Argument for sweatshops...

[RadioRaheem84]

Libertarians argue that sweatshops are vital for the growth of a nation.

Am I missing the logic behind their assertions?

[Winter]

I think they would say something like, "without the sweat-shops third world people will be unemployed and worse off". Libertarians look at the world as if it were black and white, simply let the free-market take its course.

I remember Milton Friedman saying that child labor in factories during the industrial revolution wasn't as bad as what was taking place on farms. This is the type of logic they use.

[ComradeOm]

I remember Milton Friedman saying that child labor in factories during the industrial revolution wasn't as bad as what was taking place on farms. This is the type of logic they use.Well it wasn't. If life was more pleasant on the fields then the startling rates of urbanisation in the 19th C never would have occurred. Similarly countless numbers of peasants have flooded Asian sweatshops in recent years in order to escape the fields. No matter how brutal this labour is (and I'm not for a moment advocating it) it is nonetheless more bearable than peasantry

[Raúl Duke]

Libertarians argue that sweatshops are vital for the growth of a nation.

Am I missing the logic behind their assertions?

I think what's wrong with the argument is that if they're paid too low wages (the norm in sweatshops) then where will you get the consumers to buy your products? Thus they have to be paid an amount that would enable them to be consumers, not a starvation wage.

Also, it may be "vital" but at the same time not the only way to economically grow.

Also this argument does not concern us in a few levels (since it's frame in a capitalist context). The growth the libertarians' speak, in this case, is more tied into capitalist relations of making profit then with the concept of increasing infrastructure/technology.


the industrial revolution wasn't as bad as what was taking place on farms.I don't know if rural labor was more or less pleasant but I'll say this:
Farm work had a tendency to pay little, was mostly seasonal (a factor in Puerto Rico's industrialization; people would work agricultural jobs when it was the right season and then do other jobs when it wasn't), wasn't enough free land (i.e. those that decided to work for industrial labor didn't own any land to farm in and if they wanted to do farm work they would have to do it for a wage, probably less, or a share of the crops.).

[politics student]

Well it wasn't. If life was more pleasant on the fields then the startling rates of urbanisation in the 19th C never would have occurred. Similarly countless numbers of peasants have flooded Asian sweatshops in recent years in order to escape the fields. No matter how brutal this labour is (and I'm not for a moment advocating it) it is nonetheless more bearable than peasantry

The rural work is not worse both are terrible conditions but rural work is lower payed/seasonal. For basic survival urbanization has taken place.

Industrialization caused much suffering lost limbs, death and shockingly cramped working conditions. For example small children use to crawl under the working parts to retie threads, if you got caught you would be killed. There was also young girls being crippled by the cramped conditions of work in the production of fabrics.

[Demogorgon]

Well it wasn't. If life was more pleasant on the fields then the startling rates of urbanisation in the 19th C never would have occurred.
Not really, a lot of the urbanisation in the nineteenth century was caused by farmers being thrown off their land to make way for sheep because the landowners decided that wool was more profitable than arable farming.

In the cities at the time, factory work meant longer hours in worse conditions even than farm work. Life expectancy was around twenty years lower in the cities than it was in the countryside for this reason.

The Libertarian interpretation of this is that people must still have preferred the cities to the countryside as they chose city life, but in fact there was no choice involved. They were thrown out of their homes in the countryside and therefore had to go to the cities.

A similar thing happens today in the third world. Much of the previous ways of making a living have become untenable as local producers cannot compete with multi-nationals and as a result people are forced to work for such companies.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think what's wrong with the argument is that if they're paid too low wages (the norm in sweatshops) then where will you get the consumers to buy your products?


The consumers are in more affluent societies like Western Europe and the United States.

The sweatshop people will use their meager wages to purchase things within their local area, i.e. food, water, housing. That will spring up a local economy. It may still be a slum but it will be liveable.

(I am playing devils advocate, this is what I believe a Libertarian might say:o)

[Demogorgon]

The consumers are in more affluent societies like Western Europe and the United States.

The sweatshop people will use their meager wages to purchase things within their local area, i.e. food, water, housing. That will spring up a local economy. It may still be a slum but it will be liveable.

(I am playing devils advocate, this is what I believe a Libertarian might say:o)

It is wrong simply because a Community is more able to achieve this without a sweatshop than with one. Sweatshops appear in areas where capitalism has already gutted the local economy. That is how they move in.

[Raúl Duke]

The consumers are in more affluent societies like Western Europe and the United States.

The sweatshop people will use their meager wages to purchase things within their local area, i.e. food, water, housing. That will spring up a local economy. It may still be a slum but it will be liveable.

(I am playing devils advocate, this is what I believe a Libertarian might say:o)

I was actually going to mention this in my post and say something like "this is why we have sweatshops elsewhere."

But still...as I said earlier...the context of the argument is placed in a capitalist one. This argument would only bring a problem to reformists who want capitalism with a human face. We want to rid of ourselves of capitalism altogether.

[BobKKKindle$]

Foreign investment in the developing world leading to the growth of manufacturing enterprises producing consumer goods for a foreign market (or "sweatshops" as they are generally known) is progressive from a historical perspective, because it creates an industrial proletariat, concentrated in large units of production, which can lead the struggle against imperialism and ultimately overthrow capitalism. This is exactly what happened in Russia, where almost all industry was owned by foreign firms, with the exception of strategic sectors such as the armaments industry, which were owned by the Russian state.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've actually encountered this argument numerous times before, and I'm always floored by it. Can you say false dichotomy?

[Vanguard1917]

Libertarians argue that sweatshops are vital for the growth of a nation.

This is because, as bourgeois ideologues, they're unable see beyond capitalist exploitation as a means of bringing about economic development and growth.


Similarly countless numbers of peasants have flooded Asian sweatshops in recent years in order to escape the fields. No matter how brutal this labour is (and I'm not for a moment advocating it) it is nonetheless more bearable than peasantry

Yeah, some people seem to think that condemning capitalist exploitation needs to mean idealising rural life, when in fact living standards in developing countries are generally far worse in the countryside than they are in the cities.

However despicable and downtrodden sweatshop conditions are, i doubt returning to the villages is seen as much of an alternative by the millions of people emigrating to the cities every year.

[RadioRaheem84]

However despicable and downtrodden sweatshop conditions are, i doubt returning to the villages is seen as much of an alternative by the millions of people emigrating to the cities every year.


Do they not take into account the deforestation of the rural areas? The malady of exploiting the farmers? Many are forced to seek urban work because capitalism has wrecked the countryside? Heck, small towns are being run down and people are having to come into the city to look for work. The suburban life is unsustainable too.

[Vanguard1917]

Do they not take into account the deforestation of the rural areas? The malady of exploiting the farmers? Many are forced to seek urban work because capitalism has wrecked the countryside? Heck, small towns are being run down and people are having to come into the city to look for work. The suburban life is unsustainable too.

I'm unsure about the point you're making. My point was that people in developing countries emigrate to the cities because living conditions tend to be better there.

[ComradeOm]

Not really, a lot of the urbanisation in the nineteenth century was caused by farmers being thrown off their land to make way for sheep because the landowners decided that wool was more profitable than arable farmingDefine "a lot". You'll find it extremely hard to convince me that the mass migration that so marked the formation of every single industrial society was due to sheep/livestock farming. Indeed I've studied at least two histories (France and Russia) where the migration to the cities was driven by an independent, semi-independent in the case of the Russian communes, peasantry rather than tenant farmers


In the cities at the time, factory work meant longer hours in worse conditions even than farm work. Life expectancy was around twenty years lower in the cities than it was in the countryside for this reasonSource for the last claim?

Anyways, no one is denying the nature of life in the cities yet the undeniable trend was towards urbanisation at ever increasing rates. This is simply because the average life of the peasant was nasty, brutish, and short. Peasants do not leave (or are thrown from) some happy village ideal but rather flee the horrors of 'rural idiocy' and subsistence farming