Answer to a Debate Question

[The Z-Man]

When ever I begin to debate someone, and sweatshops some up as a topic, they pull the "Well sweatshops are better than no shops. Without those jobs those poeple would starve." Whats a good response to this?


Z

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

the thing is, there is no real 1 answer since it is so far up to a persons own views of the world, theri compassion etc. However, you could counter that, these multi-national company sweatshops that exist destroy the original local (as in village) industries that existed prior to their arival. While before, these people may not have had money, these industries provided the people with what they needed. Only with their destruction came this need for money which is then in no ways met by the sweatshop labour. Furthermore, you could also argue that real wages is again better than sweatshopes,s o why not them. Pose the question back in this way, it is always ahrder to answer a question than it is to pose one.

[scimitar]

They claim that these people would starve without sweatshops?

Many of these people are starving already--and the wages that they are paid are not enough to even feed themselves.

There are almost more ways for one to be killed inside of a sweatshop than there are in a war! You could be crushed, caught in a machine, or poisoned. You could suffocate or develop cancer. You could be beaten to death by the boss.

The capitalist will not be prepared to answer this. They have no moral ground to stand on here (but then again, the capitalists have no moral ground in the first place).

[Dwarf Kirlston]

Employment is good but dangerous is bad. People in those situations are "between a rock and a hard place" Sweatshops, child labor, prostitution...

sweatshops give food, shelter, threaten life, are probably intensely uncomfortable... between that and being homeless and starving or picking (rotten) food from trashes?

beetween slavery and death, what would you choose?

[The Z-Man]

Thanks guys...but somehow...I still get shot down.

[The Z-Man]

The main agument that kills me is:

"If the sweatshops are so bad....the people don't have to work there! They can just leave!"

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Maybe if they own a million dollar on a Swiss bank account, but not if they are proletariat. As a prole, you desperatly need money merely for survival. This is even worse in third world countries. So yes they could leave the sweatshop, only to face death. This reminds me:

"Wageslavery or starvation is not a choice, it's a threat".

And yes, unfortunatly in this capitalist world having a shitty job, is better then no job at all. This shows what a sick system capitalism is, little children have to work for their mere survival while on the other hand, rich scum don't even know how to spend so much wealth.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

also, in some sweatshops it is almost impossible to leave. In my geography class last year (had a good lefty teacher) we learnt about cases throughout Asia where the workers were forced in tiny shacks on the site of the factory, surrounded by barbed wire fences to stop them leaving. But in the end dude, this is an argument that, unless the person listening is open to the more leftwing, often socialist or communist solution, we are bound to 'lose' the argument in their view.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Good of him to ask though. It's important to share with each other experiences and views in order to get a clearer picture of the whole. And do debate with them, even if it's only to train your own debating skills and to check if you can underbuilt what you believe in.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Z-[email protected] 29 2005, 10:59 PM
When ever I begin to debate someone, and sweatshops some up as a topic, they pull the "Well sweatshops are better than no shops. Without those jobs those poeple would starve." Whats a good response to this?


Z
I'd respond: that's true as far as it goes. But why are those the only alternatives? We can fight for jobs and a decent living for every worker in the world. An international movement demanding a shorter workweek for no cut in pay (just as the fight for a 8-hour day was international), cancellation of the Third World debt, etc.

Industrialization of the Third World is good from a communist perspective. Mostly because it creates more wage-workers, more gravediggers of capitalism.

But it's also true that many of these factory jobs, however low-paying compared to the First World, are better than jobs previously available, or eking out a living as a peasant.

It's really strange that people who claim to be leftist and internationalists advocate keeping industry in the imperialist countries and American jobs for American workers, etc. Or maybe not so much strange as really phony, plain old nationalism and protectionism behind a mask of concern for those poor, helpless, suffering workers in the Third World.

Marx on Free Trade and Protectionism - and why he's ultimately for free trade. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm)

Still holds up today.

[RedCeltic]

"Well sweatshops are better than no shops. Without those jobs those people would starve."


"If the sweatshops are so bad....the people don't have to work there! They can just leave!"

This is classic neo-liberal economic thinking here... first you say you're helping them because without those Jobs they will have nothing... than when pressed on human rights abuses of such hell holes they claim that they don't really need those jobs.

Fact is, that the problem is in the operation of such places and not in the question if the industry should be there or not. Yes, people need jobs, and yes they are desperate for any work they can get. Who do you think would risk their health, safety, etc... if they were not happy for any work available?

The only reason Sweatshops have such poor conditions is to maximize profits. These conditions do not exist because it is an essential part of manufacturing, it exists because it is essential to have the lowest possible overhead that will in turn maximize profit.

Here's a good website that will give you the ammunition you need in such a debate.

Clean Clothes Connection (http://www.cleanclothesconnection.org/sweatshopqa.htm#job)

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by The Z-[email protected] 30 2005, 04:59 AM
When ever I begin to debate someone, and sweatshops some up as a topic, they pull the "Well sweatshops are better than no shops. Without those jobs those poeple would starve." Whats a good response to this?


Z
"I give up"

because that person is right.

[The Z-Man]

ThanQ everone....except totalitarian...These all helped.


Z

[lvialviaquez]

Though what I'm about to say has already been described by pretty much everyone else posting on this thread, I'm going to say it anyway.

The thing about sweatshops is that they completely ravage the local economies in the areas where they are built. True, they do provide jobs to the people. However, if they hadn't been built in the first place, local businesses and industries would eventually evolve to provide better jobs. Additionally, all existing local industries are destroyed when sweatshops come in. If you want to read more about this, I would recommend the book The Case Against The Global Economy. It addresses a lot of the social issues arising out of neo-liberal economic globalization.

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:57 PM
Though what I'm about to say has already been described by pretty much everyone else posting on this thread, I'm going to say it anyway.

The thing about sweatshops is that they completely ravage the local economies in the areas where they are built. True, they do provide jobs to the people. However, if they hadn't been built in the first place, local businesses and industries would eventually evolve to provide better jobs. Additionally, all existing local industries are destroyed when sweatshops come in. If you want to read more about this, I would recommend the book The Case Against The Global Economy. It addresses a lot of the social issues arising out of neo-liberal economic globalization.
Thanks. I'll pick it up.

[Black Dagger]

However, if they hadn't been built in the first place, local businesses and industries would eventually evolve to provide better jobs.

The problem with that is people need jobs NOW, most people can't wait for 'better' jobs to 'evolve' for them, they're desperate, that's why they work in sweat-shops.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

They wouldn't even evolve to better workingconditions. Because that would raise the costs for the capitalist, thus the capitalist would leave for a new place where the workers are cheap. The "choice" that capitalism gives is simple: shit or nothing at all. Obviously I am not happy with a system that gives me such shitty limited choices.

[redstar2000]

Something could be said here about how an imperialist country "develops" a pre-capitalist economy in the "third world".

They don't start by building sweatshops. The first thing imperialist countries develop is commercial agriculture -- growing crops for the "world market".

It is because of this step that much of the peasantry must leave their land and move to the cities -- they no longer grow enough food to sustain themselves by traditional subsistence farming.

Then the sweatshops can be built -- a large displaced peasantry has no choice but to accept those jobs.

The sweatshops do not so much "pull" people to work for them; the development of commercial agriculture pushes people off the land and into the cities...where they must work in sweatshops or starve.

This would happen, by the way, even if there were no imperialism...but it would happen slower and the suffering would be much less (as in 19th century Europe).

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[waltersm]

Sweatshops aren't better than no shops because if we dont stop them then the corporations will gain more and more influence untill thye control all aspects of life and the whole globe is one massive sweatshop

[OleMarxco]

Okay, so perhaps this was a bit bullshit....

[NovelGentry]

most possibly a job-position that opens up for more and more goofin' up at the job and lazyin' away with most pay totally UNPROPABLE with the amount of work being done. Such slackers will NOT be tolerated under Communism, and will face SEVERE punishments

WTF?

[lvialviaquez]

Though what I'm about to say has already been described by pretty much everyone else posting on this thread, I'm going to say it anyway.

The thing about sweatshops is that they completely ravage the local economies in the areas where they are built. True, they do provide jobs to the people. However, if they hadn't been built in the first place, local businesses and industries would eventually evolve to provide better jobs. Additionally, all existing local industries are destroyed when sweatshops come in. If you want to read more about this, I would recommend the book The Case Against The Global Economy. It addresses a lot of the social issues arising out of neo-liberal economic globalization.

Thanks. I'll pick it up.

It might be hard to find. I only got a copy because it was stocked by the college bookstore where I was taking a summer class in geopolitics.



The problem with that is people need jobs NOW, most people can't wait for 'better' jobs to 'evolve' for them, they're desperate, that's why they work in sweat-shops.

It is true that people need jobs immediately and this is why they work in sweatshops. However, just because people choose sweatshops over death does not make them good. Sure, they are "better" than nothing, but third world workers shouldn't have to settle for a the lives in sweatshops if they could achieve autonomous local industries that would more than likely provide better jobs than corporate sweatshops.

Now, whether these local industries would be able to exist in the current global economic climate or whether they would necessarily provide better jobs than sweatshops is another question....

I would contend that yes, these industries are achievable and that they would provide better working conditions. I'm not prepared to explain why I feel that way at this moment.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:23 PM
Who the hell needs shops anyways. They're lookin' for a working place, not necessarily a fuckin', uh, duh, "distrubution place". WE, the consumers, MAYBE, but not a work applicant. A work applicant should be lookin' for...well, to be honest, most possibly a job-position that opens up for more and more goofin' up at the job and lazyin' away with most pay totally UNPROPABLE with the amount of work being done. Such slackers will NOT be tolerated under Communism, and will face SEVERE punishments -- Although not DIRECTLY, 'tho, so no "Police State", as mr. RS2000 would've said it, no? :che:
That's called fascism, homes.

In Communism the workers would collectivly beat the living crap out of you if you tried to put a finger on even one of them. :che: this.

[bezdomni]

First off, people working in sweat shops are probably better off going through the garbage of a bourgeoise factory owner than making their two cent a day wage for working 14 hours.

Second off, even if it was true that "sweatshops are better than no shops" there are obvious philosophical counterpoints to this.
a) Better for whom? The worker, the factory owner, the consumer?
b) Just becase sweatshops are "better" than no shops doesn't mean sweatshops are good. Breaking one bone may be less painful than breaking 10 bones, but neither one are very desirable. Stalinism maybe "better" than Fascism, but neither one are very desirable (to most people).

[Che1990]

Well if you want my opinion, sweatshops are disgusting, unethical, unfair, capitalist, scummy shitholes and any company that uses them (i.e. Nike) needs punishing and shutting down. And now Nike make anti-racism bands when they have Indonesian women working 16hr days 7days-a-week shitting in bags under their seats and some fat american sitting in an office all day shagging blondes and shitting on gold-plated toilets! HOW FUCKING HIPPOCRITICAL CAN THEY GET!

[Che1990]

Plus the CEO of Nike has 5.2billion dollars. Capitalist shit.

[jcbn]

Anti-sweatshop activists don't want to shut down factories and eliminate jobs. They want to improve the wages and working conditions at the factories, so they're no longer "sweatshops." The word "sweatshop" refers to a set of conditions.

Being against sweatshops means being against starvation wages and dangerous (and often illegal) working conditions.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:21 PM
Well if you want my opinion, sweatshops are disgusting, unethical, unfair, capitalist, scummy shitholes and any company that uses them (i.e. Nike) needs punishing and shutting down. And now Nike make anti-racism bands when they have Indonesian women working 16hr days 7days-a-week shitting in bags under their seats and some fat american sitting in an office all day shagging blondes and shitting on gold-plated toilets! HOW FUCKING HIPPOCRITICAL CAN THEY GET!
Yeah, I try to tell every friend I see wearing those stupid bands how nike exploits third world labour, and they act really suprised, like they didn't know, or maybe forgot.

This is the pathetic thing about capitalism, it's so inherently evil that a company can have the balls to promote anti-racism all the while, the people making these anti-racism bands are working 14hours a day for 44 cents a day without breaks.

[Che1990]

Exactly. It's disgusting. Especially when the workers are all Indonesian and the rich, fat board of directors are white american males. No it's not very racist at all is it Nike (note the sarcasm)?

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+May 4 2005, 02:34 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ May 4 2005, 02:34 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:23 PM
Who the hell needs shops anyways. They're lookin' for a working place, not necessarily a fuckin', uh, duh, "distrubution place". WE, the consumers, MAYBE, but not a work applicant. A work applicant should be lookin' for...well, to be honest, most possibly a job-position that opens up for more and more goofin' up at the job and lazyin' away with most pay totally UNPROPABLE with the amount of work being done. Such slackers will NOT be tolerated under Communism, and will face SEVERE punishments -- Although not DIRECTLY, 'tho, so no "Police State", as mr. RS2000 would've said it, no? :che:
That's called fascism, homes.

In Communism the workers would collectivly beat the living crap out of you if you tried to put a finger on even one of them. :che: this. [/b]
Riiight. You will perhaps let them go away, but okay, let the people decide then if they want to let Slackers live off soceity <_< - But I won&#39;t even TOUCH workers, for them are sor of...well, "holy and sacred" in Communism. Perhaps they can slack a little more at work, but I won&#39;t smile at people who sit their time away withouth contributin&#39;. :che: back to you again&#33;

I will admit my first post where a wee &#39;lil bit far off, but you GET MY POINT, allright?
No hard feelings&#33; :)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I only skimmed the other answers, so this might have already been brought up but . . .

Sweatshops do not exist in a void - I offer an example that is common in Latin America.

Now, suppose I am a small farmer. I may not have much, but I am able to sustain myself.
One day, though, the US begins dumping shitloads of subsidized agribusiness grain into my country. Holy fuck, my crop is worth nothing, and I lose my farm.
I&#39;ll do anything for even a bit of money, so who shows up? It&#39;s our old friend Nike, with a factory for me to work in&#33;
Now, Nike is better than no job (sorta), but, wait, wasn&#39;t I doing fine this time last year?

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:15 AM
Anti-sweatshop activists don&#39;t want to shut down factories and eliminate jobs. They want to improve the wages and working conditions at the factories, so they&#39;re no longer "sweatshops." The word "sweatshop" refers to a set of conditions.

Being against sweatshops means being against starvation wages and dangerous (and often illegal) working conditions.
Good point. Thats the best of them all.