From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 19:52:26 BST
Note: I had composed a response earlier, but computer crashed during send
:-(. I'm guessing it did not go through, but if it does, and this is
redundant, I apologize.
Arlo wrote:
>>. What I advocate is a more balanced and connected relationship between
>>the business and the production, and between the labor and the product.
>>This is Marxist thinking, to be sure, but one I feel resonates strongly
>>with the theme of alienation in ZMM.
>
>Do you mean a Ben and Jerry's type of operation?
Well, I am not fully familiar with the ins and out of Ben & Jerry's, but
going on what I know I think it is a "step up" in connecting labor activity
and product. I don't know if it serves as an ideal example, and certainly
not one that every and all company need to mimic.
>I think this is an example of global social evolution. By moving the
>factories across the border the owners of the companies are lining their
>pockets yes but also inadvertantly raising the standard of living even if
>just a little. And sure as the sun comes up as time goes by wages will rise.
I believe the key concepts here are (1) "just a little" and (2) at a great
detriment to local labor. Certainly, as you indicate, providing some wages
to keep people from starving to death is better than allowing them to
starve, but the problem is that these wages are so low they provide no way
for the labor to ever get out of poverty conditions. In fact, it depends on
a slave labor force as a source of cheap labor. If one has access to a
better pool of labor in Mexico, then it is certainly moral to move
production. If one is driven by the desire to increase the wealth of poorer
nations, then it is certainly moral to move production. But, in the actual
examples we see, the move rests solely on accessing (and maintaining) a
slave labor population.
>An old friend once told me a story about how as a young man he worked for
>$2 a day in the fields, hard back-breaking work from dawn till dusk. One
>day he heard of a farmer paying $5 a day! At first he didn't believe it
>but sure enough, when he inquired about the job the man hired him right
>off to work for a couple weeks digging drainage ditches. My friend told me
>that after that, he refused to work for any less than $5 a day and sure
>enough, that's what everyone paid him, even those who used to pay him just
>$2, though they did so grudgingly and with many grumbles.
Again, life is better than death, but life in virtual slavery is worse than
life free. I get the feeling that some believe that their moral duty ends
with the accumulation of wealth. Coke could easily pay enough to the
Tijuanese labor force to allow them to save and actually prosper. But it
does not do so because the current dialogue of capitalism says that it is
completely acceptable to pay slave wages so that the owners' personal
wealth increases. Consider the employee-owned company in this instance. As
Platt suggest, these employees would likely not pay themselves "just enough
to survive". But if the factory was tied to the livelihood of the
community, they employees would need a way to keep it operational. Likely
this would come in a more even distribution of gross profit. If, however,
we are saying that in order for Coke to be competitive in the current
static economic market, it needs multi-million dollar salaried executives
and a labor force paid so low they can't afford decent drinking water, then
I think this is a good place to begin leveling criticism against the
system. (Yes, look into this if you are interested. This area has one of
the highest rates of infantile and juvenille diabetes in the world because
the wages paid by Coke (and other American factories) are so low that most
can't afford bottled water (the groundwater has been contaminated by
American lead waste disposal) and so drink, yep, Coke instead of water.... )
Listen, capitalists always try to warp the argument into "oh, so you want
mandated and level salaries regardless of worth, like in commie Russia". I
am not arguing that wages should not reflect varying degrees of labor, and
I am not saying that risks should not be rewarded. But, I am arguing that
the current dialogue places money above all else, and makes the pursuit of
money unassailable (lest you become a commie too). Consider your example
again, in this hypothetical you present, let's add the fact that it is a
myth that labor can "simply find work elsewhere" if the conditions or pay
is unfair. So, your employees are pretty much stuck working for you (as the
Tijuanese workers are for Coke). Would you pay them "just enough" so that
they could have scraps in their cardboard houses with dirt floors, while
you past by them every day in your Lexus? Or would you, knowing them and
their families and being concerned for them as people- not as employees-,
be more equitable in sharing the wealth generated by their labor.
You see, in the current system there is no dialogue for this. You are
completely justified in paying them slave wages, or perhaps "sustenance
wages" to respond to Platt's objection to this term, because there are no
crimes in the pursuit of wealth. Any criticism of this becomes pulled down
to anti-free-market or "communism" or such.
Let's consider this. We know that in this country labor activity is quite
removed from the product of its labor (as discussed in ZMM). Is there
anything that can be thought of that would remove this alienation without
impacting free-markets? The current system of capitalism disfavors (not
disallows) this connectedness, mostly in the name of "profit margins".
>I understand what you're saying but I believe it's part of the natural
>order of things. That doesn't mean we can't change things though.
I might disagree that this is the natural order. But I do agree it can change.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 08 2004 - 19:56:50 BST