Child labor...

[counterblast]

Protectionism is a philosophy of intervention that is operative in most children's lives. It is, in the west, a recent development. Although germs of the idea extend further back, it did not develop widely until the 19th century, nor become widespread until the early 20th.

During the 19th century it focused on child laborers. Prior to the industrial revolution, children always worked. The horrific working conditions in factories and mines introduced by this revolution, were shared by all workers, and yet it was children (and often women) who were progressively denied the right to work, and sent to school or forced to do housework instead.

The reasons for this are many, but the central reasoning to this process was a concept that had been developing among middle and upper classes for some time. This concept suggested that children were innocent, vulnerable, and easily corruptable, so they needed to be sheltered from the evils of the world until they could resist its temptations. They, along with their mothers, were considered "the angels of the house", who served as support figures for world weary fathers.

This stereotypical victorian view of children's "nature" contrasted absurdly with the reality of working class children's experience: in factories, in the streets, in agricultural work, and even in the prostitution industry, they were competent workers, who unionized alongside men and women for equal pay and improved conditions. Nevertheless, as the movement continued, the demands of children and women were systematically ignored by the larger unions. And while eventually womens suffrage forced unions to allow women into their ranks, there was never a question of improving working conditions or wages for children. Instead, political and social leaders opted for mandatory child schooling.

The rise to mandatory schooling, made children completely financially dependent upon parents. Their bodies, their time, and their intellect, was now to be monitored by undisputable rules, teacher surveillance, and "age-appropriate" education material, that only further cemented the concept of child protectionism as a mainstay in our society.

Today, with each new act of brutality against children in school (and otherwise), there is a constant cry for even more protection, or more intervention. Is it not time -- while keeping in mind the very real vulnerability of children in our current system -- to call into question the idea of protectionism itself?

If by protecting children and forcing our values upon them, we are making them more dependent and vulnerable to exploitation, then this is not only counterproductive, but hypocritical. When we think of protecting children, it is almost always against the danger "out there", against other adults, since we "know what is best". But it seems that we, even in the anti-authoritarian radical community, seem incapable of realising that a protector can also be an abuser -- in short any adult -- be they a parent, a teacher, a stranger, or a social worker who does not respect a child's integrity or personal wishes.

Aren't communists and anarchists the foremost advocates for the ability to unionize, act and speak freely, and seek information without the censorship of others as a means of self-protection against hierarchy? Shouldn't we promote the same values of self-protection for our children, rather than embracing outdated methods of protectionism?

[ComradeR]

While i agree for the most part with what you said about protectionism, I think child labor should remain outlawed, I think it is wrong to take children out of school and put them to work. What this basically suggests is that we allow children to go to work while some go to school, this would return to the old system of an educated elite over the uneducated workers. Mandatory schooling is a positive thing (lest it will be in a Socialist society).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:53 am
While i agree for the most part with what you said about protectionism, I think child labor should remain outlawed, I think it is wrong to take children out of school and put them to work. What this basically suggests is that we allow children to go to work while some go to school, this would return to the old system of an educated elite over the uneducated workers. Mandatory schooling is a positive thing (lest it will be in a Socialist society).
Isn't that already the case?

Poor children are left to suffer poor curriculum, horrible school funding, and the problems of inner-city gang warfare; while most affluent kids go to private or parochial schools in elite neighborhoods. Thats the case from almost every American city, from Chicago to Houston.

I'm not saying we abolish the public school system; instead I'm saying we allow children the ability to opt-out and work if they choose. Also, I'd like to see existing public schools adopt the Montessori model of schooling where children have more creative freedom and the ability to be a part of policy-making.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by counterblast
I'm not saying we abolish the public school system; instead I'm saying we allow children the ability to opt-out and work if they choose

And do what? Work at McDonalds?

If kids don't graduate from highschool they're gonna be trapped in low-paying work their whole lives; that's fucked.

[Whitten]

So you think chucking kids down a mine so that their family can exploit them for additional income is superior to the system of public education? What sort of lefist are you?

[Dr Mindbender]

While im a supporter of individual autonomy, I still think reading, writing and arithmetic are basic essentials and that no child should be allowed out of the education system until theyve at least mastered these 3.
This resounds of the paedophila thread in discrimination about 'prohibiting children from sex is denying them their individual rights' which i hope any reasonable person would agree is utter BS.

[Vargha Poralli]

This resounds of the paedophila thread in discrimination about 'prohibiting children from sex is denying them their individual rights' which i hope any reasonable person would agree is utter BS.

Exactly.

What a stupid thread to start with :angry: .

For one regardless what autonomy or radical the child workers could potentially be the most brutal exploitation starts from there.

You know it is very cheap to employ a child labour. You need not pay too much for them. And it is more easy to influence and control children that you could control the adults. And they could be better trained to obey than to rebel. And the consequence is definitely against the intrests of the working class as the child labour could aslo drive down the wages of adult workers too.

I would suggest you take a look at the caste system of India. It is a correlation that children of higher castes(Brahmins,Vaishyas and Kshatriyas) have been always educated when they are young , while the Shudras and Dalits(Untouchables) are sent to labour at an early age. It took almost centuries for the underclasses to rebel against the system and still the structure is not eradicated.

[Led Zeppelin]

The child labor law was put into place as a measure against the capitalist class who was exploiting the children of the working-class by refusing them the chance of a better life and education.

Only morons of the highest extent would call for the overthrow of this progressige gain of the working-class.

[TC]

Counterblast is brilliant but she's so so far above the level of theoretical development on social issues in this forum that its not surprising that people can't respond to her intelligently.


Has it ever occcured to people that one of the major reasons why children (above a certain basic level of linguistic development, obviously) don't act like adults is because they're systematically treated differently? If its true of every other oppressed group why not children?

Seeing social organization from a revolutionary perspective means not just getting past the capitalist labour paradigm but the patriarchal family paradigm as well, and all it entails including the treatment of children as children.

Children are, on average, terribly behaved and act out in socially inappropriate ways...however they are also deprived of every opportunity to take even the slightest bit of personal responsibility, deciding when to wake up, go to sleep, eat what to eat, who they can talk to, who they can be friends with, what music/movies/tv-shows/books they can listen to/see/reed, ; in schools they even ask when to go to the restroom. Every moment of their lives is managed by someone else, they're prisoners everywhere with one or two prison guards to themselves.

Treatment like that would make anyone act neurotically, taking advantage of whatever escape they can find in any moment of freedom to 'act out.' They act irresponsibly because they aren't afforded the slightest responsibility over themselves, they're treated like property, talking pets, adored and protected but not given the most basic respect.

[Dr Mindbender]

The one faculty that must never be made alienable is the ability to read as it is arguably our best weapon against the beourgiouse. The ruling class favours an uneducated workforce because they are able to manipulate them better which is why relaxed child labour laws would be right up their alley.

To challenge the law as it stands now on this issue would do the working class a disastrous diservice.

[RNK]

A basic education is necessary in order to give a young person the knowledge and skills needed to become an efficient worker. Otherwise, society would run rampant with uneffectual and inferior workers. While I don't see a problem with teenagers deciding to go to work, I do see a problem with a younger child doing the same.

[apathy maybe]

I don't quite understand why this was moved. It is a legitimate discrimination topic. Which group of people have the least power in society today? Which group of people has no legal say in what happens to them? Well, I guess there are two, children is on of these groups though (prisoners are another I would say).

Children don't have any economic power, they don't have political power, they are generally weak physically and so on.

If they run away from their state sanctioned parents, they will be placed with another lot. They can't vote, and politicians don't listen to them.


It has been argued that parents look out for the well fare of their children, but I bet we can all think of examples where this isn't the case.


Anyway, thinking ahead to a future anarchist society, would we expect children not to work? Well, personally I would expect children to do some work, it isn't as if they aren't capable of it. They might not work in the factories (and no-one will work in the mines, that is what machines are for), but they can work as gophers in a variety of settings, and as they get older they can take on more responsibility.

I did when I was growing up (on a farm), so if other children want to do so, why don't we (adults) let them?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 pm
So you think chucking kids down a mine so that their family can exploit them for additional income is superior to the system of public education? What sort of lefist are you?
No. I think children should decide whether they would like to work or not. And I find no exploitation in willingly contributing to your family's finances.

This is very similar to the 19th century pseudo-feminist argument against womens labor. "If women were to work, their men would further exploit them and treat them like slaves!"

[counterblast]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+September 15, 2007 04:21 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ September 15, 2007 04:21 pm)
counterblast
I'm not saying we abolish the public school system; instead I'm saying we allow children the ability to opt-out and work if they choose

And do what? Work at McDonalds?

If kids don't graduate from highschool they're gonna be trapped in low-paying work their whole lives; that's fucked. [/b]
First, I would like to respond by saying that the notion that one must finish high school to make a decent income, or that former schooling is at all reflective of intelligence is totally bogus.

Secondly, what's wrong with having a minimum wage job if that individual prefers it?

And why must anyone be limited by their past choices? Perhaps we could extend public education to all age groups, enabling people to attend when they feel inclined, whether that be 6 years old or 60.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 16, 2007 06:07 pm--> (counterblast @ September 16, 2007 06:07 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 pm
So you think chucking kids down a mine so that their family can exploit them for additional income is superior to the system of public education? What sort of lefist are you?
No. I think children should decide whether they would like to work or not. And I find no exploitation in willingly contributing to your family's finances.

[/b]
Meanwhile in Planet Earth. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm)

Well it happens in the country I live. Childern "willingly" go to work and contribute to thge families income.

Because if they don't they can't eat.


This is very similar to the 19th century pseudo-feminist argument against womens labor. "If women were to work, their men would further exploit them and treat them like slaves!"

More bullshit.

Come to the real world man.

Most of the child labours in India don't choose their job or life. It is not the same as 19th century Europe. And the Indian capitalists do not mind employing the Child labourers. It is after all a big advantage to them. Children can be easily controlled and manipulated and can be paid less.

BBC - Child Labour India's "Cheap Commodity". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5059106.stm)

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 09:55 pm
The one faculty that must never be made alienable is the ability to read as it is arguably our best weapon against the beourgiouse. The ruling class favours an uneducated workforce because they are able to manipulate them better which is why relaxed child labour laws would be right up their alley.

To challenge the law as it stands now on this issue would do the working class a disastrous diservice.
I disagree. I spent some time in Burma, where I encountered some of the most revolutionary women I've ever met. Not a single one of them could read or write. Instead, they passed on their radical ideas on through oral stories and songs.

Also, if advocating for political and economic sovereignty for the oppressed comes secondary to your allegience to a god-like "working class", then all the writings of Karl Marx were for nothing.

[Vargha Poralli]

Counter can you respond to my posts ?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vargha Poralli+September 16, 2007 01:31 pm--> (Vargha Poralli @ September 16, 2007 01:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:07 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 pm
So you think chucking kids down a mine so that their family can exploit them for additional income is superior to the system of public education? What sort of lefist are you?
No. I think children should decide whether they would like to work or not. And I find no exploitation in willingly contributing to your family's finances.


Meanwhile in Planet Earth. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm)

Well it happens in the country I live. Childern "willingly" go to work and contribute to thge families income.

Because if they don't they can't eat.


This is very similar to the 19th century pseudo-feminist argument against womens labor. "If women were to work, their men would further exploit them and treat them like slaves!"

More bullshit.

Come to the real world man.

Most of the child labours in India don't choose their job or life. It is not the same as 19th century Europe. And the Indian capitalists do not mind employing the Child labourers. It is after all a big advantage to them. Children can be easily controlled and manipulated and can be paid less.

BBC - Child Labour India's "Cheap Commodity". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5059106.stm) [/b]
My point exactly. Children and adults in India and other countries who are exploited by the first world, must demand higher wages and shorter hours for ALL workers. Only then will children be entirely free to decide if they would like to continue working or attend school. Forcefully marginalizing children from the workplace, is as coercive as putting them in an economic position where they must work.

We should focus on providing them with the choice.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:40 am
A basic education is necessary in order to give a young person the knowledge and skills needed to become an efficient worker. Otherwise, society would run rampant with uneffectual and inferior workers. While I don't see a problem with teenagers deciding to go to work, I do see a problem with a younger child doing the same.
Exactly, but it should be combined. I believe that each child should be able to get a full education which is fully state sponsored (as in free of charge), if they want to work on the side...sure, but they should still be going to school!


Also, if advocating for political and economic sovereignty for the oppressed comes secondary to your allegience to a god-like "working class", then all the writings of Karl Marx were for nothing.
Isnt that just how people interpret Marx, as in that the focus of many (western) Marxists is on the "working class" while in many Third World countries you would have to focus on the peasantry, indigenous populations, etc instead of merely the proletariat.

[Vargha Poralli]

My point exactly. Children and adults in India and other countries who are exploited by the first world, must demand higher wages and shorter hours for ALL workers.

You have started this thread as if it is not happening.


Only then will children be entirely free to decide if they would like to continue working or attend school.

So now Children "freely" decide to work and "forced" to study in schools ?


Forcefully marginalizing children from the workplace, is as coercive as putting them in an economic position where they must work.


No childern are not "forcefully marginalised from workplace. I showed you evidence. Rather they are forcefully pushed in to the workplace.

Just go and ask a child working as a Beedi(a variant of cigarette) roller in the industries of Tamilnadu whether they chose to work or forced by their family's economic situation to work.


We should focus on providing them with the choice.

And don&#39;t imagine that it is capitalism is not providing the choice. <_<

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:21 pm

Also, if advocating for political and economic sovereignty for the oppressed comes secondary to your allegience to a god-like "working class", then all the writings of Karl Marx were for nothing.
Isnt that just how people interpret Marx, as in that the focus of many (western) Marxists is on the "working class" while in many Third World countries you would have to focus on the peasantry, indigenous populations, etc instead of merely the proletariat.
Unfortunately so. Many western Marxists have been so busy conforming to the whims of the "working class", en masse, that they show little concern about liberating freedoms for the individual.

None of them seem to realise that Marx&#39;s writings largely deal with working together cooperatively to liberate the individual from dominance. And I seriously doubt he&#39;d have paid much attention as to whether the oppressor chose to call itself the "government" or the "working class"...

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 16, 2007 02:38 pm

My point exactly. Children and adults in India and other countries who are exploited by the first world, must demand higher wages and shorter hours for ALL workers.

You have started this thread as if it is not happening.


Okay admittedly, I wrote the original post from a mostly Western perspective. It was not my intent to suggest child labor was not still occuring, but to document its history in the West. But what I wrote can be applied to India, as well... Children do not have very many rights nor are the taken seriously in America, Western Europe, OR India, making them especially vulnerable to exploitation.




Only then will children be entirely free to decide if they would like to continue working or attend school.

So now Children "freely" decide to work and "forced" to study in schools ?

No. My point is that children should be allowed the choice.




Forcefully marginalizing children from the workplace, is as coercive as putting them in an economic position where they must work.


No childern are not "forcefully marginalised from workplace. I showed you evidence. Rather they are forcefully pushed in to the workplace.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I suggested that future efforts for labor reform in India, shouldn&#39;t mimick labor efforts of the west. Yes, workers should push for higher wages and better conditions, so that children do not have to work. But they shouldn&#39;t deny those children who may still wish to work that right.


Just go and ask a child working as a Beedi(a variant of cigarette) roller in the industries of Tamilnadu whether they chose to work or forced by their family&#39;s economic situation to work.

I could ask the same thing of an adult Beedi, and I&#39;d probably get the same answer. Unjust working conditions effect everyone, child or adult, which is why we should be opposed to such conditions regardless of who they are affecting.




We should focus on providing them with the choice.

And don&#39;t imagine that it is capitalism is not providing the choice. <_<

This isn&#39;t intended to be a pro-capitalist arguement. It&#39;s my suggestion of how the left&#39; perception of child labor (and the child in general) should be reformed to accomodate those (as few as they might be) children who do wish to work.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Unfortunately so. Many western Marxists have been so busy conforming to the whims of the "working class", en masse, that they show little concern about liberating freedoms for the individual.

I find the concept of working class too vague, like you said earlier it becomes an almost "god-like" concept. Its basicly civil religion, a concept created by Robert Bellah in 1966. While God might be removed, the "religious nature" remain. The "ideology", "People" and "working-class" seem to have replaced the religious figures. Its the same opium but with a different nametag. The individual seems to get lost for the needs of the collective, perhaps also why communism might not be that popular in the capitalist West which is a very individualistic culture.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:22 pm

Unfortunately so. Many western Marxists have been so busy conforming to the whims of the "working class", en masse, that they show little concern about liberating freedoms for the individual.

I find the concept of working class too vague, like you said earlier it becomes an almost "god-like" concept. Its basicly civil religion, a concept created by Robert Bellah in 1966. While God might be removed, the "religious nature" remain. The "ideology", "People" and "working-class" seem to have replaced the religious figures. Its the same opium but with a different nametag. The individual seems to get lost for the needs of the collective, perhaps also why communism might not be that popular in the capitalist West which is a very individualistic culture.
I agree. I want a revolution that abolishes the dog-eat-dog nature of capitalism, but doesn&#39;t surrender those concepts like creativity, individualism, and free thought that I think make the world such beautiful place.

Maybe its not possible, but it&#39;s definately one of those "pie in the sky" dreams that is worth fighting for.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:24 pm
Counterblast is brilliant but she&#39;s so so far above the level of theoretical development on social issues in this forum that its not surprising that people can&#39;t respond to her intelligently.


Thank you for the kind words.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 16, 2007 03:36 pm--> (counterblast @ September 16, 2007 03:36 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 03:22 pm

Unfortunately so. Many western Marxists have been so busy conforming to the whims of the "working class", en masse, that they show little concern about liberating freedoms for the individual.

I find the concept of working class too vague, like you said earlier it becomes an almost "god-like" concept. Its basicly civil religion, a concept created by Robert Bellah in 1966. While God might be removed, the "religious nature" remain. The "ideology", "People" and "working-class" seem to have replaced the religious figures. Its the same opium but with a different nametag. The individual seems to get lost for the needs of the collective, perhaps also why communism might not be that popular in the capitalist West which is a very individualistic culture.
I agree. I want a revolution that abolishes the dog-eat-dog nature of capitalism, but doesn&#39;t surrender those concepts like creativity, individualism, and free thought that I think make the world such beautiful place.

Maybe its not possible, but it&#39;s definately one of those "pie in the sky" dreams that is worth fighting for. [/b]
Redistribution of power and wealth, the people should be in power. Yes this sounds vague, but it would mean that the factory workers control their factory, the farmers/peasants control their lands, etc etc. Humanity has to find a new motivator other than profit which seems to be dominant in capitalists society. While profit/competition might be a handy for certain innovations, its also a limiter of many others including the emancipation of the masses. (yes, yet another vague concept) The revolution will succeed when the motivators (in this case personal profit) are altered.

[spartan]

Whilst i agree with the original poster i also think that as well as a stereotypical chauvinist attitude towards women and children there was also a lot of abuse against these specific groups who were often underpaid and much more poorly treated and forced to do much more dangerous jobs (because of height etc) compared to men. So there was an almost humanitarian reason to take such a valuable part of the workforce out of the factories etc forever. Still if a child or woman wished back then or now to have a job what right have we as a society to stop them? We have no right&#33; Because women and children have as much right as a man to work if that is what they want to do&#33;

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 16, 2007 08:50 pm--> (counterblast &#064; September 16, 2007 08:50 pm)
Originally posted by Vargha Poralli+September 16, 2007 02:38 pm--> (Vargha Poralli &#064; September 16, 2007 02:38 pm)
My point exactly. Children and adults in India and other countries who are exploited by the first world, must demand higher wages and shorter hours for ALL workers.

You have started this thread as if it is not happening.

[/b]
Okay admittedly, I wrote the original post from a mostly Western perspective. It was not my intent to suggest child labor was not still occuring, but to document its history in the West. But what I wrote can be applied to India, as well... Children do not have very many rights nor are the taken seriously in America, Western Europe, OR India, making them especially vulnerable to exploitation.[/b]
Well you are very confusing here.

What is your point exactly ?

Child labour is history in the west and most of the children are "forced" to go to schools which is a bad thing

or

Child labour is happening in India and most children are forced to work instead of going to schools,which leads to their exploitation which is a bad thing ?



Originally posted by Counter


Only then will children be entirely free to decide if they would like to continue working or attend school.

So now Children "freely" decide to work and "forced" to study in schools ?

No. My point is that children should be allowed the choice.


So you are basically saying that children are oppressed by their parents because their parents/state give them basic rights to education ? :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Counter



Forcefully marginalizing children from the workplace, is as coercive as putting them in an economic position where they must work.


No childern are not "forcefully marginalised from workplace. I showed you evidence. Rather they are forcefully pushed in to the workplace.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I suggested that future efforts for labor reform in India, shouldn&#39;t mimick labor efforts of the west. Yes, workers should push for higher wages and better conditions, so that children do not have to work. But they shouldn&#39;t deny those children who may still wish to work that right.

Look IMO labour efforts of the west are not bad.

India indeed have very strong policy against employing children under age of 14 in any kind of jobs. Very similar to the west.And Indian capitalist don&#39;t give a fuck about it. And Indian political system which is really a servant of the Capitalists is clear on which side usually it stands.

And you know what reason the capitalists give ? "Those Children chose to work over going to school".

And the labour officer whose duty is to make sure a company doesn&#39;t employ child labour gets his share of pie in the super exploitation of surplus value because of the child labour - his monthly and yearly bribes.

It is difficult even for the adults to unionise in some areas. They are attacked both by the police and the Gangsters. And don&#39;t even imagine children can freely unionise here.

It is the various NGO&#39;s and the Trade Union&#39;s efforts to eradicate the child labour and provide equal oppurtunity to education that minimised the super exploitation of child labour. But once the funds of the NGO&#39;s run out it is back to factory again.



[email protected]


Just go and ask a child working as a Beedi(a variant of cigarette) roller in the industries of Tamilnadu whether they chose to work or forced by their family&#39;s economic situation to work.

I could ask the same thing of an adult Beedi, and I&#39;d probably get the same answer. Unjust working conditions effect everyone, child or adult, which is why we should be opposed to such conditions regardless of who they are affecting.

Look the capitalist is not going to stop exploiting the worker - whether it is a male a female a trangernderd person or a child.

Only the working class can liberate itself from it. And child labour which essentially denies educational rights to the children will never help in that cost.

So it must be opposed , regardless how it denies a child&#39;s "right" to work.


Counter



We should focus on providing them with the choice.

And don&#39;t imagine that it is capitalism is not providing the choice. <_<

This isn&#39;t intended to be a pro-capitalist arguement. It&#39;s my suggestion of how the left&#39; perception of child labor (and the child in general) should be reformed to accomodate those (as few as they might be) children who do wish to work.


But in fact the real choice of the Children is not determined by themselves alone, but by the conditions they live in.

I don&#39;t know what is the left&#39;s perception of a Child in general but I certainly think that the Left&#39;s perception of the Child Labour is exactly right.

Your arguments in this discussion whether you like it or not is Pro Capitalist and right wing.

[RNK]

I think the basis of the arguement is that if you remove the morally-degenerating aspect of capitalism, ie, the "dog-eat-dog" reality of it, then in that light, child labour is not necessarily bad. Sure, in capitalism, all wage slavery is wage slavery; it becomes more morally repugnant when it is employed against the very young by the virtue of their "innocent" nature. Remove capitalism from the equation, however, and you remove the exploitive nature of child labour; children will no longer be used as pawns, as all workers will not be used as pawns, but as productive members of society who contribute to their own well-being, rather than being used to contribute to the well-being of a capitalist corporate entity.

Which I agree with. However, I still do not see the benefit of having children opt out of education in order to become young workers. As I said a basic level of education is necessary to create efficient workers. A child who quits school to work can not be a doctor (unless he returns to education later in life); his prospect for a job will be incredibly limited and he runs the risk of never getting out of it.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 16, 2007 04:48 am
Children don&#39;t have any economic power
You forget that children can easily influence their parents decision-making choices. You know, what cereal to buy, getting a pool, a toy, etc.

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/kid-marketing/
(Yeah, Rotten.com, not a professional source but that article has no disgusting pictures and has basic information, but still not work safe)


In children&#39;s marketing circles, this technique is referred to as pester power, or the Nag Factor. The Initiative Media firm acknowledges that fifty percent of all toy purchases would never have been rung up in a million years had it not been for the sweet, wailing nags of a child. That&#39;s fifty percent across every conceivable category relating to children: toy purchases, trips to fast food restaurants, vacations to amusement parks -- even automotive sales. Car companies offering vehicles with DVD players aren&#39;t selling to mom and dad, they&#39;re delivering coded messages of nagging hope exclusively to the Spongebob set, those who can&#39;t last more than five minutes without audiovisual stimulation.

Teen Research Unlimited is an Illinois marketing think tank which has interviewed over a million teenagers. They&#39;ve conservatively estimated that teens in 2006 would spend upwards of &#036;159 billion of their own money and their parents&#39; money combined. Teens need jobs, but as a result of our upside-down economy, adult workers around the country are clinging desperately to all the decent entry-level service positions. Teenage unemployment is at an all time high, and rising gas prices means that while an unprecedented cache of teen dollars might be temporarily flowing directly into gas tanks, kids can&#39;t drive all the way to and from the Apple store as often as they&#39;d like.

Of course since Rotten.com isn&#39;t reliable, this (http://www.mediachannel.org/atissue/consumingkids/index.shtml) should be of a bigger help. Note that the page hasn&#39;t been updated since 2004 and some of the links are broken.


In simpler times, when a mere &#036;100 million a year was spent on advertising directed at children, we wondered how to raise a generation that would not define itself by its possessions. Monitoring and limiting kids&#39; TV diets seemed to be a good solution. Now 10 years later, in a world where &#036;2 billion is spent annually to target juvenile consumers, the stakes are higher. Marketing strategies measure humans in terms of their lifelong consuming value (&#036;100,000 per person is the going estimate), and advertising is everywhere.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by counterblast+--> (counterblast)First, I would like to respond by saying that the notion that one must finish high school to make a decent income... is totally bogus.[/b]

For the vast majority of people it is anything but &#39;bogus&#39;; jobs which do not require as the bare minimum a highschool certificate (i.e. most so-called &#39;unskilled&#39; jobs) are jobs which have (inevitably) low pay - there is nothing &#39;bogus&#39; about that statement... though i&#39;m intrigued as to what your counter-argument is?

Secondly,


Originally posted by counterblast+--> (counterblast)or that former schooling is at all reflective of intelligence[/b]

I never suggested that it was; so please don&#39;t put words in my mouth.


Originally posted by counterblast

Secondly, what&#39;s wrong with having a minimum wage job if that individual prefers it?

There&#39;s nothing &#39;wrong&#39; with having a minimum wage job (i&#39;m a university graduate but get paid a fraction above the minimum wage) if that&#39;s what you prefer; but from my personal experience such jobs are usually laborious, un-fulfilling and make saving money difficult.


[email protected]

And why must anyone be limited by their past choices?

That is an unfortunate facet of an advanced capitalist economy.


counterblast

Perhaps we could extend public education to all age groups, enabling people to attend when they feel inclined, whether that be 6 years old or 60.

Sure.

------

I don&#39;t disagree in principal with the idea of &#39;children&#39; working if they want to - the problem i see is getting this to work in a capitalist society without the gross-exploitation seen in so-called &#39;developing&#39; countries.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:24 am
If by protecting children and forcing our values upon them, we are making them more dependent and vulnerable to exploitation, then this is not only counterproductive, but hypocritical. When we think of protecting children, it is almost always against the danger "out there", against other adults, since we "know what is best". But it seems that we, even in the anti-authoritarian radical community, seem incapable of realising that a protector can also be an abuser -- in short any adult -- be they a parent, a teacher, a stranger, or a social worker who does not respect a child&#39;s integrity or personal wishes.
If we allow children to work, we have to be prepared to deal with coercion of all sorts which can arise from that situation as well. It is clear that having a public school system can be damaging, and I think that children should have some kind of responsibilities to work even at school, even if that is just cleaning up or some basic housekeeping skills. Again, that is a potential source for coercion.

I don&#39;t know how we could draw the line to be certain; my impression is that in a capitalist society, we need these laws because capitalism will attempt to exploit anything it can. I don&#39;t think children should be used to be the idea and feeling of being exploited; I think that is dangerous and can make our society a collection of drones. Lenin said, "Give me your 4-year-olds, and within a generation I&#39;ll construct a Socialist State," is that not also true for the capitalist who would have the population work for scraps?


Aren&#39;t communists and anarchists the foremost advocates for the ability to unionize, act and speak freely, and seek information without the censorship of others as a means of self-protection against hierarchy? Shouldn&#39;t we promote the same values of self-protection for our children, rather than embracing outdated methods of protectionism?
Yes, and I agree that children are being encourged to act childishly and maintain a state of childlike mentality by our treatment of them as such. But I don&#39;t know that allowing young children to work for capitalists is the answer to this; perhaps, with a slew of other changes, it can be good, but I am inclined to think that the problem of child labor wouldn&#39;t exist if the other necessary changes were to occur.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:24 am
Protectionism is a philosophy of intervention that is operative in most children&#39;s lives. It is, in the west, a recent development.
No, it&#39;s not a recent development at all. I&#39;m afraid that your essay, despite providing some useful ideas for the future, suffers from the problem of completely misrepresenting the past.

The state is not - and never was - the primary authority in children&#39;s lives. Parents (or, until very recently, fathers alone) are the primary authority in children&#39;s lives. Children&#39;s behaviour is restricted first and foremost by their parents, and only to a lesser degree by state institutions such as schools.

Prior to the industrial revolution, children were used as de facto slave labour by their parents. A feudal childhood did not consist of running through fields and singing happily while performing idealized farm work. It consisted of hard labour, dawn to dusk, and children were expected to obey their parents&#39; every whim. Being a farmer&#39;s child before the invention of modern agricultural equipment sucked. In fact, the only thing worse than that was being a child factory worker in the first decades of the industrial revolution.

Working side by side with adults is not an empowering experience when the adults themselves are brutally exploited by their bourgeois employers. Please explain to me how school could possibly be considered more repressive than a 19th century factory environment.

It&#39;s not as if children (or anyone else) wanted to work in those factories. They did it because they had no choice. Children were forced to work in order to supplement their family&#39;s income. Their parents often exploited them as slave labour, just like they used to do before the industrial revolution. The introduction of compulsory universal education greatly weakened the patriarchal family and was a very progressive force in history.

[Vargha Poralli]

Good post Edric O. Some people are carried away by the revolutionary instinct and fail to analyse the situation based upon the real world and accuse everybody of being conservative.

[Dean]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 16, 2007 03:03 pm--> (counterblast @ September 16, 2007 03:03 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 02:21 pm

Also, if advocating for political and economic sovereignty for the oppressed comes secondary to your allegience to a god-like "working class", then all the writings of Karl Marx were for nothing.
Isnt that just how people interpret Marx, as in that the focus of many (western) Marxists is on the "working class" while in many Third World countries you would have to focus on the peasantry, indigenous populations, etc instead of merely the proletariat.
Unfortunately so. Many western Marxists have been so busy conforming to the whims of the "working class", en masse, that they show little concern about liberating freedoms for the individual.

None of them seem to realise that Marx&#39;s writings largely deal with working together cooperatively to liberate the individual from dominance. And I seriously doubt he&#39;d have paid much attention as to whether the oppressor chose to call itself the "government" or the "working class"... [/b]
Christ, you&#39;re a fresh voice here :P

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by Dean+September 17, 2007 11:30 am--> (Dean @ September 17, 2007 11:30 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:03 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 02:21 pm

Also, if advocating for political and economic sovereignty for the oppressed comes secondary to your allegience to a god-like "working class", then all the writings of Karl Marx were for nothing.
Isnt that just how people interpret Marx, as in that the focus of many (western) Marxists is on the "working class" while in many Third World countries you would have to focus on the peasantry, indigenous populations, etc instead of merely the proletariat.
Unfortunately so. Many western Marxists have been so busy conforming to the whims of the "working class", en masse, that they show little concern about liberating freedoms for the individual.

None of them seem to realise that Marx&#39;s writings largely deal with working together cooperatively to liberate the individual from dominance. And I seriously doubt he&#39;d have paid much attention as to whether the oppressor chose to call itself the "government" or the "working class"...
Christ, you&#39;re a fresh voice here :P [/b]
Will she get restricted for her "heresy"? :P

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 16, 2007 04:21 pm
What is your point exactly ?

Child labour is history in the west and most of the children are "forced" to go to schools which is a bad thing

or

Child labour is happening in India and most children are forced to work instead of going to schools,which leads to their exploitation which is a bad thing ?
My point is that forcing children to do either is a bad thing. I support giving them the resources and ability to choose whichever they prefer.




So you are basically saying that children are oppressed by their parents because their parents/state give them basic rights to education ? :rolleyes:

No. Children are oppressed because their parents/the state (at least in Europe, America, and most of the Middle East) force them to go to school. They should right have the right to education, but it shouldn&#39;t be compulsory.




Look IMO labour efforts of the west are not bad.

India indeed have very strong policy against employing children under age of 14 in any kind of jobs. Very similar to the west.And Indian capitalist don&#39;t give a fuck about it. And Indian political system which is really a servant of the Capitalists is clear on which side usually it stands.

And you know what reason the capitalists give ? [b]"Those Children chose to work over going to school".


So? Capitalists say similar things regarding adult workers. "Those people CHOSE to work for minimum wage, I don&#39;t have to give them a raise." Do you know what the answer for that is? Unionizing.

I mean, what you&#39;re essentially saying is that because some greedy capitalist corporations want to exploit child workers, we should punish children for it...

You&#39;re using the same logic that many right wing Muslim governments use when forcing women to wear Burkas... "Some evil men out there want to rape women&#33; We must do them a favor, by forcing them to wear coverings on their bodies at all times".

My response is NO, the answer to child abuse in the workplace is NOT to put more restrictions on the child; any more than the answer to rape is to put more restrictions on the woman. We must confront the oppressors, not the oppressed.




And the labour officer whose duty is to make sure a company doesn&#39;t employ child labour gets his share of pie in the super exploitation of surplus value because of the child labour - his monthly and yearly bribes.

Again, this is because children have no political power, thus are one of the easiest targets to exploit. We must work to empower children.



It is difficult even for the adults to unionise in some areas. They are attacked both by the police and the Gangsters. And don&#39;t even imagine children can freely unionise here.

Not a single social upheaval in human history has been a walk in the park...



Look the capitalist is not going to stop exploiting the worker - whether it is a male a female a trangernderd person or a child.

Only the working class can liberate itself from it. And child labour which essentially denies educational rights to the children will never help in that cost.

So it must be opposed , regardless how it denies a child&#39;s "right" to work.

You still haven&#39;t explained how child labor denies the right to an education... Never did I say we should abolish public education; instead I suggested we expand it beyond any certain age group...



But in fact the real choice of the Children is not determined by themselves alone, but by the conditions they live in.

I don&#39;t know what is the left&#39;s perception of a Child in general but I certainly think that the Left&#39;s perception of the Child Labour is exactly right.

Your arguments in this discussion whether you like it or not is Pro Capitalist and right wing.

I thought the whole object of socialism/communism was to redistribute wealth, and improve the living/working conditions for members of the working class... Why can&#39;t that be extended to children as well?

How is anything I said capitalist or right wing?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 17, 2007 10:31 am
Working side by side with adults is not an empowering experience when the adults themselves are brutally exploited by their bourgeois employers. Please explain to me how school could possibly be considered more repressive than a 19th century factory environment.
Never did I suggest modern schooling is worse than the conditions of the 19th century industrial workforce... The working conditions of 19th century Europe/America were a complete abomination for all workers.

I merely said that children were never allowed the opportunity to enjoy the improvements of shorter hours and higher wages recieved by grown men and women workers.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 17, 2007 09:13 pm--> (counterblast @ September 17, 2007 09:13 pm)
Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 16, 2007 04:21 pm
What is your point exactly ?

Child labour is history in the west and most of the children are "forced" to go to schools which is a bad thing

or

Child labour is happening in India and most children are forced to work instead of going to schools,which leads to their exploitation which is a bad thing ?
My point is that forcing children to do either is a bad thing. I support giving them the resources and ability to choose whichever they prefer. [/b]
I agree with you - in fact I expect that nearly all people who posted on this thread agree with you on this major point - which makes it rather ironic that we dissected your post anyway.

Our disagreement stems from the question of whether it is possible to empower children in a capitalist society. I believe it is not.


counterblast
So? Capitalists say similar things regarding adult workers. "Those people CHOSE to work for minimum wage, I don&#39;t have to give them a raise." Do you know what the answer for that is? Unionizing.

I mean, what you&#39;re essentially saying is that because some greedy capitalist corporations want to exploit child workers, we should punish children for it...
Well, actually, unionizing is only a band-aid that makes capitalist exploitation a little more tolerable. The real solution is socialism.

And I don&#39;t think the point is to protect children from greedy capitalist corporations, but to protect children from exploitative parents who would like to deny them the right to an education and send them off to work so that they bring money into the family (money which is then seized by the parent).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by counterblast
So? Capitalists say similar things regarding adult workers. "Those people CHOSE to work for minimum wage, I don&#39;t have to give them a raise." Do you know what the answer for that is? Unionizing.

I assume you have never seen any industry that employs children isn&#39;t it ?




I mean, what you&#39;re essentially saying is that because some greedy capitalist corporations want to exploit child workers, we should punish children for it...

Again don&#39;t think that children might choose to work if they really had freedom.That is entirely a subjective opinion.



You&#39;re using the same logic that many right wing Muslim governments use when forcing women to wear Burkas... "Some evil men out there want to rape women&#33; We must do them a favor, by forcing them to wear coverings on their bodies at all times".
There you go to the associative fallacy.

And I am not even saying what you assume that I am saying.


My response is NO, the answer to child abuse in the workplace is NOT to put more restrictions on the child; any more than the answer to rape is to put more restrictions on the woman. We must confront the oppressors, not the oppressed.

You are wrong to think that going to child is oppressive. I will respond later more.

[Dimentio]

Personally, I think that the school system is largely outdated given our current economic situation, but I do not think it is an option to take away compulsory school education. Instead, I think we should integrate the school in society, so that children would be able to relate more to what they want to do with their life and what profession they would want to have.

Something like the education system outlined in this novel (http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~educator/brusha1.htm).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vargha Poralli+September 18, 2007 08:04 am--> (Vargha Poralli @ September 18, 2007 08:04 am)
counterblast
So? Capitalists say similar things regarding adult workers. "Those people CHOSE to work for minimum wage, I don&#39;t have to give them a raise." Do you know what the answer for that is? Unionizing.

I assume you have never seen any industry that employs children isn&#39;t it ?
[/b]
I have personally witnessed the exploitation of children by multinational corporations, actually. In my home country (Azerbaijan), children (myself included) are forced to work for Exxon Mobil and Statoil for low wages and long hours on at least two of the three days they don&#39;t have school. Besides my own experiences, I&#39;ve spent a year in Burma with woman and child refugees, exploited by Pepsi. And I currently live in Detroit, USA, where working conditions and treatment of (adult) laborers are some of the worst in the country.

I don&#39;t deny that multinationals exploit children for labor. But to act as though this is a phenomena specific to children, is not only ridiculous, but discriminatory.




I mean, what you&#39;re essentially saying is that because some greedy capitalist corporations want to exploit child workers, we should punish children for it...

Again don&#39;t think that children might choose to work if they really had freedom.That is entirely a subjective opinion.

And what I said was a completely subjective statement. I said that some children would choose to work, I never said "all" or "most" would, because I don&#39;t know "all" or "most" children. But I do know some children who would prefer to work, and that option should be available to them.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 03:28 am
Our disagreement stems from the question of whether it is possible to empower children in a capitalist society. I believe it is not.
So do you think women and ethnic minorities should also remain subordinate until "after the revolution"?

[Vargha Poralli]

I have personally witnessed the exploitation of children by multinational corporations, actually. In my home country (Azerbaijan), children (myself included) are forced to work for Exxon Mobil and Statoil for low wages and long hours on at least two of the three days they don&#39;t have school. Besides my own experiences, I&#39;ve spent a year in Burma with woman and child refugees, exploited by Pepsi. And I currently live in Detroit, USA, where working conditions and treatment of (adult) laborers are some of the worst in the country.


So do you honestly believe that given a choice you would have chosen to work instead of being educated ?



I don&#39;t deny that multinationals exploit children for labor. But to act as though this is a phenomena specific to children, is not only ridiculous, but discriminatory.

Where did I say specific to Children ?



And what I said was a completely subjective statement. I said that some children would choose to work, I never said "all" or "most" would, because I don&#39;t know "all" or "most" children. But I do know some children who would prefer to work, and that option should be available to them.


Well those children who chose to work do not choose because they choose working over going to school but because

(a) Their families cannot afford to pay for them to study

(b) They cannot have proper food if they do not work.

For one I have no problem in children working somewhere in their holidays for their pocket money.

But for sacrificing their education in order to survive is what concerns me. And it is not a phenomenon in west because the working class&#39;s fight for making basic education a right and making the ruling class(government) to provide it as a form of social welfare.

In the country I live in it is similar. Only the government and those who are responsible to enforce it do not do that. Because it is against the intrest of the class they serve for.


So do you think women and ethnic minorities should also remain subordinate until "after the revolution"?

Another stupid association.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 18, 2007 12:20 pm


I have personally witnessed the exploitation of children by multinational corporations, actually. In my home country (Azerbaijan), children (myself included) are forced to work for Exxon Mobil and Statoil for low wages and long hours on at least two of the three days they don&#39;t have school. Besides my own experiences, I&#39;ve spent a year in Burma with woman and child refugees, exploited by Pepsi. And I currently live in Detroit, USA, where working conditions and treatment of (adult) laborers are some of the worst in the country.


So do you honestly believe that given a choice you would have chosen to work instead of being educated ?



I refuse to answer such an irrelevant question; because quite frankly, it doesn&#39;t matter whether I would have or not. The fact still remains, that out of the millions of children who inhabit this planet, some would.




I don&#39;t deny that multinationals exploit children for labor. But to act as though this is a phenomena specific to children, is not only ridiculous, but discriminatory.

Where did I say specific to Children ?

You suggested denying children the ability to work and forcing them to go to school, because of the exploitation brought upon them by multinational corporation; yet you don&#39;t apply the same reasoning to ADULTS that are exploited by multinationals. That seems pretty specific to me...

Unless you&#39;re suggesting neither children or adults be allowed to work, until a sustainable communist government is created?




Well those children who chose to work do not choose because they choose working over going to school but because

(a) Their families cannot afford to pay for them to study

(b) They cannot have proper food if they do not work.

For one I have no problem in children working somewhere in their holidays for their pocket money.

But for sacrificing their education in order to survive is what concerns me. And it is not a phenomenon in west because the working class&#39;s fight for making basic education a right and making the ruling class(government) to provide it as a form of social welfare.

In the country I live in it is similar. Only the government and those who are responsible to enforce it do not do that. Because it is against the intrest of the class they serve for.

I&#39;m not suggesting that. I&#39;m merely suggesting children shouldn&#39;t have to sacrifice their desires to serve the interest of the working class, any more than they should have to sacrifice their desires to serve the interest of capitalist corporations. Whether they choose to work or attend school should be left entirely up to them.

Just like I said in my Burka arguement... you&#39;re punishing children (the oppressed), not the corporation (the oppressor).





So do you think women and ethnic minorities should also remain subordinate until "after the revolution"?

Another stupid association.

How is this a stupid association? Because you don&#39;t wish to admit the hypocrisy in advocating immediate freedom for one oppressed group, but not the other?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by counterblast+--> (counterblast) I refuse to answer such an irrelevant question; because quite frankly, it doesn&#39;t matter whether I would have or not. The fact still remains, that out of the millions of children who inhabit this planet, some would.[/b]

So your entire arguments is just based on an assumption ? I would suggest to read some of the UN research articles I have linked earlier.


Originally posted by counterblast+--> (counterblast)You suggested denying children the ability to work and forcing them to go to school, because of the exploitation brought upon them by multinational corporation;[/b]

See you are arguing again and again based on assumptions.

I do not deny the children&#39;s "ability to work". My arguments are based entirely on reality that many children belong to the working class do not have the right to basic education. And In my opinion your arguments are based on assumption that children in the west have sacrificed "their ability to work" to have basic rights to education.


Originally posted by counterblast

yet you don&#39;t apply the same reasoning to ADULTS that are exploited by multinationals. That seems pretty specific to me...

Yeah you are an idiot to think like that. I am an employee of a multi national corporation(HP) and I clearly know in what way that multinational corporation exploits me.


On the whole your arguments are based on assumptions and my arguments are based on reality.

You have assumed that children have been denied right to work by going to school. My argument is based upon the reality that children are not denied to work instead of going to school but those who work are forced to make that choice not by themselves but by their living conditions.

So because of your assumption you are saying that the Left should modify its stance on child labour - stop fighting to end the practice but based on reality I argue that Left should fight more to completely eradicate that practice in the capitalists society.

Ceratinly most capitalists would agree with you on that. That too is a based on reality.


Originally posted by counterblast
I&#39;m merely suggesting children shouldn&#39;t have to sacrifice their desires to serve the interest of the working class, any more than they should have to sacrifice their desires to serve the interest of capitalist corporations. Whether they choose to work or attend school should be left entirely up to them.

They do make that choice. At least in the country I live in.


Just like I said in my Burka arguement... you&#39;re punishing children (the oppressed), not the corporation (the oppressor).


Well in your opinion that is. But your opinion is not a fact. Even more your opinion is not even based on facts in real world but based entirely on your assumption that has no connection with the real world.



[email protected]
How is this a stupid association? Because you don&#39;t wish to admit the hypocrisy in advocating immediate freedom for one oppressed group, but not the other?

Well IMO children are free to make a choice so they are not oppressed even based on your assumption.

**********************

Since I am arguing based on facts some resources I would like to provide

A study (http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Child_Labor/childlabor.htm#study)

In some cases children are forced to work by their parents. (http://www.sadashivan.com/)

A report prepared by working children themselves about their conditions (http://www.workingchild.org/research1.htm)

A HRW article about Bonded slavery of Children in Silk Industry in India. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/india/)

Another BBC report about bonded labour in Saree Industry. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4183600.stm)

Especiallly take a look at the table which correlates the Literacy level and Child Labour. (http://www.wm.edu/so/monitor/spring98/docs/ChildLabor.html)

from the above source
Viewed in terms of child labor, Kerala has the lowest incidence of child labor and Andhra Pradesh the highest. Andhra is well below the mean on literacy rates and on primary and middle school enrollment. [22] This is best presented through the words of the Los Angeles Times editor who stated, Poverty is what forces children into the workplace. Education is a way out. Give them a chance instead of a hoe or a needle and thread. [23] Therefore, improvement in education presents a possible solution for the child labor problem in India

www.schoolisthebestplacetowork.org/publish/index.php/filemanager/download/28/Elementary%2520education%2520in%2520India.pdf+Chil d+Labour+in+India&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=in]Another (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:OSyNi0wNsNQJ:[url) study.[/url](I have provided a Google Cache link just because you(Counterblast) have said that you cannot view PDF&#39;s in your computer.)

Another study. (http://www.american.edu/TED/rugmark.htm)

Another article this is from a bourgeoisie economists. (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/banning_child_l.html)

All these sources are just few things I have selected as they present my points strongly.

All the underlying point of all the links I have provided is this - Children as you assume are not denied choice to work instead they are denied basic education.

[Invader Zim]

Poor children are left to suffer poor curriculum, horrible school funding, and the problems of inner-city gang warfare; while most affluent kids go to private or parochial schools in elite neighborhoods. Thats the case from almost every American city, from Chicago to Houston.

Indeed it is all over the world, however legalising child labour would only serve in making this situation much worse. Something I think we can all agree would not be a good thing.

If a child reaches the age of 14/15, I would agree that there should be other options open to them. There is no point trying to force &#39;irrelevent&#39; subjects down the throats of children who really do not want it and would much rather be out working and gaining perhaps more practical skills. Perhaps a happy medium would be better, quite what that would be, I am unsure.

Incidentally, to any young person here thinking about dropping out of highschool, I would strongly advice against it. Education is the one key in capitalist society that allows a person to at least reduce their exploitation.

[counterblast]

Vargha Poralli, you keep regurgitating the same information, all of which has little relevance to the issue of youth liberation.

YES, Indian children are oppressed. We agree on that.

But the problem lies not because they have the option to work; but that they are politically and economically disenfranchised. The solution is quite obviously to give them more political and economic freedom, not to place more restrictions on children until some thus far nonexistent revolution comes around.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 18, 2007 09:12 pm--> (counterblast &#064; September 18, 2007 09:12 pm)Vargha Poralli, you keep regurgitating the same information, all of which has little relevance to the issue of youth liberation.
[/b]
It has relevance atleast in this thread.

You clearly titled this thread as Child Labour. Which means employing "Children" below the age of 14 in factories and farms effectively by denying them right to have education.

Now you are speaking about "Youth Liberation" to make my argument irrelevant. It is a shame though you can&#39;t keep consistency in your argument.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:12 pm

YES, Indian children are oppressed. We agree on that.

But the problem lies not because they have the option to work; but that they are politically and economically disenfranchised.

Why do you come to children again ? Just some lines before you claimed to argue about "Youth Liberation" ? So are you lying to confuse the readers of this thread ?


[email protected] 18, 2007 09:12 pm
The solution is quite obviously to give them more political and economic freedom, not to place more restrictions on children until some thus far nonexistent revolution comes around.

Yes and fighting to eradicate Child Labour is one of the first steps to it. Not arguing to legalise it in the context of ensuring "Freedom for individual to make a choice".

[pusher robot]

I&#39;m not sure this argument is resolvable.

There MUST be someone with authority over children. Whether it is the parents, the state, or some other authority, it is an absolute necessity. Human beings are not born with the necessary instinctual knowledge to survive, let alone prosper. This information must be learned from a trusted authority.

Relying purely on instinctual knowledge, children will make the poorest of decisions. They will always choose short-term advantage over long-term prosperity because they do not possess the ability to accurately judge long-term prospects. Therefore, up to a certain level of maturity, it is necessary that some surrogate make those judgments on the child&#39;s behalf if the child is to have any hope of living a well-adjusted life.

All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that I think that forcing children to educate themselves is ethically justifiable.

[Dr Mindbender]

Precisely. Also since the profitability of the company is an employers primary concern, then the prosperity and well-being of a child is clearly going to suffer in a workplace as opposed to a school. If Marx and other sucessive writers had been in a society where the education of children was not mandatory, who knows what ideas might have been lost to the fog of ignorance.
Politics aside, the inability to read, write and count will have a negative effect on one&#39;s basic and long term life choices compared to their educated counterparts.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:42 am
Vargha Poralli, you keep regurgitating the same information, all of which has little relevance to the issue of youth liberation.
In other words, facts about the real world have no relevance to your ideological preconceptions.

Child labor, under capitalism, has been observed to be nothing other than the most brutal form of exploitation. Any effort to resist and limit exploitation has to take it on.

It&#39;s not new in history, after all. If it was going to be anything other than what it is....that woulda been observed by now.

Given the competition of child labor with adult labor in the job market, you can&#39;t effectively resist other kinds of exploitation without taking on child labor as well. Since child labor is cheaper, employers with the option will even prefer it to adult labor.

And it has nothing to do with "youth liberation" from family authority. On the contrary, it becomes a form of "the exploitation of children by their parents", as the Manifesto say, parents sending their children out to work or even selling them into unfree labor.

And mass education is a big step forward for the working class - people who know how to read, write, etc., are in a much better position to work together to emancipate ourselves. Even mass literacy was impossible until the outlawing of child labor.

Now under socialism, limited child labor, combined with education can be a liberating thing. That was proposed in the Manifesto and proven in practice in Cuba, where high school students grow part of their own food. Hands-on vocational education can also be a form of this.

But what you&#39;re doing is just a red-rhetoric form of extreme pro-capitalist politics.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:13 pm
In other words, facts about the real world have no relevance to your ideological preconceptions.

Only facts that pertain to my post.



Child labor, under capitalism, has been observed to be nothing other than the most brutal form of exploitation. Any effort to resist and limit exploitation has to take it on.

It&#39;s not new in history, after all. If it was going to be anything other than what it is....that woulda been observed by now.

Same egotistical arguement used by early men communists to restrict women from the workplace. Granting women or children the same ability to work under capitalism, that communist men are granted, isn&#39;t pro-capitalist; it&#39;s pro-human rights. How nonsensical is the arguement, "We must restrict certain human rights so that we may remove restrictions them"... What you&#39;re suggesting is a typical "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" scenario, if you ask me.

EDIT: And while women still don&#39;t recieve equal treatment in the workplace or in society; I&#39;d like to think we&#39;ve more freedom over ourselves than we did when we didn&#39;t have the choice.

But of course, that could go back to Vargha Poralli&#39;s arguement. Some women don&#39;t have the choice to stay home and care for their babies, because they are economically oppressed and must work&#33; We must surely outlaw women&#39;s labor then&#33;


Given the competition of child labor with adult labor in the job market, you can&#39;t effectively resist other kinds of exploitation without taking on child labor as well. Since child labor is cheaper, employers with the option will even prefer it to adult labor.

So, you suggest we protect the interests of adults, by restricting children from the workplace?

Isn&#39;t that the same arguement being used against illegal immigrants? "If we let them in, they&#39;ll take our jobs&#33;&#33;&#33;"

Wouldn&#39;t the solution be to liberate children and empower them to demand equal wages for their work?



And it has nothing to do with "youth liberation" from family authority. On the contrary, it becomes a form of "the exploitation of children by their parents", as the Manifesto say, parents sending their children out to work or even selling them into unfree labor.

And here is why this fact is irrelevant to my post; the children you are using in your statistics have absolutely no political/social freedom; so of course they are exploited by their parents, just as women were exploited by their husbands. If you would have read through my post, you&#39;d have seen that I suggested extending political/social power to children as a way to both combat adult coercion/exploitation and reclaim their ability to choose their destiny.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 18, 2007 12:37 pm--> (counterblast @ September 18, 2007 12:37 pm)
Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 03:28 am
Our disagreement stems from the question of whether it is possible to empower children in a capitalist society. I believe it is not.
So do you think women and ethnic minorities should also remain subordinate until "after the revolution"? [/b]
No, I do not believe they should, but I believe they will. Just like I do not believe that workers should be exploited, but I believe they will be exploited as long as capitalism lasts.

In other words, I believe that the exploitation of workers, women, ethnic minorities and others is an inherent feature of capitalism that cannot be eliminated without a drastic change in property relations. This does not reduce the importance of struggles for the liberation of women or the emancipation of minorities; the only thing is, those struggles must be revolutionary, not reformist, in order to succeed.

I fundamentally disagree that women, or minorities, or workers or anyone else can be empowered through reforms in the capitalist system.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 19, 2007 10:23 pm--> (counterblast @ September 19, 2007 10:23 pm) But of course, that could go back to Vargha Poralli&#39;s arguement. Some women don&#39;t have the choice to stay home and care for their babies, because they are economically oppressed and must work&#33; We must surely outlaw women&#39;s labor then&#33; [/b]
Look, you&#39;re comparing apples and oranges - not every alternative to work is the same thing, and women are not, in fact, children. Getting an education provides you with numerous long-term advantages; being a housewife does not. Educated children have more social, political and economic power than uneducated children. On the other hand, housewives have less social, political and economic power than women in the workforce.


counterblast
And here is why this fact is irrelevant to my post; the children you are using in your statistics have absolutely no political/social freedom; so of course they are exploited by their parents, just as women were exploited by their husbands. If you would have read through my post, you&#39;d have seen that I suggested extending political/social power to children as a way to both combat adult coercion/exploitation and reclaim their ability to choose their destiny.
Well, that&#39;s a great suggestion, but how exactly do you propose to achieve it? How do you believe that the bourgeoisie may be pressured into extending political and social power to children?