ewan_short
16th December 2007, 02:57
The idea that the potency of democracy is eroded under capitalism is in part explained by the idea of "capital strikes". That because corporations will allways strive for the cheapest possible labour market, any democratic reforms that provide societal safety nets that protect people from wage slavery, will face threats from the buisness sector of capital strikes. So any political attempt to create minimum wage legislation, maximum working hours, free health care, welfare... social policies generally, will result in large firms threatening to move offshore, leaving the country with a gutted economy. I live in Australia, and while this argument seems very convincing when examining other countries (Mexico and China seem like good examples), it doesn't seem to hold up when I look at my own.
Is this because Australia's economy is being largely driven by resource exports and not on the sale of huge labour markets to foreign companies, so most largescale manufacturing work in Australia, the sort of work that corporations have the capacity to "strike" on, has allready been offshored to countries like China, leaving Australian consumers with the benefit of enjoying cheap goods?
Am I anywhere near the mark with this at all? Any further explanation of capital strikes, and how they relate to first world countries like Australia would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot.
Is this because Australia's economy is being largely driven by resource exports and not on the sale of huge labour markets to foreign companies, so most largescale manufacturing work in Australia, the sort of work that corporations have the capacity to "strike" on, has allready been offshored to countries like China, leaving Australian consumers with the benefit of enjoying cheap goods?
Am I anywhere near the mark with this at all? Any further explanation of capital strikes, and how they relate to first world countries like Australia would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot.