E-mail
Print
Capitalism a means of revolution
Sweatshops really not that bad
By R. Kapfhammer
What would have happened to 18th and 19th century U.S. if the wealthy bourgeoisie protested all our industrial-made goods?
I was walking across UWM’s campus the other day when I came upon one of those chalk propagandas written in pink on the sidewalk. “Campus apparel is made in sweatshops,” it proclaimed. So, what’s wrong with that?
The United States had sweatshops. The year was 1780 (or 1840 depending on who you talk to), and after stealing ideas and concepts from Europe, the United States and its wealthy, foreign businessmen were in fifth gear, erecting tall, dirty smoke stacks for factories which clouded the sky and dirtied the streets. The assembly line was fresh, new, and entirely unsafe and unregulated. And a new class of people, the working class, labored 15 hours a day, seven days a week, making nickels an hour to afford things like rent and pasteurized milk. No one was safe from the United States’ industrial boom. Even children toiled, children as young as seven. They worked jobs like coal mine excavation and cloth knitting. (Sounds like a sweatshop, doesn’t it?) And as the fingers went missing and the death toll rose, workers got fed up. Enter the Union. Unions did great things for this country, including but not limited to an eight hour work day, child labor laws, safety standards, working standards and vacation time.
The point is, the same kinds of atrocities are now happening in industrialized countries because that is the natural progression of capitalism. If anything, closing these labor camps is the total opposite of what we need to do. Not buying their cheap clothing and dollar-store items is only hurting their country and their desired economy. What would have happened to the 18th and 19th century U.S. if the wealthy bourgeoisie protested all of our industrial-made goods?
Imagine a United States with 90 percent of its people in absolute poverty. Imagine the young and old in rags instead of designer apparel. Imagine shanty towns replacing the sky-rocketing lakeside condos. Instead of shopping malls, college campuses and business districts, imagine small, poorly built trading posts where newly skinned chickens hang and fresh vegetables sit slowly rotting in the sun. Sounds like those Third World towns you see on the news, doesn’t it?
The United States isn’t like that because of (and thank god for) The Industrial Revolution. We have condos next to the lake and Pick ‘n Save around the corner. We have The Gap and Starbucks in oversized shopping malls. We have education for all. Yes, you should be upset with others’ living conditions. In a modern world humans shouldn’t have to dwell in poverty, but don’t avoid the Wal-Marts and the Targets because people are working for nickels an hour in some country you can’t find on a map. Don’t stand on campus with homemade signs demanding UWM halt its purchasing of inexpensive clothing from developing nations. Don’t go completely green. These countries need our selfish desires and compulsive requests. They need our wants for the cheapest items. They need the U.S.
Don’t worry, they’ll get there. Give it time. When the fingers go missing and the loved ones exhaust themselves to death, they’ll complain. With age comes wisdom, and with money comes education. They’ll eventually form unions which will set the bar. They’ll get their eight-hour work day and their child labor laws. They’ll get their week of paid vacation and their safety protocols. And then they’ll have the same standards every other post-industrialized nation has.
Whatever you do, don’t stop buying. The hapless children you see on 20/20’s “Sweatshops Edition” need you. They need your dollars and they need your greed, because without money they have nothing and no way of getting out. So help start a revolution: buy a T-shirt.
> Comments
Sweatshop-Free UWM on Oct 06, 2008 at 01:05 AM:
"Unions did great things for this country"
--> True, and they still do. And the companies that make our university apparel refuse to recognize unions. That is one of the primary issues involved.
"Not buying their cheap clothing and dollar-store items is only hurting their country."
--> Untrue. In all likelihood, under new contracts, university apparel will be made in many of the same countries, only under more humane conditions -- in factories that respect the right to organize, child labor standards, etc.
"What would have happened to the 18th and 19th century U.S. if the wealthy bourgeoisie protested all of our industrial-made goods?"
--> If they had protested labor standards, then workers would have had allies against exploitative owners, and those children you reference would have had more fingers.
"They need the U.S."
--> Unlikely. They would probably benefit more if we would stop lowering their labor standards via the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, etc.
"When the fingers go missing and the loved ones exhaust themselves to death, they’ll complain."
--> They do. And they take action. And they are in turn suppressed by governments that are supported by U.S. corporations and the U.S. government.
Nathan Johnson on Oct 06, 2008 at 06:41 PM:
Capitalism was revolutionary around 4 centuries ago, but is now counter-revolutionary.
All of your pro-sweatshop arguments are invalid for the simple reason that between the 1800s and today the productivity of labor has increased to such a great extent that sweatshops are entirely unnecessary.
Because the leading capitalist nations have already cornered the market, and have such a technological advantage, the companies in poor countries have to compete by exploiting labor to such a barbaric extent. Through the class struggle the working class, both in the developed countries and in the developing countries, can overcome the culture of competition and establish a democratically planned economy as a more rational, humane course of development.
That makes a lot more sense than buying and thereby increasing the demand for sweatshop-made products, which would only result in speeding up the conveyor belt and making sweatshop labor more intolerable.
Johanan Raatz on Oct 07, 2008 at 02:33 PM:
Hey nice article Kapfhammer. I may not agree with all of it but the argument is good in general. If I'm not mistaken it seems to be the classic Randian argument.
"I was walking across UWM’s campus the other day when I came upon one of those chalk propagandas written in pink on the sidewalk. “Campus apparel is made in sweatshops,” it proclaimed. So, what’s wrong with that?"
It's a funny coincidence but I started writing for the Post almost exactly a year ago as a response to another message chalked in the sidewalk:
"A couple of weeks ago as I was walking through campus I saw a message chalked on the sidewalk stating the following: “the CIA has helped overthrow 15 democracies.” On first glance this sounds as though the CIA is engaged in nefarious activities throughout the world. However, after thinking about it I realized one should not make this judgment hastily." ~http://uwmpost.com/article/52/8/2566-Democracy-doesn-t-equal-freedom-
It's nice to have you aboard. I'd strongly encourage you to keep it up. :)
Greg on Oct 07, 2008 at 04:25 PM:
You know what would be the best "sweatshop-free UWM" argument? Someone who works for one of those sweatshops telling everyone how bad it is and how rich, privilaged college students in Milwaukee can help by bringing their life stuggles to light.
And again, I've gotta say Nathan, I think in a strange way your contradicting statements do more to strengthen the authors point than diminish it (even though you so eloquently called it "invalid").
"overcome the culture of competition" Ha!
I really think that deep down at the heart of all the people who trash capitalism and the cold, heartless results of it is a fear of failing. A fear of leaving college, going out into the real world, having to play by the rules of the game and failing. After all, its always easier to blame the refs than admit you sucked.
And starting your personal precident against the establishment is a nice way to have street-cred once you need to use your excuses to explain your failures.
Aaron Spelling Bee on Oct 08, 2008 at 01:34 AM:
Greg, you spelled "privileged" wrong, you dope.
Greg on Oct 08, 2008 at 08:22 AM:
Well that just proves everything I said wrong. Grow up.
Adolf Hitler on Oct 11, 2008 at 09:26 AM:
Concentration camps are more awesome than sweatshops, ja.
Sweatshop-Free UWM on Oct 11, 2008 at 08:26 PM:
"Someone who works for one of those sweatshops telling everyone how bad it is and how rich, privilaged college students in Milwaukee can help by bringing their life stuggles to light."
This is perhaps the big difference between our viewpoints. We cannot presume to speak for the workers; we speak for ourselves, as UWM students. And it is as students that we decry our university's role in exploiting workers by denying the right to organize, denying a living wage, and denying the enforcement of child labor laws. It is OUR university that profits from these working conditions; it is OUR university's name that adorns sweatshop-produced clothing. It is OUR university that publicly lies about its position.
Greg and R. Kapfhammer have their perspective as well. As students, they support this oppression. As the unappointed representatives of oppressed workers, they apparently know what is best for the workers in the long run.
They blame the victim (for not "complaining" enough); we blame the oppressor (for refusing to pursue humane policies and continuing to profit from these conditions).