the overall market is being willing and able to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.
And then, over time, those wages and conditions improve… but that improvement is largely due to the economic improvements of their lives, which are brought about by the employment itself.
An opportunity to improve your life is still a good opportunity, even if your life is still poor after that improvement.
“textile industry co-working space”
Famine is also a natural state, can even be brought on by the efficiency of markets, and may even lead to economically better-off people (once enough of the others die), but probably we don’t want to celebrate it or encourage it.
Aceris
4377
Sweatshops hedge against famine.
I think collective bargiainin on the country level is the way forwards, to guarantee minimal labour rights, the ILO was supposed to do this to some extent but has no teeth (as we see in Bangladesh).
Unless you want to reconfigure the world economy which, fair enough, but I think we need a bit more than “grrr sweatshops”.
I’m all for calling out companies complicit in the worst abuses (like the bangladesh thing above), but the general principal of low priced labour in developing countries isn’t something you can get away from by waving a magic wand, unfortunately.
So does plantation slavery. We’ve come full circle!
Sure, but I don’t think we’re talking about ‘low-priced labour’. We’re talking about a guy advocating for more sweatshops on the grounds that they’re good for people.
Timex
4379
Plantation slavery makes people into property, thus ultimately stripping them of all welfare, given they no longer even have personal autonomy.
We probably need a clearer definition of when that “sweatshop” line is crossed to understand what each side is arguing for and against.
Is working long hours compared to someone in the West bad enough? What if they work less hours than their average neighbor?
Is working for low wages bad enough? What if they make more than anyone in their immediate region/social circle of comparable skills?
Timex
4381
Also, “good for people” is kind of relative, right?
I mean, what’s good for you is dependent upon your starting situation. For someone living in crushing poverty in a third world country, working in a sweatshop may in fact be good for them, because it improves their lot in life.
Then, once they’re in that situation, improving the work conditions will be good for them, because it will further improve their lot in life.
It’s true that slavery is uniquely bad as a labor exploitation scheme, but that doesn’t mean it is the only bad labor exploitation scheme.
I doubt that level of specificity will be enough. Suppose they work 23 hours a day while their average neighbor works 24? Suppose they make 25 cents an hour, when their average neighbor makes 20?
Don’t take it from me, take it from Kristoff:
Imagine that a Nike vice president proposed manufacturing cheap T-shirts in Ethiopia: “Look, boss, it would be tough to operate there, but a factory would be a godsend to one of the poorest countries in the world. And if we kept a tight eye on costs and paid 25 cents an hour, we might be able to make a go of it.”
The boss would reply: “You’re crazy! We’d be boycotted on every campus in the country.”
Timex
4383
Certainly, but as I suggested, it’s less clear than a binary “good/bad” decision.
Slavery is, to me at least, a clear binary “bad” act. It strips humans of their autonomy completely, and as they are property, they no longer really have any notion of welfare at all. Any welfare for them is essentially just the welfare of their owners. This is why I don’t really find the comparison valid.
For people working in poor/exploitive conditions, they do still have their own autonomy, they have the ability to own property. In cases where that exploitive practice is leading to an overall improvement in their life, then I can’t deem that practice as being “bad” in that particular context.
But at the same time, even though it may not be “bad” in that context, that does not mean that it’s ideal, or cannot be further improved. Like, if I have no car at all, and I need to travel some distance, then a car with a max speed of 30mph is perhaps better than the alternative… but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to try to get a better car moving forward. That car that can only go 30mph is a piece of garbage… but if it helps me do things that then help me get a better car, then that piece of garbage car might actually be good for me, in that particular context.
Maybe they do, and maybe sometimes they don’t? The absence of real alternatives makes any ‘choice’ a farce.
There are lots of things one can decide to defend. It doesn’t seem to me that this is one that needs or deserves much defending. If you read the original column that we are talking about, it’s just Kristoff dunking on college students; just a species of right-wing pseudo-economic lib-bashing trolling, based on some conversation he says he had with some day laborers in Namibia.
Where would you draw the line on this bad conditions are actually good for these particular people stance? What percentage of workplace fatality is acceptable? What rate of toxic poisoning? How hungry does the workforce have to be?
What if the car goes 30 miles an hour, but it’s heavily contaminated with radiation and you’re going to die if you use it very often? And, the only reason it’s contaminated is that it was more profitable for some capitalists to give you the contaminated car to use? Still okay? Still an overall net benefit? After all, you can actually use the car. For a while.
Timex
4385
You keep saying this, but it doesn’t hold water.
If you are dying of poverty, and I offer you a job which treats you poorly by western standards, but is still an improvement to your life, that is not the same as enslaving you.
I know you understand this. Continually trying to draw an equivalence between these things and chattel slavery is intellectually dishonest.
Yeah, in some cases I may choose to use that car, because the alternative would be worse.
If you took away my choice to use that car, you wouldn’t be doing be any favors.
Imagine if I offered you an uncontaminated car? I know, it’s unthinkable.
If I say this argument for X is indistinguishable from this argument for Y, that is a statement about the arguments, not about X or Y. Similarly, if I say X is a bit like Y, that is not an argument that they are equivalent.
To quote you:
Continuing to pretend you don’t is intellectually dishonest.
Timex
4387
Ok, ultimately I think we’ve said all we can say and we’re just going to go around in circles, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
