Iaafr you have to respond to my post now because I typed out a long response to this and if u don't I will feel like I typed a bunch for no reason
You literally just said that's what working in a sweatshop is: do it or die. It doesn't matter whether it's someone actively telling you that or if it's a choice forced upon you by the system: the outcome is exactly the same
you also are coerced under threat of death to not jump off cliffs. in undeveloped places, people die of starvation. then the sweatshop rolls into town and fewer people starve because they have a better alternative to starving. the default alternative is for the sweatshop to not come at all, in which case everyone is worse off. and you can imagine an equitable alternative where the rich country specifically comes to do charity in the poor country, but nobody actually cares about the welfare of developing countries, so thats a tough sell.
No, critiquing the system to show how it's fundamentally broken and can't be reformed is what can convert people. You don't need to offer an alternative. You just need to show that what we have is bad enough to try something new
well, you can claim so, but i dont think its convincing. most people are getting by, one way or another, and if it gets bad enough for people to rise up then the System itself will do some small reforms to keep that from happening. you gotta paint a picture in people's minds of a paradise, or else they will just be scared they will lose what little have.
fair; i think my issue was that you jumped to assuming/implying there was a necessary contradiction on the level of "war is peace" inside the anarchist idea of "perma revolution" that isnt obvious at all, and you were acting like such a contradiction was obvious
also pls change your avatar
Done
What? Where the fuck is this claim coming from?
Why are they worse off? The sweatshop extracts surplus value from their labor. If it didn't exist, the value from their labor would be their own, so they'd have more instead of less
This is not responsive in the slightest. An economic system forcing you to work for nearly nothing in abominable conditions or else you starve to death is not the same as gravity killing you
no i meant from this one
wat
I changed it already before you asked
change it again
the difference between the sweatshop and the slave camp is that the people working at the sweatshop dont want the sweatshop to disappear, and the people at the slave camp do want the slave camp to disappear.
if the megacorp is bribing the government and suppressing local business et cetera then its possible the sweatshop is no longer a mutually beneficial arrangement. this is outside the scope of ideal capitalism, although it does happen.
This is exactly the point: reformism will never change the structural inequality. It will only ever make it slightly more tolerable.
You know your position is dogshit when you're defending literal sweatshops
1 Like
Yes they do. They want it to be destroyed and replaced with something that doesn't fuck them completely
OK done.
A multinational corporation will always suppress local business. That's the point about wealth accumulation: those with less wealth can't compete with those with more wealth
back in the old days you had to work the fields all day or starve to death. and before then you had to pick berries and hunt animals with your buddies or starve to death. the baseline has always been starving to death. only recently have people invented the concept that maybe we should give free stuff to people to prevent them from starving to death, due to massive surplus from modern industrial society. in places where modern industrial society does not reach, i.e undeveloped ones, people are starving to death.
hence why working in order to not die and respecting gravity to not die is a rather apt analogy.
ok i can live with this its still less confusing than you having the ewiz avi
yes this is the Standard Defense of Sweatshops, which is that they are better than the default alternative (no sweatshop). people working are more concerned with feeding their family about dismantling the sweatshop, especially when they dont have an alternative in mind.
also, im not sure about the applicability of local suppression here. sure. the sweatshop can use its massive buying power to dominate the labor market by providing artificially high wages. at least in the short run, this sounds quite nice. they can also bribe officials and shoot people to make sure zero other businesses exist so they can force people to work for them. im not sure they actually do that though.