I Tried to See Where My T-Shirt Was Made(motherjones.com)
motherjones.com
I Tried to See Where My T-Shirt Was Made
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/india-garment-factories-sumangali
10 comments
The thing that people don't realize is that exploitation is the foundational structure of capitalism, and 'civilized' wage work is only removed from the examples in this story by a matter of degrees. The current capitalistic structure is only a moderate change from the old-fashioned slavery it came from directly.
We clearly need to apply science and technology directly to human needs rather than relying entirely on outdated systems like money that primarily enforce hierarchies. In previous eras where the only means to an end was raw human labor, perhaps this type of system made sense. In our contemporary society with our technological capability it is absurd. Too bad that people can only see that when it involves the most extreme cases.
We clearly need to apply science and technology directly to human needs rather than relying entirely on outdated systems like money that primarily enforce hierarchies. In previous eras where the only means to an end was raw human labor, perhaps this type of system made sense. In our contemporary society with our technological capability it is absurd. Too bad that people can only see that when it involves the most extreme cases.
exploitation is the foundational structure of capitalism
No it isn't. Trade is. That's like saying rape is the foundational structure of sex.
We clearly need to apply science and technology directly to human needs
Who are we? Why? Do you mean something like communism, "for the benefit of the people"? This is a classical is-ought fallacy.
relying entirely on outdated systems like money
Outdated system? How so? What is a better system in your opinion?
that primarily enforce hierarchies.
How exactly does money enforce hierarchies? What is one system that doesn't "enforce hierarchies"?
Too bad that people can only see that when it involves the most extreme cases.
Well, I am glad that you are one of the Enlightened People.
Apologizes if this post came across as hostile, but there are just too many things that irks me with this post.
No it isn't. Trade is. That's like saying rape is the foundational structure of sex.
We clearly need to apply science and technology directly to human needs
Who are we? Why? Do you mean something like communism, "for the benefit of the people"? This is a classical is-ought fallacy.
relying entirely on outdated systems like money
Outdated system? How so? What is a better system in your opinion?
that primarily enforce hierarchies.
How exactly does money enforce hierarchies? What is one system that doesn't "enforce hierarchies"?
Too bad that people can only see that when it involves the most extreme cases.
Well, I am glad that you are one of the Enlightened People.
Apologizes if this post came across as hostile, but there are just too many things that irks me with this post.
> No it isn't. Trade is. [snip meaningless analogy]
Trade? No, trade is the foundation of any kind of economy, of any kind of organized social life. Exploitation is one of the foundational concepts of capitalism, but the same is true for all past dominant economic systems, so it's true that it's not terribly useful to define capitalism as something that is just about exploitation. The way exploitation is structured, whom and how is exploited, in capitalism is the key point.
Trade? No, trade is the foundation of any kind of economy, of any kind of organized social life. Exploitation is one of the foundational concepts of capitalism, but the same is true for all past dominant economic systems, so it's true that it's not terribly useful to define capitalism as something that is just about exploitation. The way exploitation is structured, whom and how is exploited, in capitalism is the key point.
I'm on the fence about the whole "exploitation" thing. But it's surely false that "trade is the foundation of any economy".
I think it's more accurate to say "trade is the foundation of a market". According to Smith, river-valley civilizations arose because of markets. Markets arose because of specialization. Specialization arose because the rivers allowed more efficient transportation of goods than land (by a factor of 50?).
But for the paleolithic era, most tribes shared goods communally. No trade needed.
I think it's more accurate to say "trade is the foundation of a market". According to Smith, river-valley civilizations arose because of markets. Markets arose because of specialization. Specialization arose because the rivers allowed more efficient transportation of goods than land (by a factor of 50?).
But for the paleolithic era, most tribes shared goods communally. No trade needed.
Well, for what it's worth Wikipedia article on the paleolithic suggests there is much evidence of trade during that era (referenced, but I don't have the time to research that ATM). But that's beside the point really. The issue here is how we define what economy is and what trade is. But more to the point, trade in general is not a defining characteristic of capitalism, it's not the differentia specifica of capitalism. But I agree that the statement "trade is the foundation of any economy" is too strong in the sense that it's not only trade that is needed to have an economy (you need production, consumption, etc.).
Nope. Trade is not a foundation of Marxist economy.
Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty. Many industrial nations had a garment industry phase and graduated from it.
We have had experiments with other systems than Capitalsm, and some of them are still running. Korea is split in North and South, the southern part is capitalist, was in garment manufacturing and now has an exceptional level of wealth, while the northern part is communist and has become one big concentration camp.
I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.
We have had experiments with other systems than Capitalsm, and some of them are still running. Korea is split in North and South, the southern part is capitalist, was in garment manufacturing and now has an exceptional level of wealth, while the northern part is communist and has become one big concentration camp.
I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.
North Korea is not communist. Read the book The Cleanest Race to see how U.S. analysts really see North Korea. There are no communist countries today. It's fun to talk about capitalism in the abstract like it doesn't keep monarchism in the closet, underdevelops Africa, props up lackey dictators in the Third World, depends on colonialism/imperialism to get rich, and turns to fascism when in crisis. I'm sure mafias have made life better too for people but that doesn't look at the whole picture. Where would your bought off Scotsmen be if he wasn't capitalism's shock troops who invaded South Africa,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Americas and kept police order in India, the Middle East, and Asia?
Not only that, but I don't believe there ever was a pure communist state, only the intermediate stage experiments that ended up cruel dictatorships. The only way we'd ever get one is with the help of a Portal-like AI to distribute wealth and plan the economy.
> There are no communist countries today.
What about Cuba?
What about Cuba?
There are no communist nations today because communism failed, utterly and often spectacularly, usually because some asshole came to power who was more interested in furthering his own agenda and increasing the power of himself and his friends than in doing what was actually good for the people.
This always occurs because in order to transfer to communism, an intermediate government is necessary to take power from the evil capitalists, consolidate it, and distribute it throughout the people before volunteering to dissolve. In practice, this never occurs. Where power is centralized, sociopaths will congregate, and the first stage of the transition to communism is nothing if not the centralization of power. Thus, communism has always failed under the weight of despots, and will always do so as long as that is the case. There are no benevolent governments, period.
Meanwhile, though capitalism is surely far from perfect in its implementation, every nation which has embraced it has done remarkably well relative to those which embraced its ideological opposite. No, it's not perfect, but it's obviously preferable to communism. I give those who sided with communism or socialism before 1980 or so the benefit of the doubt, as they were not privy to the vast evidence that we are today of communism's many failures. On the other hand, I immediately write anyone off who still believes communism > capitalism to be a delusional idiot who is almost certainly not worth arguing with.
This always occurs because in order to transfer to communism, an intermediate government is necessary to take power from the evil capitalists, consolidate it, and distribute it throughout the people before volunteering to dissolve. In practice, this never occurs. Where power is centralized, sociopaths will congregate, and the first stage of the transition to communism is nothing if not the centralization of power. Thus, communism has always failed under the weight of despots, and will always do so as long as that is the case. There are no benevolent governments, period.
Meanwhile, though capitalism is surely far from perfect in its implementation, every nation which has embraced it has done remarkably well relative to those which embraced its ideological opposite. No, it's not perfect, but it's obviously preferable to communism. I give those who sided with communism or socialism before 1980 or so the benefit of the doubt, as they were not privy to the vast evidence that we are today of communism's many failures. On the other hand, I immediately write anyone off who still believes communism > capitalism to be a delusional idiot who is almost certainly not worth arguing with.
Communism is not for you buddy, you're not the same class as those toiling in India or other Third World nations. With its proven track record of defeating imperialists and for those with nothing to lose and first world nation traitors, it has still proven viable.
[deleted]
> There are no communist nations today
I have the People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Cuba on the line, all of which would like to have a word with you.
I have the People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Cuba on the line, all of which would like to have a word with you.
I should have said successful communist nations. China isn't communist; it's been capitalist since Deng Xiaopeng opened it up to foreign direct investment in the early 80's. Vietnam is socialist in name only, and is following a similar trajectory to China. The DPRK is a perhaps the only true communist nation on Earth, and we all know what a hellhole it's become. It is the last holdout, and is probably in the final throes of its existence. Something's going to happen there eventually, whether revolution or invasion of a foreign power I don't know, but the world will not tolerate that much longer. Finally, Cuba is socialist, not communist, and even they are trending towards capitalism, not communism, as all nations inevitably do.
Edit: allow me to clarify what I mean by the DPRK being communist. It is not communism as in the endgame of communism on paper; it is the intermediate stage of communism when it is allowed to exist for far too long by a world that is not interested in intervening. The central authority has seized power for itself, but it will never return that power to the people and transition to communism's final stage for obvious reasons. The DPRK is the final stage of communism as it exists in reality.
Edit: allow me to clarify what I mean by the DPRK being communist. It is not communism as in the endgame of communism on paper; it is the intermediate stage of communism when it is allowed to exist for far too long by a world that is not interested in intervening. The central authority has seized power for itself, but it will never return that power to the people and transition to communism's final stage for obvious reasons. The DPRK is the final stage of communism as it exists in reality.
> I should have said successful communist nations. China isn't communist; it's been capitalist since Deng Xiaopeng opened it up to foreign direct investment in the early 80's.
If you take an equally narrow view of "capitalism" as you necessarily must of "communism" to make this even arguably true (well, and still it wouldn't be true to say China is "capitalist", but at least "not communist"), there aren't any "successful" capitalist nations today either, they all became "socialist" sometime between the late 19th and mid-20th century.
Realistically, most of the worlds major economies are mixed economies, and certainly one can make that case with regard to China -- though its a lot closer to communism than it is to capitalism.
> Finally, Cuba is socialist, not communist, and even they are trending towards capitalism, not communism, as all nations inevitably do.
The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist (they'd agree that they are socialist, but they'd be baffled at the idea that the two were incompatible.)
At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous, especially given that the advanced nations whose systems in the 19th century were the defining exemplars of the term "capitalism" have since all trended toward socialism.
If you take an equally narrow view of "capitalism" as you necessarily must of "communism" to make this even arguably true (well, and still it wouldn't be true to say China is "capitalist", but at least "not communist"), there aren't any "successful" capitalist nations today either, they all became "socialist" sometime between the late 19th and mid-20th century.
Realistically, most of the worlds major economies are mixed economies, and certainly one can make that case with regard to China -- though its a lot closer to communism than it is to capitalism.
> Finally, Cuba is socialist, not communist, and even they are trending towards capitalism, not communism, as all nations inevitably do.
The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist (they'd agree that they are socialist, but they'd be baffled at the idea that the two were incompatible.)
At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous, especially given that the advanced nations whose systems in the 19th century were the defining exemplars of the term "capitalism" have since all trended toward socialism.
I suggest you look up the definition of "capitalist" and "communist." All successful nations today are, by definition, "capitalist," as in the government respects the right of the people to own property. Yes, there are some successful mixed economies, but they are "mixed" because the government owns some of the means of production alongside the people, not the other way around. And even those few nations have been liberalizing over the last few decades, a trend which continues today.
By the actual definition of "communism" there are no communist nations today, nor were there ever any for the reasons I gave in my initial argument. The definition of communism I've used for this discussion was actually more lenient than how it is defined.
>The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist
The Communist Party of Cuba would not be surprised at all. They're just playing the game they've been given, and to think that they don't know the score is to assume they are all idiots right off the bat.
>At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous
Every formerly communist/socialist nation on the planet save one has moved to liberalize their economy in the last few decades, because communism/socialism is inherently flawed. All nations do, indeed, inevitably trend towards capitalism. If they choose not to, they inevitably fail, and once they pick up the pieces, they inevitably choose the alternative, which has been proven to succeed time and time again.
By the actual definition of "communism" there are no communist nations today, nor were there ever any for the reasons I gave in my initial argument. The definition of communism I've used for this discussion was actually more lenient than how it is defined.
>The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist
The Communist Party of Cuba would not be surprised at all. They're just playing the game they've been given, and to think that they don't know the score is to assume they are all idiots right off the bat.
>At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous
Every formerly communist/socialist nation on the planet save one has moved to liberalize their economy in the last few decades, because communism/socialism is inherently flawed. All nations do, indeed, inevitably trend towards capitalism. If they choose not to, they inevitably fail, and once they pick up the pieces, they inevitably choose the alternative, which has been proven to succeed time and time again.
If you use as weak and binary a definition of "capitalism" as you expressly state that you are, then the idea of nations inevitably trending toward capitalism is even more ludicrous than it is if you use it in a meaningful way -- as it is, even currently socialist nations are "capitalist" (not trending toward it -- which is impossible, there is no way to have a variable distance from it -- but actually capitalist.)
Yes, I've noticed that debates with those who advocate socialism over capitalism tend to devolve into arguments over semantics.
It seems that so very few of you can argue in favor of your favorite alternative to capitalism well enough to refrain from nitpicking. It becomes tiresome after a while.
It seems that so very few of you can argue in favor of your favorite alternative to capitalism well enough to refrain from nitpicking. It becomes tiresome after a while.
Using your weak definition of capitalism, I've rarely seen anyone advocate socialism over capitalism, since all socialism that I've seen advocated is compatible with (and even require) your weak definition of capitalism, they aren't alternatives to it.
And, while there's probably some definitions of "socialism" and "capitalism" for which my preferred tuning of a modern mixed economy is more "socialism" than "capitalism", all I've been arguing in this thread is that your Marx-in-reverse arguments about the inevitability of capitalism are as ludicrous as Marxist fanatics arguments about the inevitability of Communism -- and that's not even related to advocacy about the desirability of any system.
And, while there's probably some definitions of "socialism" and "capitalism" for which my preferred tuning of a modern mixed economy is more "socialism" than "capitalism", all I've been arguing in this thread is that your Marx-in-reverse arguments about the inevitability of capitalism are as ludicrous as Marxist fanatics arguments about the inevitability of Communism -- and that's not even related to advocacy about the desirability of any system.
Semantics.
>I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.
By cherry-picking North Korea as your only example as a non-capitalist experiment, and pre-disqualifying anyone who says that it isn't a representative example for all possible non-capitalist systems as someone employing a logical fallacy, you haven't really left any room for discussion.
Why not pick China, or the USSR?
Or the entire modern West, which pretty much exists as explicitly mixed socialist/capitalist economies - filled with welfare, national health services, unemployment benefits, industrial subsidies, public education, and progressive taxation?
I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.
By cherry-picking North Korea as your only example as a non-capitalist experiment, and pre-disqualifying anyone who says that it isn't a representative example for all possible non-capitalist systems as someone employing a logical fallacy, you haven't really left any room for discussion.
Why not pick China, or the USSR?
Or the entire modern West, which pretty much exists as explicitly mixed socialist/capitalist economies - filled with welfare, national health services, unemployment benefits, industrial subsidies, public education, and progressive taxation?
I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.
>> We have had experiments with other systems than Capitalsm, and some of them are still running. Korea is split in North and South, the southern part is capitalist, was in garment manufacturing and now has an exceptional level of wealth, while the northern part is communist and has become one big concentration camp.
> By cherry-picking North Korea as your only example as a non-capitalist experiment, and pre-disqualifying anyone who says that it isn't a representative example for all possible non-capitalist systems as someone employing a logical fallacy, you haven't really left any room for discussion.
> Why not pick China, or the USSR?
I cannot fathom what's going on in your comment. But there are two obvious responses:
1. North Korea was called out, as mentioned in the comment you respond to, because, unlike Maoist China and the USSR, it's still going.
2. Maoist China and the USSR also fit the bill of "one big concentration camp", so if he had picked one of them instead, nothing about his comment would have changed. Both were total, unimaginable disasters for the entire population of each country. It's like you said "sure, 2 is an even number, but what about 8?"
> By cherry-picking North Korea as your only example as a non-capitalist experiment, and pre-disqualifying anyone who says that it isn't a representative example for all possible non-capitalist systems as someone employing a logical fallacy, you haven't really left any room for discussion.
> Why not pick China, or the USSR?
I cannot fathom what's going on in your comment. But there are two obvious responses:
1. North Korea was called out, as mentioned in the comment you respond to, because, unlike Maoist China and the USSR, it's still going.
2. Maoist China and the USSR also fit the bill of "one big concentration camp", so if he had picked one of them instead, nothing about his comment would have changed. Both were total, unimaginable disasters for the entire population of each country. It's like you said "sure, 2 is an even number, but what about 8?"
Thanksfor suggesting USSR.
From the relevant wikipedia page: " In the wake of the spread of fascism through Europe, Stalin repressed both Communist Party members and elements of the population by creating an atmosphere of political paranoia and establishing a system of correctional labour camps."
From the relevant wikipedia page: " In the wake of the spread of fascism through Europe, Stalin repressed both Communist Party members and elements of the population by creating an atmosphere of political paranoia and establishing a system of correctional labour camps."
Modern social democracy is basically capitalist-fueled redistribution of wealth, and just about every economist and policy wonk who believes in 'capitalism' is referring to this kind of government. It's an entire other world from capital-S socialism. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Even more so, social democracy was created specifically to stem the tide of actual socialism. They are two very distinct things.
Created?
Or perhaps actual sacrifices and secret rites were performed in the dark corners of Bretton Woods in order to counteract socialism? ;-)
Or perhaps actual sacrifices and secret rites were performed in the dark corners of Bretton Woods in order to counteract socialism? ;-)
Every philosophy was created, I'm not expressing a conspiracy.
He was referring to your typo where you wrote "cremated".
Whoops! Thanks iOS! And thanks for letting me know.
> Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty.
Citation please.
It's become apparent to me that it does that until the workforce hits equilibrium at which point it divides people slowly into two classes, the lower of which is purely exploited by the upper.
NK just skipped the first bit.
Citation please.
It's become apparent to me that it does that until the workforce hits equilibrium at which point it divides people slowly into two classes, the lower of which is purely exploited by the upper.
NK just skipped the first bit.
The level of both classes is nevertheless much higher than the level of the earlier economy, before capitalism and its effects.
Unrestrained capitalism may of course creates huge levels of inequality. Luckily, unrestrained capitalism was largely put to rest (in the western world) after the 1900s, via unions and other similar movements.
Capitalism floats all boats, but not all equally. To ignore the fact that it floats all boats and point only add to the inequalities it creates is to miss the point.
Unrestrained capitalism may of course creates huge levels of inequality. Luckily, unrestrained capitalism was largely put to rest (in the western world) after the 1900s, via unions and other similar movements.
Capitalism floats all boats, but not all equally. To ignore the fact that it floats all boats and point only add to the inequalities it creates is to miss the point.
so if "Unrestrained capitalism" exists , what is basic capitalism? hypocrisy ? Yes it is. In order to work , capitalism need slaves. wether they are 10 miles from your home or on the other side of the earth,it doesnt matter.
Capitalism got "restrained" in the West because people fought for basic rights, and many died during the process.
Capitalism got "restrained" in the West because people fought for basic rights, and many died during the process.
> Citation please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
And I raise you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom
To back up my original point.
To back up my original point.
Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty.
At one time you could say that about agrarian feudalism.
At one time you could say that about agrarian feudalism.
> I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.
Then use another example from your list. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's not exactly clear whether its woes are the result of its economic system or its form of governance.
Then use another example from your list. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's not exactly clear whether its woes are the result of its economic system or its form of governance.
Communism in the formal sense, which is Marxist socialism or one of its offshoots, requires state control by definition. It can't be a "true scotsman" unless it's a dictatorship. Communist theory does not allow for democratic socialism, because it proposes real "democracy" is the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Marx's words.
Which communist theory? There are now as many communist theories as there are variations on the People's Front of Judea from Life of Brian and many of them explicitly reject state control and are closer to US libertarianism than either side would really care to admit.
edit - adding 'in the formal sense' to your post doesn't really change things. Formally, communism is supposed to be a developing theory, which is part of the reason for Marx famously saying that he wasn't a Marxist. Formally, communist theory, as envisioned by Marx, was never meant to be frozen as dogma, but rather relentlessly self-critical. Whether he was right or not is a seperate issue, but you are seriously misrepresenting his ideas.
edit - adding 'in the formal sense' to your post doesn't really change things. Formally, communism is supposed to be a developing theory, which is part of the reason for Marx famously saying that he wasn't a Marxist. Formally, communist theory, as envisioned by Marx, was never meant to be frozen as dogma, but rather relentlessly self-critical. Whether he was right or not is a seperate issue, but you are seriously misrepresenting his ideas.
You misunderstand what 'dictatorship' means in that context. The word didn't have the same connotation it has today.
Specifically, capitalism is the 'dictatorship of the bourguise,' so it needs to be counteracted by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Within the governing body, democratic councils run things. To draw a parallel to today's concept of 'dictatorship,' think of it this way: one class has absolute, total rule of things. But a class is made up of many people...
Specifically, capitalism is the 'dictatorship of the bourguise,' so it needs to be counteracted by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Within the governing body, democratic councils run things. To draw a parallel to today's concept of 'dictatorship,' think of it this way: one class has absolute, total rule of things. But a class is made up of many people...
Nope.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. Not even for Marx. It is the state before communism, in which the proletariat makes changes in society so that communism may take place.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. Not even for Marx. It is the state before communism, in which the proletariat makes changes in society so that communism may take place.
Nice try, but I explicitly stated I was talking about Marxist-style socialism, which is what 'communism' has come to mean. I almost never see people talk about "real" Marxist communism anyway.
You explicitly said "Communism in the formal sense". You were wrong with that.
Most ideologies and political or economic ideas have had their names subverted to mean something different by opponents (democracy, republicanism, communism, anarchism, capitalism...). That doesn't mean that if you speak in the "formal sense" you can decide to use whatever meaning you prefer.
Most ideologies and political or economic ideas have had their names subverted to mean something different by opponents (democracy, republicanism, communism, anarchism, capitalism...). That doesn't mean that if you speak in the "formal sense" you can decide to use whatever meaning you prefer.
USSR, GDR, Cuba? Of course they are all totalitarian dictatorships, but that's what you get with communism.
If the list goes on, you could have then easily picked better examples, couldn't you? When North Korean society still had any meaningful relationship to socialism (not communism) it actually had a higher GDP than South Korea. It only turned around in the 70s and 80s when NK leadership structures went completely insane.
So, what other systems? State socialism? It can only be viewed as an alternative system to liberal capitalism, not to capitalism in general sense because it still leaves the same economic relations basically intact. It's an incompetent, extremely monopolistic form of capitalism, which is why it failed so miserably.
So, what other systems? State socialism? It can only be viewed as an alternative system to liberal capitalism, not to capitalism in general sense because it still leaves the same economic relations basically intact. It's an incompetent, extremely monopolistic form of capitalism, which is why it failed so miserably.
East and West Germany.
Apologies, Go!
Apologies, Go!
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last paragraph, so I apologize to you, but I was thinking of something that didn't fundamentally had anything to do with capitalism. This example still clings to erroneous notion that state socialism is something fundamentally different. It's not really. Of course liberal capitalism outperforms state run centrally planned parody of capitalism.
"Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty."
Not sure about that. Stalin may have achieved economic growth of 500% over 13 years - more than China.
The problem with socialism/communism is that you don't have a market. Besides lacking of incentives, feedback loops etc., you basically don't have a way to price goods. Not market, no prices. All these systems will fail in the long run.
This being said, a capitalistic system relies on expansion of credit (actually one point, in which good old Mises was wrong). Credit is always a ponzi scheme. If credit expansion stops, the whole system will collapse. What we currently see is the prevention of system collapse by the western government. People are maxed out and the gov, as a lender of last resort, goes into debt. This will not end good. I doubt that significant growth can be achieved anymore in western countries. So communism has failed but capitalism does not look very good either, at least in the west.
Not sure about that. Stalin may have achieved economic growth of 500% over 13 years - more than China.
The problem with socialism/communism is that you don't have a market. Besides lacking of incentives, feedback loops etc., you basically don't have a way to price goods. Not market, no prices. All these systems will fail in the long run.
This being said, a capitalistic system relies on expansion of credit (actually one point, in which good old Mises was wrong). Credit is always a ponzi scheme. If credit expansion stops, the whole system will collapse. What we currently see is the prevention of system collapse by the western government. People are maxed out and the gov, as a lender of last resort, goes into debt. This will not end good. I doubt that significant growth can be achieved anymore in western countries. So communism has failed but capitalism does not look very good either, at least in the west.
I doubt that significant growth can be achieved anymore in western countries
Then you should start an investment portfolio that broadly shorts Western bellwether stocks. You'll make a killing if you're right. Make sure you diversify your profit into non-Western countries so that you can keep those gains.
Congratulations.
Then you should start an investment portfolio that broadly shorts Western bellwether stocks. You'll make a killing if you're right. Make sure you diversify your profit into non-Western countries so that you can keep those gains.
Congratulations.
shorting only works when there Is still a belief that the company being shorted is still desirable.
In other words, shorting requires a buyer. If a company goes tits up, you still lose.
In other words, shorting requires a buyer. If a company goes tits up, you still lose.
> a capitalistic system relies on expansion of credit
How did you get to this generalization? Just because the most prevalent current brand of capitalism works this way, it doesn't mean it's the only way it can work, or that when "expansion of credit" will stop capitalism will collapse.
How did you get to this generalization? Just because the most prevalent current brand of capitalism works this way, it doesn't mean it's the only way it can work, or that when "expansion of credit" will stop capitalism will collapse.
"The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism."
-- Joan Violet Robinson
More substantially, I disagree that our technological capability is currently sufficient. Maybe once we have universal molecular assemblers. Of course on the grand scale there will be competition over black hole orbiting real estate, because the energy for work has to come from somewhere.
-- Joan Violet Robinson
More substantially, I disagree that our technological capability is currently sufficient. Maybe once we have universal molecular assemblers. Of course on the grand scale there will be competition over black hole orbiting real estate, because the energy for work has to come from somewhere.
Same "capitalist" problem with using technology too; for example, a textile weaving machine requires an upfront cost and then it has maintenance, depreciation, repairs, higher electricity bills and so forth - some one somewhere somehow worked out it's still cheaper to just employ more people and still generate a better return short and long term vs implementing modern tech.
And this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation. Can't see it changing without everyone working together and by nature that isn't going to happen if capitalism is in place.
The fairly standard solution that the West developed to these specific problems of capitalism is unions. Based on this article, what seems to be needed is unionisation. Of course, history shows that this is not an easy path. But history also shows that this path works, eventually.
The problem in India does not have its root cause in Capitalism.
It seems to me that what is required here is a deep change of Indian society. Women seem to compete for men with money, which is absurd. Moreover, there is this "caste" thing which, frankly, sounds like feudalism from 1000 years ago.
In most of the western world, adolescent males compete for women with their charm, looks, etc... and also the other way around. Flirting is cool. No caste system.
How do you change an ancient country's attitude towards women? I don't think you can.
Traditions can be much more powerful than laws.
Capitalism, in India, is simply one more tool used by the higher castes in order to give strength to some deeply rooted traditions which are totally disconnected from the 21st century Planet Earth.
It seems to me that what is required here is a deep change of Indian society. Women seem to compete for men with money, which is absurd. Moreover, there is this "caste" thing which, frankly, sounds like feudalism from 1000 years ago.
In most of the western world, adolescent males compete for women with their charm, looks, etc... and also the other way around. Flirting is cool. No caste system.
How do you change an ancient country's attitude towards women? I don't think you can.
Traditions can be much more powerful than laws.
Capitalism, in India, is simply one more tool used by the higher castes in order to give strength to some deeply rooted traditions which are totally disconnected from the 21st century Planet Earth.
Just thought I would point out that gender-related socioeconomic phenomena usually have a more complex explanation than "it's absurd". This is also true in the West, with all of our weird dating customs. But it's harder to see the absurdities you are taught from birth. For example, why is it traditionally (and most commonly even today) the guy's responsibility to take the initiative in the courtship process? This article provides a stark alternative which is a very efficient counter-example to the evo-psych explanations a lot of people come up with.
I'm not advocating cultural relativism; the reality described in this article sounds really shitty, but it is usually instructive to go deeper and ask why things are this way among poor people in India. With sexual attraction being one of the most powerful drives and varying socioeconomic conditions in the world, it stands to reason that different places will have wildly differing customs. These change over generations, as the conditions that formed them change. For instance, an undersupply of men in the wake of a deadly war could be one force which vastly increases the sexual market value of men, and causes customs like the ones described in this article.
Look at China if you want to see a third way this can play out, where the roles are reversed.
I'm not advocating cultural relativism; the reality described in this article sounds really shitty, but it is usually instructive to go deeper and ask why things are this way among poor people in India. With sexual attraction being one of the most powerful drives and varying socioeconomic conditions in the world, it stands to reason that different places will have wildly differing customs. These change over generations, as the conditions that formed them change. For instance, an undersupply of men in the wake of a deadly war could be one force which vastly increases the sexual market value of men, and causes customs like the ones described in this article.
Look at China if you want to see a third way this can play out, where the roles are reversed.
It works by outsourcing manufacturing to places without unions and phasing out unionized factories on any available excuse. Did you notice how around 2008 lots of american workers got sacked and production plummeted? Funny thing is that production is back to pre-crisis levels already but noone invites the workers back. Companies are more efficient than ever. They probably bless recession for providing them the opportunity to shed off unnecessary unionized workers.
To misquote Churchill "Capitalism is the worst possible system, except for all the rest".
The problem here is more a lack of strong mechanisms to set and enforce standards along with a host of deeply rooted cultural norms (especially the dowry system) that are easily exploited.
The problem here is more a lack of strong mechanisms to set and enforce standards along with a host of deeply rooted cultural norms (especially the dowry system) that are easily exploited.
That (mis)quote of Churchill doesn't really mean anything, it's a shallow apology of capitalism, just a catchy formula that superficially seems to make sense if you don't care to think about the possibilities. If you suspend thinking it works on an emotional level because it suggests that yes, the people in power are aware of capitalism's shortcomings, they feel the pain but, alas, there's nothing they could do, so stop complaining you ungrateful somebody...
Churchill and the likes are not exactly neutral observers with no interest in preserving the status quo by any means possible, starting with intellectual dishonesty.
Churchill and the likes are not exactly neutral observers with no interest in preserving the status quo by any means possible, starting with intellectual dishonesty.
Because the fat imperialist says capitalism is the best we have to keep it for all time until our star goes supernova? Our rooted first world lifestyle is the strong mechanism enabling these sweat shops.
I agree.
A better argument is that free trade based on voluntary transactions is the only just and moral system of allocating resources, in theory and in practice.
A better argument is that free trade based on voluntary transactions is the only just and moral system of allocating resources, in theory and in practice.
Without further qualifications, I too agree completely. However, to me it's both sad and funny how twisted the meaning of "free" and "voluntary" become when used to defend (liberal) capitalism. This is a general remark, it's not meant as an attack of how you use these words (I wouldn't really know).
Spot on.
Churchill was distinctly batshit as well so you can't really actually cite him as a single reliable source.
Churchill was distinctly batshit as well so you can't really actually cite him as a single reliable source.
>Churchill was distinctly batshit
That's simply balderdash. Churchill was not only a brilliant politician, but an extremely witty and accomplished writer, thinker, and artist. He even received the Nobel prize ... for literature[1].
If you'd like to explain why you think he is "batshit" I'd love to hear it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
That's simply balderdash. Churchill was not only a brilliant politician, but an extremely witty and accomplished writer, thinker, and artist. He even received the Nobel prize ... for literature[1].
If you'd like to explain why you think he is "batshit" I'd love to hear it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
That misquote reminds me so much of Stroustrup's C++ (mis?)quote, and the cynical man inside me tells me that it's just that everything getting widespread use shows its dark side. Sometimes that dark side is more conspicuous and/or shows eariler, and sometimes it has more serious consequences, though. Btw, I am much more fond of C++ than capitalism, which, I guess, puts me inside a tiny minority here on HN :).
About your second line, I think that the biggest problem about capitalism and developing/underdeveloped countries is that capitalism doesn't break the existing power structures, and, worse, it may reinforce them. There, capitalism is (even) less of a sea of oportunities and more of a new source of oppression mechanisms. The vicious circle associated with poverty isn't any good for people from the lower strata.
About your second line, I think that the biggest problem about capitalism and developing/underdeveloped countries is that capitalism doesn't break the existing power structures, and, worse, it may reinforce them. There, capitalism is (even) less of a sea of oportunities and more of a new source of oppression mechanisms. The vicious circle associated with poverty isn't any good for people from the lower strata.
And an acceptance of petty corruption and violence a coworker who's of Indian descent commented that his family had had had "several" properties expropriated by "gangsters"
Yes because more laws and control really help...
The ability to actually enforce laws and protect girls against fraud (and rape or whatever else) is what I see as the main problem here.
I'd say a better solution is to encourage people not to be 100% self- interested (sorry I'm a rampant Marxist). They have laws but corruption is rife.
What would it even mean to not be 100% self interested? Are people in India never charitable or selfless? No, of course that is not true. When someone acts charitably it is still self interested insofar as the charitable act is taken up in order to meet the end sought after. What you said sounds nice, but I don't see how you really do it.
Yes, it is true that India has a culture of corruption and bribery. I wonder if part of these girls' wages are taken for the housing or "company store" type things. There were some stories recently about workers in Dubai who are just lied to about the level of pay and then held hostage with visa or passport paperwork. If it is that type of case here, then it is fraud and the exploitation is due to the faulty legal system, lack of enforcement, culture of misogyny, etc.
I don't agree at all with the idea that wage labor by itself is exploitative. Basically the error with Marxist exploitation theory is that it ignores the concept of time preference. Wage laborers with a higher time preference prefer present goods in the form of wages to the process of saving and deferring some of the present enjoyment and then taking up their own entrepreneurial venture. Of course, the state by erecting barriers to entry and other distortions exacerbate the problem.
Yes, it is true that India has a culture of corruption and bribery. I wonder if part of these girls' wages are taken for the housing or "company store" type things. There were some stories recently about workers in Dubai who are just lied to about the level of pay and then held hostage with visa or passport paperwork. If it is that type of case here, then it is fraud and the exploitation is due to the faulty legal system, lack of enforcement, culture of misogyny, etc.
I don't agree at all with the idea that wage labor by itself is exploitative. Basically the error with Marxist exploitation theory is that it ignores the concept of time preference. Wage laborers with a higher time preference prefer present goods in the form of wages to the process of saving and deferring some of the present enjoyment and then taking up their own entrepreneurial venture. Of course, the state by erecting barriers to entry and other distortions exacerbate the problem.
> this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation
Say what?
Say what?
Almost 90% of the sports jerseys are produced from Southern part of India where the situations and characters mentioned in the article are still alive.
Multinational garment companies like Adidas, Nike, Puma etc. should have stricter vigilance towards exploitation of employees. Young girls are prone towards exploitation and they are willing to undergo this as they are desperate for money.
And, blame parents too!
Multinational garment companies like Adidas, Nike, Puma etc. should have stricter vigilance towards exploitation of employees. Young girls are prone towards exploitation and they are willing to undergo this as they are desperate for money.
And, blame parents too!
If you think Addidas, Nike, Puma etc. don't already know exactly what is happening in this factories, and even further - outsorce their production to EXACTLY those unethical factories, you my friend, are just deceiving yourself.
> just a quarter of the $105 a month she was promised, about $0.84 a day.
It really bugs me when reporters use inconsistent units to exaggerate a point. Yes, the pay difference is horrible, but it sounds almost as bad when you say $25.20 per month, and that is a less misleading way to describe it.
It really bugs me when reporters use inconsistent units to exaggerate a point. Yes, the pay difference is horrible, but it sounds almost as bad when you say $25.20 per month, and that is a less misleading way to describe it.
I read that differently to you - the words "a quarter of $105" instantly tells me $25.20 because it's such an easy calculation, whereas telling me an extra stat like what that is per day is something I hadn't already worked out myself.
Numbers-based journalism still has a way to go, yes. I wonder why it isn't given more focus.
Maybe she is payed daily, rather than by month. Monthly paid usually includes some free holiday, so she could loose money on this as well.
HN users should be wary of cheap clothing the same way they are of free online services.
They cut those costs somewhere.
They cut those costs somewhere.
Reducing costs is not necessarily linked to reducing quality of life for workers. In the early 20th century, Taylor deliberately attempted to increase both pay/quality of life and productivity, by encouraging systems where workers and managers worked together to make work more efficient, which was supposed to result in increased wages for workers as well. Of course, it was twisted out of recognition by endless consultants over the following decades. That said, the work culture that we have now in modern, enlightened companies, is a descendant of this movement - a movement that started in just as bad a place as the factory described in the article.
The fault lies not in reducing costs per se. Rather, it lies in reducing costs in an inhuman, inhumane, stupid and mean fashion: by abusing weaker people rather than by creating smarter solutions. In the long term, the latter will win. However, that does not help those poor souls caught in the former trap.
Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination.
The fault lies not in reducing costs per se. Rather, it lies in reducing costs in an inhuman, inhumane, stupid and mean fashion: by abusing weaker people rather than by creating smarter solutions. In the long term, the latter will win. However, that does not help those poor souls caught in the former trap.
Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination.
Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination.
Agreed.
People have the causation backwards. Lower prices stem from lower costs which come from use of less resources (natural or productive) which means that there is more produced stuff out there. Increasing costs is the best way to increase prices and induce smaller supplies of produced goods.
Agreed.
People have the causation backwards. Lower prices stem from lower costs which come from use of less resources (natural or productive) which means that there is more produced stuff out there. Increasing costs is the best way to increase prices and induce smaller supplies of produced goods.
I always find it amusing if people claim (just an example) "I would never buy Apple/Nike/++, they employ child workers, it is awful" and then they go to the supermarket, buy the cheapest meat/vodka/sugar/coffee they can find, or they buy a cheap $99 tablet/smartphone/TV from india/china/malaysia, or they buy $3.99 t-shirts/pants/shoes from throwaway stores. As if somehow these products can be produced at such low prices without affecting quality and wages of the workers behind it.
There are ways for those companies to reduce costs (and pass on savings) which still support low prices. Primark [1] is a case where they have no advertising spend and rely on low prices and word of mouth. Makes me wonder about the marketing budgets of other retailers.
[1] http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/newsfaq/faqs
[1] http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/newsfaq/faqs
It's better to buy $4 t-shirts than $14 t-shirts. Workers get pretty much the same in both cases but their exploiters get rewarded whole $10 less. This might put some of them out of business which is a good thing.
One thing to remember is that you must start somewhere. Overall, it's way better than not doing anything.
Indeed. You can't send a message to noname brands in the same way.
I think companies like Abercrombie & Fitch are feeling the hurt as a result of this.
I'm sure there are ways of making a point to companies on both the long and short tail of fashion/clothing, though.
I think companies like Abercrombie & Fitch are feeling the hurt as a result of this.
I'm sure there are ways of making a point to companies on both the long and short tail of fashion/clothing, though.
I don't see how. Whether you buy it from Nike or (insert lesser known shoe company with same policy), there's really no difference.
Can't say I have an example but let's hope there's at least one company who cares about that. Some industries actually changed to accomodate for those that care. A good example: food companies. At least in Europe it's quite easy to buy from companies that care about the environment, animals, lack of chemicals, etc. Eventually this kind of thinking will expand to other industries.
Update: I tried to search for a couple of minutes for more responsible brands, apparently New Balance makes some of their shoes in the US: http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeF...
Update: I tried to search for a couple of minutes for more responsible brands, apparently New Balance makes some of their shoes in the US: http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeF...
American Apparel is a famous example. Though their marketing may be subject to discussion, their production practices are admirable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production
There is nothing that says the same isn't true of expensive clothing (and for that matter, online services). They may still cut the costs in the most unethical manner possible. They'll just have a higher profit margin at the same time.
This is the most frustrating thing about society today. We seem to have absolutely no means to discern quality.
If a no name brand starts to make quality t-shirts, no one will know about it, and no shops will stock it, because the margins will be too low and the marketing will have too little budget.
If it takes $1 to make a shitty $15 shirt, and $15 to make a proper shirt, what will you charge for the proper quality shirt? How will you market it?
The end result is that they're marketed as super high quality only available for the sort of person that can afford to spend $100 on a basic shirt, just to compensate for the decreased margin and decreased demand.
The solution would have to be that these kinds of brands need to be ran by charities, with such low margins that no one gets rich of it. You need someone to splurge a couple million to buy a factory in India, and then increase wages and conditions until you make 0 profit.
Is it true that the only way to run capitalism humanely, is to have capitalists surrender their money?
If a no name brand starts to make quality t-shirts, no one will know about it, and no shops will stock it, because the margins will be too low and the marketing will have too little budget.
If it takes $1 to make a shitty $15 shirt, and $15 to make a proper shirt, what will you charge for the proper quality shirt? How will you market it?
The end result is that they're marketed as super high quality only available for the sort of person that can afford to spend $100 on a basic shirt, just to compensate for the decreased margin and decreased demand.
The solution would have to be that these kinds of brands need to be ran by charities, with such low margins that no one gets rich of it. You need someone to splurge a couple million to buy a factory in India, and then increase wages and conditions until you make 0 profit.
Is it true that the only way to run capitalism humanely, is to have capitalists surrender their money?
At least.. on an international scale? I mean, the reason we don't run those factories in the Netherlands, is because in The Netherlands things like minimum wage and working conditions are enforced more consistently, making it too expensive.
If we would force India to also enforce those conditions, all we would do is make their factories unattractive, and business would move to another country.
Solving that, would perhaps require legislation to ban clothing (et al.) companies from using offshore factories that are not under close scrutiny of our own government. But perhaps that will just make our brands like H&M unattractive to more liberal countries like the U.S.
If we would force India to also enforce those conditions, all we would do is make their factories unattractive, and business would move to another country.
Solving that, would perhaps require legislation to ban clothing (et al.) companies from using offshore factories that are not under close scrutiny of our own government. But perhaps that will just make our brands like H&M unattractive to more liberal countries like the U.S.
That is what this article claims: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732399860... (2013)
I highly doubt the cost of clothing makes much difference, because labour is such a small percentage of the total price. For instance this report - http://www.ecouterre.com/infographic-how-much-does-that-14-t... - says that labour makes up 12c out of a $14 t-shirt, only 1% of the total. You could double wages, and only add 12c onto the final price. The difference between cheap and expensive clothes is branding, profit margin, and sometimes quality, it's not clear at all that there's any difference in labour practices.
I wouldn't want to buy goods made by children, primarily because children lack an eye for quality. But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children.
> primarily because children lack an eye for quality
Dont worry,it's likely they get beaten if they dont "deliver"
> But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children. You are assuming children are getting paid. they are not most of the time.
> But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children. You are assuming children are getting paid. they are not most of the time.
Sure I assume that they get paid. If not in currency, perhaps in food or the stuff they manufacture? I remember taking a train through Russia in the early 90s: almost on every stop, there were people selling stuffed toys or lead glass tableware – that's what they've manufactured, and it was their payment.
When I can either work or starve to death, I would definitely prefer the former under any conditions. Exploitation of child labor is a consequence of poorly functioning government, not an isolated issue by itself. So if we want to do something with it, we should deal with the source of these problems.
Hans Rosling did some great talks on related issues here: http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html
How would you find clothes that have not been manufactured by slaves ?
In Switzerland I can buy from Switcher (switcher.ch), which markets clothes "made with respect", and I just found out about the Fair Wear Foundation, which has a short list of member brands (www.fairwear.org).
As pointed out in this thread, just buying more expensive clothes may not make a difference.
A friend of mine has a (very small so far) ethical underwear company called Who Made Your Pants (http://www.whomadeyourpants.co.uk/)
She started it because she realised that in the UK marketplace it was very hard to buy underwear that didn't come from sweat-shops, even if you were prepared to spend a bit (or a lot) more. So these are made here in the UK, by disadvantaged women who get to learn a skill and take home some pay.
She started it because she realised that in the UK marketplace it was very hard to buy underwear that didn't come from sweat-shops, even if you were prepared to spend a bit (or a lot) more. So these are made here in the UK, by disadvantaged women who get to learn a skill and take home some pay.
I can't help but read this and wonder whether "Aruna" actually exists, and, if she does, whether all the details about her are as described. That's the legacy that Mike Daisey has left us with.
With a distrust of stories about labor exploitation? That's the wrong message to take from someone lying to you. Be less credulous about people's stories in general maybe, but restricting it to stories about labor is as reasonable as being racist because a black person bullied you in high school.
Not really the same thing - It's not that I don't trust monologuests (sp?) as a class of people, and, indeed, the writer of this article, Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau.
It's more along the lines of living your entire life without locking your doors, and then, one day getting burgled, and thereafter making a point to lock your doors when you leave.
Or getting mugged at night, and not walking down that dark street anymore.
Perhaps it's a good thing that I don't just automatically take things at face value; I'll admit to having listened with rapt attention to Mike Daisey's performance on NPR - he's really quite talented - maybe there was a positive takeway, Mike Daisey was like a vaccine, I'm now more resistant to false reporting.
It's more along the lines of living your entire life without locking your doors, and then, one day getting burgled, and thereafter making a point to lock your doors when you leave.
Or getting mugged at night, and not walking down that dark street anymore.
Perhaps it's a good thing that I don't just automatically take things at face value; I'll admit to having listened with rapt attention to Mike Daisey's performance on NPR - he's really quite talented - maybe there was a positive takeway, Mike Daisey was like a vaccine, I'm now more resistant to false reporting.
I get the parallel, but that problem has always existed in reporting long before Mike Daisey and him writing his thing doesn't say anything about the ethics of this particular writer.
Oh. Mother Jones. Well, that's about on the level of the National Enquirer for me, so I'll pass.
Ugh, motherjones, that perpetual bastion of leftist bullshit!
Why is this tripe being upvoted here on HN? You might as well have posted something directly from Rush Limbaugh's blog (or website, or whatever he has). It's crap.
Why is this tripe being upvoted here on HN? You might as well have posted something directly from Rush Limbaugh's blog (or website, or whatever he has). It's crap.
http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=19...
The NPR staff wound up working with Jockey to have the shirt made and that obviously opened up a lot of doors to the production facilities and interviews with factory workers, etc.
The Mother Jones article reminded me, I guess, that Jockey's hand in the NPR access had a non-trvial amount of P/R influence in the project.