tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post115946449875717152..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Boycotting the NeedyRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-19672123650587459872008-02-14T13:43:00.000-05:002008-02-14T13:43:00.000-05:00There is the risk that the ability to profit from ...There is the risk that the ability to profit from sweatshop labor encourages companies to destroy tolerable existing ways of life (as Larry mentions), creating the misery that makes sweatshops look like a good alternative. I suppose this is an indirect case of forced labor - the coercion occurs once, up front, but it's still coercion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159674420557903752006-09-30T23:47:00.000-04:002006-09-30T23:47:00.000-04:00But it's not clear that "put[ting] the sweatshops ...But it's not clear that "put[ting] the sweatshops out of business" is a good thing at all, given that they are better for their workers than the presently available alternatives. The key question is whether such boycotts create demand to provide a <I>new</I> alternative to these same workers, e.g. decent factory labour.<BR/><BR/>This then raises the question in my main post: "is creating market demand for expensive but humane working conditions the best way to achieve this goal [of humane working conditions]? Or would activists be better off buying cheaper goods and investing their savings in a charity aimed at relieving the underlying 'misery' that Yglesias points to?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159668429505225442006-09-30T22:07:00.000-04:002006-09-30T22:07:00.000-04:00I think the argument for not buying from sweatshop...I think the argument for not buying from sweatshops is, in a way, similar to the argument for not giving in to the demands of hostage-takers. Yes, denying a hostage-taker's demands may cause suffering for his victims in the short term, but in the long term it makes everyone safer by discouraging hostage-taking as a tactic in the first place. Similarly, refusing to buy from sweatshops, and instead buying from employers who treat their workers well and pay a living wage, will in the long run put the sweatshops out of business and encourage the flourishing of businesses that treat workers humanely. After all, if we buy from employers who use sweatshop labor, won't that just encourage them to continue using sweatshop labor and stymie any efforts to improve their employees' living conditions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159626368912914102006-09-30T10:26:00.000-04:002006-09-30T10:26:00.000-04:00I think genius is right, except that it isn't pove...I think genius is right, except that it isn't poverty isn't caused. Poverty is the natural state of mankind. What requires an explanation is the aberration known as prosperity. One precondition for prosperity is that there be no bad third rail policies keeping people down. Another, and you'll find this in EVERY case of prosperity, is that people are willing to buy what you have for sale. No oppressed group ever became better off because someone boycotted what they had for sale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159511721196726152006-09-29T02:35:00.000-04:002006-09-29T02:35:00.000-04:00I think the root causes of poverty may well be "th...I think the root causes of poverty may well be "third rails" or "sacred cows" so to speak.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159495748246879272006-09-28T22:09:00.000-04:002006-09-28T22:09:00.000-04:00"the ones who would supposedly suffer from the boy..."<I>the ones who would supposedly suffer from the boycott - are the very ones aking for it.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I think this is the key question. If those who are being exploited would actually prefer NOT to have our custom, then we should respect that preference. (It indicates that they are not really working voluntarily at all.) But for those who DO want our business -- as I've been assuming here -- I don't see anything wrong with granting that preference.<BR/><BR/>"<I>You have to ask why sweatshops exist in the first place.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yes, exactly, a central theme of my post is that we should do more to alleviate the underlying causes (i.e. desperate poverty). My point is simply that WHILE we're working on that, there's nothing wrong with doing business with the exploited (so long as they do indeed want this).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159490072955497362006-09-28T20:34:00.000-04:002006-09-28T20:34:00.000-04:00The problem is that if we eliminate the boycott of...The problem is that if we eliminate the boycott of authoritarian regimes, we are left without a tactic, or rather we are left with one tactic that you really aren't going to like, armed struggle. If you deny the possibility of peaceful change you make for violent change, and I sure don't want that. Would a boycott be more harmful than a civil war, such as rages now in Columbia? These authoritarian regimes box us in a corner, by not allowing democratic change, they force us to use extra-parliamentary means such as the boycott. If the workers go on strike they will be murdered. So it is up to us to help them out. There is another aspect to consider. Most people are too complacent to boycott a product . Even the most sucessful of boycotts only engage a minority, unless with S Africa, you can swing the government on side. Thus most of the sweatshop workers that you worry about – like the grape workers or the Chileans – remain working. But the boycott cuts into profits and this is where it hurts. If only 25% of the people stop buying a product a company is in trouble. I suggest that a boycott is probably the least harmful to the poor of any tactic.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159472448606833672006-09-28T15:40:00.000-04:002006-09-28T15:40:00.000-04:00> Peasants who have enough land to grow food and a...> Peasants who have enough land to grow food and a little extra for the market don't go to work in sweatshops.<BR/><BR/>One could then argue sweatshops are in part the result of things like having too many children not to say that others can't take their land of course.<BR/><BR/>> The "boycotting hurts the innocent" is an old line anyway.<BR/><BR/>its a bit like "the bombing hurts the innocent" I can see how it might work and I can also see how it might hurt. It depends quite a bit on if you reach some sort of tipping point and if your plan is a workable one.<BR/><BR/>> the ones who would supposedly suffer from the boycott - are the very ones aking for it.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes that is true but I expect it isn't true in places like china or indonesia. Of course maybe the Cileans are right and the chinese/indonesians are wrong.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159470971345442932006-09-28T15:16:00.000-04:002006-09-28T15:16:00.000-04:00The charge is not justified as the same folks boyc...The charge is not justified as the same folks boycotting the sweat shops are usually the same people who support fair trade products, demonstrate against death squads etc. The "boycotting hurts the innocent" is an old line anyway. Apologists for the South African Apartheid regime used to trot it out all the time. Logically such bad company does not mean an idea is wrong of course, but the clincher is that groups fighting for their rights, such as the Chicano grape pickers in the 1960's, the Chileans under Pinochet and etc etc, - the ones who would supposedly suffer from the boycott - are the very ones aking for it.<BR/><BR/>"Fetishizing their own purity." is also an old straw man. The right has been throwing this slander at us since the 60's. No doubt a few people like this do exist but the vast majority of us are not that way. I regard it as a nasty, cynical and underhanded tactic.We are not in this to save our souls, or be holier than thou. We do this because there is no free lunch. Poverty and oppression abroad impact negatively on us at home. "An injury to one, is an injury to all" is not a hollow slogan, but a concrete reality.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1159469822732077562006-09-28T14:57:00.000-04:002006-09-28T14:57:00.000-04:00You have to ask why sweatshops exist in the first ...You have to ask why sweatshops exist in the first place. Peasants who have enough land to grow food and a little extra for the market don't go to work in sweatshops. The reason why they are landless or nearly so has to do with the fact they have been dispossessed either by feudal landlords, coruption or big corporations. Sweatshops also exist because there are no unions, or like in China and Mexico the unions are part of the state and serve the state's interest and not the workers. In many sweat shop-ridden countries death squads torture and kill unionists, as with Columbia and Honduras. Sweat shops also exist where there are no environmental laws and once again the death squads to their dirty work against those that would fight for sustainable practices. The answer to underdevelopment is not multi-national sweatshops but democracy, land reform, the formation of credit unions, and cooperatives and the institution of fair trade practices. In other words create a mas of free and independent self-employed economic actors instead of hyper-exploited wage slaves living and working in environmentally degraded conditions. For a good free market attack on sweat shops see:<BR/>http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/04/free-market-attack-on-sweatshops.html<BR/><BR/>Oh, and by the way, there is nothing wrong with prostitution, providing it isn't forced or involves children or the mentally handicapped. With the concept of self-ownership, you have the right to do with your body what you please...Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.com