At 01:20 PM 5/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I want to thank Jim Devine for his exception[al] post. I might add one minor
>point: by freeing capital to move to the places with the lowest standards for
>the environment or for labor, it removes the incentives to improve technology
>by making it more labo
>But when you support quotas against imports of textiles from Africa, that
>is exactly the choice that you are making...
but if the "free market" (and its supporters) insists that the costs of
increased import competition be borne by the least-skilled (and least-paid)
of manufacturing workers
Brad, you are correct in a restricted sense. However, I am fully convinced that
integration into the global economy will make it more difficult to for Africa to
make independent decisions in the long run.
Brad De Long wrote:
> >Also, I'm not defending a romantisized version of the traditional
>
>The actual sweatshop employees will have to build their own
>struggles from within their own conditions -- and what we
>think about sweatshops is irrelevant. So to some extent this
>whole debate, on both sides, as been academic trivializing.
>
>Carrol
Oh not at all. It is very real. Whether or n
I did read the section on virtual materialism -- is that to which you refer?
Gene Coyle
Louis Proyect wrote:
> At 10:39 AM 5/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Why would we make clothes if we are going to walk around naked?
>
> Pish-posh. Clearly you haven't read Stalin's lectures on dialectical
> mater
Doug, I did not accuse you of limiting the choice to the sweatshop or the peasant
farm.
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Well, gee, of course not. Did I ever say those were the only two
> choices? Or that sweatshops are pleasant, soul-enriching places to
> work? My point was that lots of workers may not
Doug Henwood wrote:
> My point was that lots of workers may not see maquiladoras as
> the unmitigated hell we think of them as. That matters a lot for
> union and political organizing, doesn't it?
I tend to agree -- except. Looking at it from the perspective of
Jim O'Connor's recent posts on
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Sweatshops, like traditional peasant agriculture (and the vast majority of
> pre-capitalist modes of production), are very patriarchal. And
> paternalistic. The freedom of the women at Lowell was highly restricted.
> They were not that different from indentured servants, th
At 12:11 PM 5/9/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hmm, in journalism we call those interviews. But on scholarly
> >matters, of course I defer to you.
> >
> >Doug
>
>Why, thank you. And when it comes to journalism, I defer to you.
after you, my dear Alphonse.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberala
>Hmm, in journalism we call those interviews. But on scholarly
>matters, of course I defer to you.
>
>Doug
Why, thank you. And when it comes to journalism, I defer to you.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
10 matches
Mail list logo
