I was curious to see where they came from. Some had been made in Honduras.
Last year the democratically elected President of the Honduras was overthrown in a military coup.
Today there are reports of human rights violations.
The United States never protested strongly and there was a phony election.
But, here's the funny thing: Before he was removed, the democratically elected President was talking about raising the minimum wage.
I wonder, if possibly, people who work in the factories which make those t-shirts might possibly be paid the minimum wage? If they got more money, would that cut into the profits of either Hanes or Walgreens?
Is that possible?
Might Walgreens and or Hanes be happy that the democratically elected President was removed?
After-thought (2 February 2012)
Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that the Hanes company actually overthrew a government, and I have not done so. That is not necessary, although, the history of the United Fruit Company seems to show that companies are capable of overthrowing governments.
All that is necessary is that, as a capitalist company, Hanes wants to pay the lowest wages possible. That is something like a law of capitalism. Companies try to keep costs down in order to increase profits. So, insofar as the overthrow of the democratically elected president meant lower costs--or avoiding higher costs----the owners/stockholders of Hanes must be happy.
Whether companies---or stockholders, or the others--actually have a moral right to those profits is altogether a different question.
However, the logic of capitalism is such that any firm is happy to avoid paying higher wages.
Myself, I don't think that's a good thing. But I'm not arguing the point right now. However, if the owners or stockholders at Hanes were uncomfortable with the thought that their profits were purchased at the price of human suffering, that would be a good thing. They should be uncomfortable, and they should think about whether what they are doing is right. They should think about it.
If capitalism is not necessary, not a law of nature, then the suffering of poorly paid workers who make things for USA companies is unnecessary. In fact, if something like "social democracy" is better than neo-liberal capitalism, then workers should be better paid, within a capitalistic system with a human face. (I am inclined to think that the possibility of social democracy is small, and that it is a system with a built-in tendency to collapse or degrade into inhuman capitalism, but it would be better than what we currently have.)
I do believe that capitalism is not the best system, not the only possible system.
Alternatives to the existing system, alternatives to capitalism? Read Michael Albert's "Parecon" http://zcommunications.org/topics/parecon
or David Schweickardt's "After Capitalism",
or Eric Olin Wright's "Envisioning Real Utopias".
An argument for social democracy can be found in Richard W. Miller, "Globalizing Justice".
No comments:
Post a Comment