World Government

[JimC]

There's nothing wrong with basing your choice of things to change and work towards on an abstract ideal. In fact, it makes more sense to take a more holistic approach to social management, instead of a hodgepodge of slap up repairs and badly fitting kludges.

As long as the "abstract ideal" recognises the reality of human nature, and remembers the bloodshed and tyranny of the past that have been inspired by idealism without constraint...

[FBM]

I think it's funny how people talk about the uneven distribution of wealth, wage slavery, being the 99%, how McDonalds, WalMart, etc, don't pay living wages and outsource production to child labor sweatshops in Asia, global warming being the result of rampant industrialization, etc, etc, but are still so in love with the system that makes all that possible.

[Audley Strange]

I think it's funny how people talk about the uneven distribution of wealth, being the 99%, how McDonalds, WalMart, etc, don't pay living wages and outsource production to child labor sweatshops in Asia, global warming being the result of rampant industrialization, etc, etc, but are still so in love with the system that makes all that possible.

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do. Granted we should not be exploiting that, but the fault lies with countries that do have child labour. I have heard the argument made that the reason some of these countries are influenced into such decision by big business but from what I can tell those businesses took advantage of an existing workforce helped many already working children and their families out of poverty. Again we should not be exploiting this but the blame lies with countries who would allow trans-national corporations to put children to work. The excesses of businesses should cause us shame and should be rectified, but the countries that allow such exploitation of children are ultimately responsible and they are predominantly different political and cultural systems. Ours, as sharp and dangerous as it is puts theirs to shame.

With regards to the Global wealth issue. Placing ourselves in the west along with the rest of the planet economically in order to score points against the tiny minority of super-rich, is to me, insulting to the rest of the planet who face actual poverty war and starvation on a minute by minute basis. There is no 99% vs 1% . There are many different economic groups in the west, almost all of whom are clothed, have homes, access to adequate nourishment and medical facilities, basic education and opportunity. They might not be living the lives of the sun kings but in comparison to the competing systems around the globe, we're for want of a better word, winning. Could do much better certainly, but perhaps if the rest of the planet could get on board rather than wanting to murder each other over a stick, or treat it's people like cattle then perhaps we could ALL do much better rather than making it incumbent on us to solve their problems while they do.

[JimC]

Audley Strange wrote:

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do. Granted we should not be exploiting that, but the fault lies with countries that do have child labour. I have heard the argument made that the reason some of these countries are influenced into such decision by big business but from what I can tell those businesses took advantage of an existing workforce helped many already working children and their families out of poverty. Again we should not be exploiting this but the blame lies with countries who would allow trans-national corporations to put children to work. The excesses of businesses should cause us shame and should be rectified, but the countries that allow such exploitation of children are ultimately responsible and they are predominantly different political and cultural systems. Ours, as sharp and dangerous as it is puts theirs to shame.

I quite agree. Much anger was expressed in the Australian media over the recent collapse of a clothes factory in Bangladesh that killed many. Some Australian companies employed the Bangladesh firm to make clothing. The anger was entirely addressed at the Australian companies, and none whatsoever to the corrupt, inefficient and utterly incompetent Bangladesh government, who wouldn't know a building regulation if it bit them on the arse...

[Audley Strange]

Yes, there's a sort of ugly parochialism in the subtext too. "We should know better, they don't, poor savages."

[pErvinalia]

I think it's funny how people talk about the uneven distribution of wealth, being the 99%, how McDonalds, WalMart, etc, don't pay living wages and outsource production to child labor sweatshops in Asia, global warming being the result of rampant industrialization, etc, etc, but are still so in love with the system that makes all that possible.

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do. Granted we should not be exploiting that, but the fault lies with countries that do have child labour. I have heard the argument made that the reason some of these countries are influenced into such decision by big business but from what I can tell those businesses took advantage of an existing workforce helped many already working children and their families out of poverty. Again we should not be exploiting this but the blame lies with countries who would allow trans-national corporations to put children to work. The excesses of businesses should cause us shame and should be rectified, but the countries that allow such exploitation of children are ultimately responsible and they are predominantly different political and cultural systems. Ours, as sharp and dangerous as it is puts theirs to shame.

I know you won't read this, but that is a naive view. The IMF is largely responsible for forcing unfair trade, financial and political regimes onto desperate third world nations.

With regards to the Global wealth issue. Placing ourselves in the west along with the rest of the planet economically in order to score points against the tiny minority of super-rich, is to me, insulting to the rest of the planet who face actual poverty war and starvation on a minute by minute basis. There is no 99% vs 1% . There are many different economic groups in the west, almost all of whom are clothed, have homes, access to adequate nourishment and medical facilities, basic education and opportunity. They might not be living the lives of the sun kings but in comparison to the competing systems around the globe, we're for want of a better word, winning. Could do much better certainly, but perhaps if the rest of the planet could get on board rather than wanting to murder each other over a stick, or treat it's people like cattle then perhaps we could ALL do much better rather than making it incumbent on us to solve their problems while they do.\

This is so fucking naive I don't know where to begin.

[Hermit]

I quite agree. Much anger was expressed in the Australian media over the recent collapse of a clothes factory in Bangladesh that killed many. Some Australian companies employed the Bangladesh firm to make clothing. The anger was entirely addressed at the Australian companies, and none whatsoever to the corrupt, inefficient and utterly incompetent Bangladesh government, who wouldn't know a building regulation if it bit them on the arse...

While that was a somewhat blinkered view, it had good results. Major Australian retailers, such as Coles/Target, have committed themselves to no longer buying goods from manufacturers that use unconscionable methods of production.

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do.

Ever heard of the concept called "chain of responsibility"? Some countries allow child labour. Some companies exploit child labour. We buy the goods that are the result of child labour. We all share responsibility for child labour.

[pErvinalia]

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do.

Ever heard of the concept called "chain of responsibility"? Some countries allow child labour. Some companies exploit child labour. We buy the goods that are the result of child labour. We all share responsibility for child labour.

Yep.

[FBM]

Capitalism stresses competition over cooperation. It's a distorted and destructive worldview, somewhat related to that monstrous failure of Social Darwinism. Its elitist proponents enslave the masses into wage servitude and tricks them into believing that that's a good thing. It's based on the alluring fallacy that more = better, and that can be taken several ways. "More stuff (money, really) = better life" or "More stuff = better/superior person," etc. As long as the devil isn't at your door, ie, as long as you fit into the middle or upper classes, rocking the boat is anathema. You resign yourself to accepting that there will always be poor and "that's just the way it is." But it doesn't have to be that way. The powahs that be could eradicate hunger worldwide in the snap of a finger, if they were so inclined. But they're not so inclined because they think they deserve more than others because they happened to be born into a system that they could manipulate. It's really just Calvinism with the god removed. And ad hoc rationalization coupled with a genuinely callous lack of concern for the suffering of the "darkies" and so forth.

[PsychoSerenity]

Audley Strange wrote:

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do. Granted we should not be exploiting that, but the fault lies with countries that do have child labour. I have heard the argument made that the reason some of these countries are influenced into such decision by big business but from what I can tell those businesses took advantage of an existing workforce helped many already working children and their families out of poverty. Again we should not be exploiting this but the blame lies with countries who would allow trans-national corporations to put children to work. The excesses of businesses should cause us shame and should be rectified, but the countries that allow such exploitation of children are ultimately responsible and they are predominantly different political and cultural systems. Ours, as sharp and dangerous as it is puts theirs to shame.

I quite agree. Much anger was expressed in the Australian media over the recent collapse of a clothes factory in Bangladesh that killed many. Some Australian companies employed the Bangladesh firm to make clothing. The anger was entirely addressed at the Australian companies, and none whatsoever to the corrupt, inefficient and utterly incompetent Bangladesh government, who wouldn't know a building regulation if it bit them on the arse...

Well we have very little direct influence over foreign governments, but we do have influence over business that sell to us.

And seeing as boycotts and protests can only push so far as public awareness exists, I see no reason why we shouldn't be pushing for regulations instead. There's no reason we couldn't say that companies that want to sell things to us while making use of foreign labour markets should have to ensure that health and safety in their supply chain is brought up to our levels, or face heavy penalties or taxes. They can still undercut the wages in the more wealthy countries, but profiting from treating people's safety and lives as expendable is a disgrace. And when some of the big businesses are compelled to increase their standards, they will then lobby foreign governments to raise standards of regulations so that they're still on a level playing field.

[pErvinalia]

It's a kind of "tragedy of the commons" problem, with the "commons" being third-world labour. While one exploits it, the others are losing out by not exploiting it. Capitalism is no longer about just competition between individuals or small groups of individuals. It's as much about competition between nations now.

[FBM]

[JimC]

I quite agree. Much anger was expressed in the Australian media over the recent collapse of a clothes factory in Bangladesh that killed many. Some Australian companies employed the Bangladesh firm to make clothing. The anger was entirely addressed at the Australian companies, and none whatsoever to the corrupt, inefficient and utterly incompetent Bangladesh government, who wouldn't know a building regulation if it bit them on the arse...

While that was a somewhat blinkered view, it had good results. Major Australian retailers, such as Coles/Target, have committed themselves to no longer buying goods from manufacturers that use unconscionable methods of production.

Well I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not allow child labour, other countries do.

Ever heard of the concept called "chain of responsibility"? Some countries allow child labour. Some companies exploit child labour. We buy the goods that are the result of child labour. We all share responsibility for child labour.

I'm certainly not saying that Western clothing companies are without fault here, or that pressure in an ethical sense cannot pay dividends. Just pointing out that corrupt practices, plus the internal political and regulatory frameworks (or lack of them) in these countries are the immediate cause of such tragedies, which was largely ignored by the media.

[Blind groper]

I agree with Jim.

Last September, I visited the Philippines, which was an enlightening experience. They are desperately poor - even more so after the big hurricane. Yet their poverty owes nothing to the wealthy west. They are a hard working, ambitious people, who should be riding high on the back of their work ethic. They are not. Why not?

The answer is simple. Government corruption. I asked one of the more educated Filipino guys about this. He said that they have now, for the first time in their independent history, a president who is not corrupt. But he said, it makes no difference, since everyone else in their government is lining his/her pockets. All the hard work of those people dashed to pieces against the corruption of a few.

[piscator]

Government corruption.

Define that.
One man's corruption is another man's compensation package, or drilling rights for that matter...

It used to be illegal and corrupt in the US for a Peabody Coal Company or a BP to buy up every candidate in an election, it's totally "Free Speech" and protected now. If they can do it here, why not Angola until someone tells them different?