Capitalism Saves Lives

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

....It's not Capitalism - it's Trade Unionism!...

Independent Trade Unionism is one of the features of modern capitalism. You don't get independent trade unions in socialist countries.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

Because Capitalists will respond to the T&Cs that their customers impose on them.

Supermarkets sell millions of free range and organic eggs, a choice that was basically unavailable when I was a kid. The reason isn't that a bunch of animal rights [STRIKE]nutters[/STRIKE] activists got on Tesco's case it was that people wanted to buy free range eggs.

Similarly, these companies are feeling (probably accurately) that there will be a big backlash from consumers who would rather not buy clothes made by people that died making them. They are responding to what they think the next move in the market will be.

As good capitalists, we now have the responsibility to support the companies that do the things we want them to do.

If you don't give a monkeys about Bangladeshi workers then buy the stuff that baby killers make, nobody is stopping you. The point is you have a choice and only you can change things.

I don't want Bangladeshi workers to die. My point is that capitalism has been around for a while and it only now reacts to the fact that a building collapsed and killed a load of people that it was using to make cheap stuff so it could sell for a greater profit. I don't think that it took 1,000 deaths in one incident to encourage changes is a particularly striking success for the capitalist model that supports your choice of thread title. If it is the behaviour of consumers or the anticipated behaviour of consumers that is behind the change then isn't it more down to a combination of the freedom of choice of consumers, education and the media, rather than an economic concept where the means for production are owned by private individuals who are all out to make a profit? Surely this is more down to public opinion than anything else.

Also, even if capitalism has "saved lives" in this situation, surely it must also then be responsible for all the people who have died and been exploited over the years so that people in richer countries can make bigger profits?

ash28

Generali wrote: »

Because Capitalists will respond to the T&Cs that their customers impose on them.

Supermarkets sell millions of free range and organic eggs, a choice that was basically unavailable when I was a kid. The reason isn't that a bunch of animal rights [STRIKE]nutters[/STRIKE] activists got on Tesco's case it was that people wanted to buy free range eggs.

Similarly, these companies are feeling (probably accurately) that there will be a big backlash from consumers who would rather not buy clothes made by people that died making them. They are responding to what they think the next move in the market will be.

As good capitalists, we now have the responsibility to support the companies that do the things we want them to do.

If you don't give a monkeys about Bangladeshi workers then buy the stuff that baby killers make, nobody is stopping you. The point is you have a choice and only you can change things.

There was a poll done on here that covered the sweatshop and cheap clothing issue

Would you knowingly buy sweatshop made cheap clothes

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/30-04-2013/would-you-knowingly-buy-sweatshop-made-cheap-clothes-2013

And the results were quite surprising

Results

I'd still buy–if it's cheap and I like it 1,950 votes (17 %)
I'd still buy–it's a different culture, charity begins at home 379 votes (3 %)
I'd still buy–as at least it means they have some work 2,162 votes (19 %)
I'd still buy–they're all the same in reality, so there's little choice 1,015 votes (9 %)
I'd still buy–I’m too skint to be choosy 1,194 votes (10 %)
I'd avoid it, unless I couldn't find a cheap, viable alternative 2,644 votes (23 %)
I'd never shop there again 2,046 votes (18 %)
I already source all my clothes from fair trade organisations 294 votes (3 %)

11,684 votes received.

Only 18% of those polled said they would never shop there again....3% already source from fair trade organisations and the remaining 79% said they would still shop there.....

I know it's a small poll, but I have grown up children who do shop in the likes of Primark and will continue to shop there...yes they were bothered by what happened - but not bothered enough.

Almost 80% of Americians polled by the Huffington Post/Yougov had heard either very little or nothing about the accident.....

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_clothing_0502032013.pdf

It looks like change won't really be consumer driven.

Just to add, I needed new trousers and a top and a nice jacket type cardigan...for a funeral and I went to a local independent retailer on our local high street....trousers..made in France, top, made in the UK, cardigan, made in the UK....it actually made a change to be able to see where the clothing was made as most big retailers don't put the country of origin on their labels.

Were the clothes cheaper than Primark...I don't know as I don't normally shop there but they were certainly cheaper than M&S, Debenhams, House of Fraser etc....and the quality is good. The sales person said they had been using the same supplier in France for trousers for over 30 years and that I would be delighted with them...well the cut is really good. We shall see.

chewmylegoff

I'm pretty sure most big retailers do put the country of origin on their labels - the clothes I've got on do anyway although (i) I'm not going to look in my pants as I'm on the train and (ii) I don't think I've ever been in primark.

antrobus

chewmylegoff wrote: »

... If it is the behaviour of consumers or the anticipated behaviour of consumers that is behind the change then isn't it more down to a combination of the freedom of choice of consumers, education and the media, .....

Exactly, that's capitalism.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

... rather than an economic concept where the means for production are owned by private individuals who are all out to make a profit?

As opposed to the economic concept where the means for production are owned by the state who are all out to make a profit, you mean?

CLAPTON

ash28 wrote: »

There was a poll done on here that covered the sweatshop and cheap clothing issue

Would you knowingly buy sweatshop made cheap clothes

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/30-04-2013/would-you-knowingly-buy-sweatshop-made-cheap-clothes-2013

And the results were quite surprising

Results

I'd still buy–if it's cheap and I like it 1,950 votes (17 %)
I'd still buy–it's a different culture, charity begins at home 379 votes (3 %)
I'd still buy–as at least it means they have some work 2,162 votes (19 %)
I'd still buy–they're all the same in reality, so there's little choice 1,015 votes (9 %)
I'd still buy–I’m too skint to be choosy 1,194 votes (10 %)
I'd avoid it, unless I couldn't find a cheap, viable alternative 2,644 votes (23 %)
I'd never shop there again 2,046 votes (18 %)
I already source all my clothes from fair trade organisations 294 votes (3 %)

11,684 votes received.

Only 18% of those polled said they would never shop there again....3% already source from fair trade organisations and the remaining 79% said they would still shop there.....

I know it's a small poll, but I have grown up children who do shop in the likes of Primark and will continue to shop there...yes they were bothered by what happened - but not bothered enough.

Almost 80% of Americians polled by the Huffington Post/Yougov had heard either very little or nothing about the accident.....

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_clothing_0502032013.pdf

It looks like change won't really be consumer driven.

Just to add, I needed new trousers and a top and a nice jacket type cardigan...for a funeral and I went to a local independent retailer on our local high street....trousers..made in France, top, made in the UK, cardigan, made in the UK....it actually made a change to be able to see where the clothing was made as most big retailers don't put the country of origin on their labels.

Were the clothes cheaper than Primark...I don't know as I don't normally shop there but they were certainly cheaper than M&S, Debenhams, House of Fraser etc....and the quality is good. The sales person said they had been using the same supplier in France for trousers for over 30 years and that I would be delighted with them...well the cut is really good. We shall see.

obviously you checked out the source of the raw materials?


and being 'bothered enough' isn't the real issue; the issues are concerned with what would the (unintended) effects be on the workers who would probably be made redundant and why aren't you equally concerned with the whole productioin chain?
e.g China has a very high death rate in it's mining industry; as all products use energy with how can you justify buying any Chinese product?

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I expect that is more or less correct. If capitalists are responsible for the improvement in working and social conditions in this country it begs the question why they aren't so enlightened when moving their production overseas to lower their costs and increase their profits.

Profits are a minor consideration, it is the customer that decides what they are prepared to spend.

There are British and European manufactured clothes availalble where from factories where conditions are up to full EU standards. The clothes cost 3 or 4 times as much and the vast majority are too tight to pay.

Fine, but don't then complain about working conditions if you want cheap goods.

ash28

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Isn't this just multinationals reacting to public anger (in Bangladesh) so they can continue to reap the benefits of the cheap labour available in third world countries? If capitalism proactively saved lives the disaster would never have happened in the first place as the companies involved would never have tolerated the idea of workers living in those conditions. It's good that they are responding to the situation but surely they are just doing what they should already have done?

The factory owners are capitalists too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/bangladesh-factory-shutdown_n_3268064.html?ref=topbar

Following worker protests and a decision by the Bangladeshi government to reevaluate the minimum wage, the lone national association of garment manufacturers on Monday shut down all factories in Ashulia, one of the country's major garment industry hubs.
Leaders of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) announced the decision at a press conference Monday afternoon, just as the rescue operation at Rana Plaza came to a close in the adjacent area of Savar, the industrial suburb of the city of Dhaka. Responders have pulled at least 1,127 dead bodies from the debris since the eight-story garment factory collapsed three weeks ago.
Although the organization had originally said all factories in Ashulia would be shut down indefinitely, leaders later said the closure applied only to factories where there was worker unrest.

and

The announcement of the mass factory shutdown came the same day as the cabinet changed labor law to allow workers to unionize without their employer reviewing a list of union supporters, a common barrier to labor organizing in the country. The shutdown also followed a day after the government tasked a committee with reevaluating the minimum wage in Bangladesh. Reports in Bangladeshi media suggested that industry leaders weren't happy with the government's decision, which will mandate a new wage starting in May.

Workers protest...and get locked out.


Capitalism in action.....

Graham_Devon

Apologies Generali, but what a nonsense!

You could claim that guns save lives too. War saves lives. Afterall, they do, for those remaining after the cause of the battle has be dealt with.

But to say capitalism saves lives, as bluntly as you did ignores the reality of the situation all over the world.

One example is Mumbai. People dying slowly of disease in slums. There was a programme on not long back....toughest place to be a binman, and people were dying on the streets right opposite lavish high end properties. The reason they were dying was the lack of protection, lack of clothing and lack of safety for these people when "serving" the rich in dire conditions, rich only because of capitalism.

All this is is capitalism responding, through fear of a reduction to their revenues. It's nothing more and should not be dressed up as anything more either. 6 months and it will all be forgotten about.

Note that nothing has actually been DONE about these buildings. All thats happened is that these particular companies have switched who they use for a while.

That doesn't change anything. People will still be in these buildings. They have just lose some income. Other companies will still use them.

IronWolf

The beauty of capitalism is that it is driven by what the people want.

If capitalism is delivering clothes from slave labour then it is the responsibility of the people to not buy these things.

In the UK we are increasingly becoming socially conscious and as a result, companies are now putting much more effort into ethical practises.

If we want companies to the ethical then we as customers must only buy ethical products. In capitalism, the people have the power.