* a defeat for a generation lost in a world with no taste
manifesto | discourse | interviews | reviews | expression | rants | band
myspace | mixtapes | letters | photography | radar | blog | faq | contact
Child Labour (from a first world perspective)
Right. You have an interesting point of view, one which I get the impression will clash with most of those at SOAS. But that’s no bad thing, we’d all stay in the same place intellectually if there was no-one to disagree with.
Firstly, is it really fair to make a child work if they have no choice in the matter? Choice is a privilege we have in the west and I am grateful for that. What if a child really wants to go to school but is forced into work? Seems somewhat unethical to me. Perhaps against their human rights.
Some people get exploited, others don’t. But the vast majority of a trans national corporation’s profits are taken back to the HQ in the developed company (and then maybe off to a tax haven somewhere), not invested in schools and hospitals in the poorer country. I don’t think it’s quite a rosy as you paint it, the reality is sweatshops with 12 hour shifts and children down mines digging out diamonds for rich ladies fingers in the west.
I can see the benefit in TNC’s building factories in less economically developed countries, it does bring jobs and generate some wealth. But quite often the TNC will up and move sticks if they discover cheaper labour elsewhere. This leaves the community in ruin as they had become dependant on the income and potentially let other forms of income go into decline, eg. Agriculture.
As for the trend towards “ethical trade”, I’m all for that. But sadly it is still a minority in the international market.
Totilytarian x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism Rocks: I think your appraisal of wealth creation and distribution is bound to be skewed if framed in a nation-based perspective. To say that capitalism makes a country richer completely ignores the gradations of class within these countries. Consider a room of 10 people and 1 of these people is given $50,000. This room is comparatively richer than previously but this says nothing about the other 9 people in the room. This is what happens when the few beneficiaries of business receive wealth in their countries.
Letting the fundamental rules of production and materials in a society off the hook and excusing poverty through bad government makes little sense. Any government is the product of its economic activity. One cannot ignore the effects of free-trade and privatisation on South and Central America, in particular Bolivia and Argentina.
Re. Exploitation: What you outlined is exploitation. If I were to give a woman in a concentration camp a slice of bread for washing my Porsche, I am gaining a car-wash at the expense of a slice of bread. I am only able to do this by taking advantage of the conditions she is in rather than doing something to end her suffering. Of course, she sees her life improve with a slice of bread but I think if you say I’m doing her a favour when you consider what I could do, your sense of justice is an odd one.
Working conditions: ‘Consumer power’ is a misconception based on the idea that some companies are good and some are bad, as if they are open to moral judgement like a person. The business institution is amoral. What it does, it does by the result of necessity. All a ‘consumer’ can do is feed another manifestation of this institution that will be equally ruthless in its exploitation for profit. If it does not, the so-called ethically trading company will be beaten in the competition of the market and die.
Double Standards: Your example is no double standard for anyone wanting to see an end to forced child labour. You have to make it clear why a person who rejects exploitation of children is linked to the British industrial revolution and its imperialist essence. If you base this on nationhood you commit the fallacy of confusing a nation with a person with one mind, one conscience and sense of accountability. If you attribute the moral association of modern person to history by causality, your argument is as flawed. I might even concede that the society I live in is the result of centuries of exploitation and misery, but causal effect of this kind is irrelevant in moral questions. If my parents were murderers does that forfeit my right to criticize murder? Any person is the result of things he would ethically condemn.
As for children being helped out of poverty by free-market capitalism, you’d do a great deal to site where this has happened. I could give you a few counterexamples of places that have suffered from the chaos of market competition.
You are indeed right to analyse these issues within their wider context. You wisely take the international market into consideration when looking at child labour. I agree that nobody can justly object to child labour without considering these things. However this is only because child labour cannot be criticized alone. If child labour is to be opposed, so to must the basic principles which bring it about. These are namely the principles of free-trade capitalism.
Trebuchet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------