Bangladesh tragedy: the terror of capitalism - Page 3

In an ideal situation both employer and employee, corporations and workers can ensure checks and balances on each other.

However, there are times when a corporations power may go out of hand. Even though it is in corporate best interest to have continuous production with competent productive employees and avoid losses – every now and then cutting corners leads to so much profit that a few losses, deaths etc are just minor inconveniences in the way. We saw this during the Rockefeller era where mine collapses, oil explosions and deaths didn't faze how Standard Oil operated and expanded. It happened with Banana Republics and it does happen to some extent with sweat shops.

But don't see capitalism as the problem. In these situations monopoly or oligopoly where one or more corporations have too much power.

However, workplace accidents, unsafe work conditions are not just an economic issue of capitalism vs. socialism. We need to look at larger picture of how safety fits in general.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Arti, I am well aware of the pros and cons of Capitalism and I myself have argued against capitalism, on this very forum, when the topic of discussion centered on social inequality, specifically wealth distribution.

You make a very compelling argument but I am unable to reconcile how in a society where an alternative system of economics (say, socialism) is dominant, these types of structural collapses would be averted. Aren't corporations in a capitalist society bothered about lost work owing to injuries and death? Wouldn't it hurt their bottom-line? Don't the corporations know that workers are not easily replaceable, that retraining new workers would cost more? Isn't it in their financial interest to avoid lawsuits originating due to unsafe working conditions? Isn't the government imposing worker's compensation insurance? Punitive damages for employer negligence? I fail to see how all these rules and regulations are circumvented in a capitalist society but somehow adhered to in a socialist society. Which is why I don't want to make a slippery-slope argument that ties a building collapse to a global economic system.

Corporations don't have to operate in a "free market" system where they have to show performance, efficiency, and treat workers well. They operate in a system where they drive - through explicit political pressure - decisions that will guarantee maximum profitability. Low corporate taxes, erosion of workers' rights, aggressive privatization of public services, neoliberal restructuring of public institutions and so on. Each of these areas seem to be undergoing pressure to go from bad to worse on any given day. Obviously this totally overlooks the welfare of people or the environmental sustainability of corporate practices. Surely we no longer witness a "checks and balance" process as theoretically imagined in neoclassical economics. The role of the state has completely been changed to protect capital rather than enforce minimum standards.

Historically whenever policies were instituted to "moderate" the power of capital, it was through collective action (massive strikes and workers' refusal to co-operate). That doesn't seem possible any longer with a creation of a race to the bottom where workers compete for less and less. Workers are displaced and highly disempowered on a mass scale. Workers in the Rana factory earned about US $38/month. Why go so far.. I will use the example of Canada, where labour laws are strong compared to the US and many European countries, and union density is still not as bad as our neighbours to the south. An auto worker (a sector which was really the focal point of union power in the 40s) today earns $11/hr, employed by a temp agency of some kind, compared to the kind of stable manufacturing wages ($25+) that allowed a thriving blue collar workforce and a strong middle class. Major manufacturing companies in Canada have either required that workers take a 50% pay cut, or have relocated to factories in Manila, or even Indiana (another union-busting "right to work" state). The very expectation that a worker is entitled to fair wages and minimal safety at work has been decimated. You're supposed to feel lucky to have a job, any job. That's the reality we're seeing across the globe. So I would say that no corporation has any incentive to maintain a happy workforce. They can pick up and go to the next cheapest place.

Today's wealthy are able to control the economic game in ways that the elites have never been able to before. They can change the rules to suit them, in fact. Their biggest success is fooling people into believing that our success and well being is tied to the stability of a failing economic system.

To me, the most lazy response to any critique of capitalism is "communism/socialism didn't work because it makes people lazy blah blah [insert cliche]." Venezuela and Bolivia have tried policies that involve state owned enterprises and more democratic systems that give a voice for the poor. We have to remember that the powerful influence of the US has made efforts to institute sustainable socialist policies difficult. The point is that nationalized industries can and have demonstrated efficiency and productivity. In any case, multi-billion dollar bailouts for people who made selfish and unsound decisions sound more socialist to me than anything else I've seen lately. If that kind of contradictory "socialism" is okay, then why is the idea of any other kind of socialism so bitter to swallow.

I think there is hope to imagine alternative economic systems that can value human dignity. I don't exactly know what that system would look like. But it is possible to devote economic resources to dealing with the actual crises of our world - massive amounts of poverty and unequal distribution of resources, the pain and suffering of those who have to actually run this system with their hard work, and stopping the degradation of our planet. Right now each of those problems are worsening at an alarming rate.

All we have seem from the boom and bust cycles of capitalism is that every time there is a recession - or an exhibited failure of capitalism - more right-wing, anti-worker policies are instituted to "save" capital, making the problem much worse. It makes jobs more precarious, puts more workers' safety at risk, and reduces overall expectations. It becomes harder to argue for an alternative, because you're just supposed to shut up and cut corporations some more slack. How sad that even serious flaws of this system and newer tragedies worse than the ones before are still not good reasons to re-examine our economic system.

Originally posted by: --arti--

Corporations don't have to operate in a "free market" system where they have to show performance, efficiency, and treat workers well. They operate in a system where they drive - through explicit political pressure - decisions that will guarantee maximum profitability. Low corporate taxes, erosion of workers' rights, aggressive privatization of public services, neoliberal restructuring of public institutions and so on. Each of these areas seem to be undergoing pressure to go from bad to worse on any given day. Obviously this totally overlooks the welfare of people or the environmental sustainability of corporate practices. Surely we no longer witness a "checks and balance" process as theoretically imagined in neoclassical economics. The role of the state has completely been changed to protect capital rather than enforce minimum standards.

Historically whenever policies were instituted to "moderate" the power of capital, it was through collective action (massive strikes and workers' refusal to co-operate). That doesn't seem possible any longer with a creation of a race to the bottom where workers compete for less and less. Workers are displaced and highly disempowered on a mass scale. Workers in the Rana factory earned about US $38/month. Why go so far.. I will use the example of Canada, where labour laws are strong compared to the US and many European countries, and union density is still not as bad as our neighbours to the south. An auto worker (a sector which was really the focal point of union power in the 40s) today earns $11/hr, employed by a temp agency of some kind, compared to the kind of stable manufacturing wages ($25+) that allowed a thriving blue collar workforce and a strong middle class. Major manufacturing companies in Canada have either required that workers take a 50% pay cut, or have relocated to factories in Manila, or even Indiana (another union-busting "right to work" state). The very expectation that a worker is entitled to fair wages and minimal safety at work has been decimated. You're supposed to feel lucky to have a job, any job. That's the reality we're seeing across the globe. So I would say that no corporation has any incentive to maintain a happy workforce. They can pick up and go to the next cheapest place.

Today's wealthy are able to control the economic game in ways that the elites have never been able to before. They can change the rules to suit them, in fact. Their biggest success is fooling people into believing that our success and well being is tied to the stability of a failing economic system.

To me, the most lazy response to any critique of capitalism is "communism/socialism didn't work because it makes people lazy blah blah [insert cliche]." Venezuela and Bolivia have tried policies that involve state owned enterprises and more democratic systems that give a voice for the poor. We have to remember that the powerful influence of the US has made efforts to institute sustainable socialist policies difficult. The point is that nationalized industries can and have demonstrated efficiency and productivity. In any case, multi-billion dollar bailouts for people who made selfish and unsound decisions sound more socialist to me than anything else I've seen lately. If that kind of contradictory "socialism" is okay, then why is the idea of any other kind of socialism so bitter to swallow.

I think there is hope to imagine alternative economic systems that can value human dignity. I don't exactly know what that system would look like. But it is possible to devote economic resources to dealing with the actual crises of our world - massive amounts of poverty and unequal distribution of resources, the pain and suffering of those who have to actually run this system with their hard work, and stopping the degradation of our planet. Right now each of those problems are worsening at an alarming rate.

All we have seem from the boom and bust cycles of capitalism is that every time there is a recession - or an exhibited failure of capitalism - more right-wing, anti-worker policies are instituted to "save" capital, making the problem much worse. It makes jobs more precarious, puts more workers' safety at risk, and reduces overall expectations. It becomes harder to argue for an alternative, because you're just supposed to shut up and cut corporations some more slack. How sad that even serious flaws of this system and newer tragedies worse than the ones before are still not good reasons to re-examine our economic system.

I can't help but feel that most of what you say is extraneous to the discussion on hand (for instance, why would you want to bring up wages when we are on hazardous factories? Why would you deliberate on bailouts instead of buildings that are clearly not up to code? ) and I fear one reason could be that your anger is somewhat premeditated, that your dialogue is somewhat rehearsed, that you are approaching this incident starting off with Capitalism and trying to zero in from that inequitable vantage point, whereas I am trying to start off with the collapse of the building and then branching out to see where that would lead us. So far, our paths are failing to intersect.

How about this? Why do we have more workplace related injuries and deaths in developing countries as compared to developed countries? Why is it even difficult to assess workplace safety in developing countries where stats on workplace related accidents and deaths are hard to come by? Why don't they have a strong legal framework to better insure the workers, provide necessary training to them to prevent accidents, and minimize risks? Simplest of the questions, do they even conduct safety drills? In short, what are they NOT doing that the developed countries are doing? Could we answer these first?

My goal here is to make these developing countries accountable instead of censuring free market principles. Willfully or otherwise, there is only so much that the corporations can do, be it damage or be it repair, be it arm-twisting the governments behind closed doors or be it cajoling the governments to safeguard their employees and providing funds. At some point, the measures that are needed to be taken to ensure the overall betterment of the working class fall outside their purview. Their reach is not limitless.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I can't help but feel that most of what you say is extraneous to the discussion on hand (for instance, why would you want to bring up wages when we are on hazardous factories? Why would you deliberate on bailouts instead of buildings that are clearly not up to code? ) and I fear one reason could be that your anger is somewhat premeditated, that your dialogue is somewhat rehearsed, that you are approaching this incident starting off with Capitalism and trying to zero in from that inequitable vantage point, whereas I am trying to start off with the collapse of the building and then branching out to see where that would lead us. So far, our paths are failing to intersect.

How about this? Why do we have more workplace related injuries and deaths in developing countries as compared to developed countries? Why is it even difficult to assess workplace safety in developing countries where stats on workplace related accidents and deaths are hard to come by? Why don't they have a strong legal framework to better insure the workers, provide necessary training to them to prevent accidents, and minimize risks? Simplest of the questions, do they even conduct safety drills? In short, what are they NOT doing that the developed countries are doing? Could we answer these first?

My goal here is to make these developing countries accountable instead of censuring free market principles. Willfully or otherwise, there is only so much that the corporations can do, be it damage or be it repair, be it arm-twisting the governments behind closed doors or be it cajoling the governments to safeguard their employees and providing funds. At some point, the measures that are needed to be taken to ensure the overall betterment of the working class fall outside their purview. Their reach is not limitless.

The discussion of workers' wages and safety standards go hand in hand, because they have to do with the ability of workers' to have fairness at work. Collective bargaining focuses on all of those issues because they go hand in hand. It's ridiculous to try to separate the two. The workers in Bangladesh are flagging both of these workplace issues as important to address. Do you really need it to be spelled out how wages and safety are connected? Most collective agreements that unionized workers have negotiated include clauses that deal with wages, benefits, vacation, sick days, safety at work, and all kinds of other things that constitute labour relations between an employer and a group of employees.

I don't sound "rehearsed." I just have a well-thought out position on this issue that involves a number of inter-connected factors as well as a systemic analysis because of what I study and the work that I do on the ground. I've had to make this exact argument a number of times before because of what I do. My day to day involves thinking and working on these issues, so I can't help but have a stance on it, including the structural underpinnings of the status quo. My position includes a critique of capitalism because I think there are key economic and ethical implications that stem from our global context. You can call my position ideological, because it is, and my worldview includes certain key ideals around social justice and equity. But my view and standpoint is frankly a tangential issue in this discussion.

My goal in this discussion has been to validate the merit of an anti-capitalist analysis in looking at tragedies such as these, because at first your response was that that constituted some kind of "hijacking," and a number of people came in after and added fuel to thriving stereotypes about "communism." In this discussion is that I have demonstrated through my arguments that these issues (workers' rights and safety -- including wages, labour standards, neoliberal policies, the role of the state) are all connected to the flows of global capital. You have failed to provide a counter-narrative or a counter-argument that can actually refute any of those connections. I would be much more inclined to take you seriously if you had say - taken a point I made specifically - and provided an alternative analysis.,

Your already tried the straw argument that my anti-capitalist, pro-worker analysis necessarily precludes an engagement with safety codes, trends and accepted practice in a sector in question, or accountability of middle actors. I have responded to that as well. You can keep coming up with more questions if you want. But it's ridiculous to suggest that my analysis prevents me from engaging those questions.

I have raised examples of precarious work and substandard safety in not just the global south, but also included Canada in my examples. So sweeping generalizations that there is "more safety" here and not there are invalid. I specifically used the example of migrant workers here to contest such crass generalizations. I made the point that despite having strong labour laws in Canada, and a somewhat powerful labour movement (or at least one that is not totally weakened), migrant workers in Canada still suffer unsafe working conditions and some have even died with the employer not being held accountable for the loss of their lives or for improving new workers' working conditions.

"Free market" principles do not apply in our world. Plain and simple. I have already pointed out the number of ways in which those rules no longer apply. That's why the bailouts are an important part of the context. A lot of economists -- including mainstream ones and not just leftist economists -- have written about this. It was part of my response to your argument that the market should be able to regulate itself and care for the workers because of its "balancing" invisible forces. That has been thoroughly debunked and simply does not apply in any neoliberal policy.

And again - as I have already covered, developing countries as a whole cannot simply decide to change their standards and ensure more safety because of the global economic context in which they simply don't have the power to lose foreign capital. Again, I'm not saying anything new here. This has been covered by plenty of political economists and this backdrop is a crucial piece of uneven development across countries.

I think it is pig headed to ask someone to discuss global economics and force them into narrow confines about what that discussion should lead to. Or state that the discussion can talk about surface issues without raising structural issues. These are complex issues with significant histories. Frankly I would dismiss any "expert" who claims to have solutions who doesn't assess these factors as significant parts of the discussion and whatever the solution can be.

I won't be repeating points I've already covered. If there's anything interesting or new in this thread, I'll be back to respond later.

Just because you throw down the gauntlet doesn't necessarily mean I have to pick it up unless sufficient causal evidence is presented. You say there is a systemic causation here owing to a complicated global economic system where not all phenomena are directly related. But then the burden is on you to explain how exactly the said systemic causation works its way across the globe; my job is to only question wherever I see data insufficiency. Do I have the easy assignment? Absolutely! Am I the one who made bombastic statements that the Bangladesh tragedy is a natural consequence of capitalism? No!

A simple analogy: if Ashraf Mohammad was one of the deceased in the Bangladesh building collapse and if Ashraf Mohammad was a homosexual, it doesn't mean you would want to initiate a discussion on the violation of LGBT rights on the pretext that the building collapsed and then go on to berate anyone who questions whether such a discussion is germane to the event unless you are ready to show us sufficient factual evidence that the building collapsed because some homophobic cult with strategic operations in rural Tennessee and tactical operations all over the world had it sabotaged and you can prove it.

Heck, how do we know you are not dealing with a Maslow's hammer here - "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"?

Instead of long-winded explanations which anyone can easily find in socialism literature, I would have liked to see a few simple statements that when taken together are sufficient to establish that a capitalistic society was responsible for this tragedy. If all you are interested in is spreading propaganda, I am out of this discussion. Thank you for your time.