The connection between modern slavery and ecological disaster(blog.longreads.com)
blog.longreads.com
The connection between modern slavery and ecological disaster
http://blog.longreads.com/2016/03/08/your-phone-was-made-by-slaves-a-primer-on-the-secret-economy/
176 comments
Back in college, I had two Congolese friends... one a fellow CS student, the other a professor who taught an intro course in African history and literature that I'd taken. They would hang out together because they were the only Congolese in town, and I'd sit with them sometimes, chatting about school and weather and pretty girls walking by an anything but politics.
The professor's family was highly placed in the Mobutu government. He had enjoyed a childhood of education at the best private boarding schools and colleges in Belgium and England. My fellow CS student? He had been labeled a communist, and fled the country with his wife and children. He somehow managed to make his way to the US and enroll in college.
Still, they were genuinely friends, and great company to be with.
The professor's family was highly placed in the Mobutu government. He had enjoyed a childhood of education at the best private boarding schools and colleges in Belgium and England. My fellow CS student? He had been labeled a communist, and fled the country with his wife and children. He somehow managed to make his way to the US and enroll in college.
Still, they were genuinely friends, and great company to be with.
First their was the horrific Belgian colonization
This is one of the worst things ever, and recent enough to be photo-documented. They cut the hands and feet off children if their parents didn't gather enough rubber.
http://shop.antislavery.org/category/Images-Historical-Belgi...
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=congo+slavery&tbm=isch
https://discoveringbelgium.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/congo...
This is one of the worst things ever, and recent enough to be photo-documented. They cut the hands and feet off children if their parents didn't gather enough rubber.
http://shop.antislavery.org/category/Images-Historical-Belgi...
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=congo+slavery&tbm=isch
https://discoveringbelgium.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/congo...
I've never even heard of this, and I definitely pay attention to the news. This is basically WWIII in terms of overall combined casualties and... I'm just speechless... I have never even heard of it. Absolutely incredible.
I'm not saying that it isn't a tragedy but it's an order of magnitude less than WWII[1], or am I missing something?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
It's the largest single armed conflict since World War II, and yet it has less visibility than the Korean War (2,859,574 casualties [1]), Vietnam War (1,450,000 casualties [2]), or the Iraq War (654,965 casualties [3]). It's even worse known that the deaths through famines induced during the Cultural Revolution in China (400,000, rough estimate [4]).
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-fac...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
[3] http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
[4] https://books.google.com/books?id=YpV7vbvclfgC&pg=PA354#v=on...
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-fac...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
[3] http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
[4] https://books.google.com/books?id=YpV7vbvclfgC&pg=PA354#v=on...
It has less visibility than those because there were no western nations (and hence western media) involved with boots on the ground. Or planes in the air, for that matter. The other thing is that the bulk of deaths were knock-on deaths from things like famine and disease rather than military violence.
However, it is still a good indication of just how little attention we pay to Africa here in the west, that people in general don't even know that it existed.
However, it is still a good indication of just how little attention we pay to Africa here in the west, that people in general don't even know that it existed.
Also when British Empire and similar were in Africa stopping the wars and the like it was considered racist so now the done thing is to leave the Africans to it.
'stopping the wars' wasn't considered the racist part. 'taking all their stuff and not giving much back' was.
And for the Congo in particular, their experience under Belgian (well, Leopold II) rule was so horrific that other colonial powers exerted pressure on Leopold to give it up. The death toll in the Congo at that time was about the same as for the recent Second Congo War (plus the war's aftermath). Given the population of the day, it's estimated that the Belgian rule in the Congo halved the population, whereas the recent war 'only' claimed a bit less than 10%. The Belgian rule also left a lot of people maimed without hands, since there were bounties on hands, and the payors weren't too fussy about where they came from. Leopold II is one of history's lesser-known evil kingpins. After Leopold was forced to hand it over for management elsewhere, it became a more regular colonial story of exploitation for little in return.
In short, for Congo in particular, the modern day is better than it's experience in colonial times, even with the recent war.
And for the Congo in particular, their experience under Belgian (well, Leopold II) rule was so horrific that other colonial powers exerted pressure on Leopold to give it up. The death toll in the Congo at that time was about the same as for the recent Second Congo War (plus the war's aftermath). Given the population of the day, it's estimated that the Belgian rule in the Congo halved the population, whereas the recent war 'only' claimed a bit less than 10%. The Belgian rule also left a lot of people maimed without hands, since there were bounties on hands, and the payors weren't too fussy about where they came from. Leopold II is one of history's lesser-known evil kingpins. After Leopold was forced to hand it over for management elsewhere, it became a more regular colonial story of exploitation for little in return.
In short, for Congo in particular, the modern day is better than it's experience in colonial times, even with the recent war.
If you're interested in history, "The State of Africa" is a really readable history of African countries from post-WWII to the present(or close). From that book I found out about a lot of events I'd never heard about, including a more detailed discussion of what this article talks about.
Also, another interesting book about Congo and King Leopold - The Belgium king is "King Leopold's Ghosts". One of the best book on history of Congo.
Yes, that is an excellent book
> The war came about after the dictator Mobutu died and the chaos and aftermath
We learned so much from this, just look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria...
We learned so much from this, just look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria...
Ethical supply chains will become a badge of honor in the future for the upper class who can afford it... but the masses consuming the majority of the products driving the price down to slave-labor proportions will require a cultural change.
There is something deep in human nature that sees something it wants and narrows our thoughts to just getting that item. Maybe its a holdover from our Hunter/Gatherer instincts. But we seem to be using it to hack our minds to ignore the damage we do to our fellow humans in the process of acquiring.
We may need to aspouse minimalist ideology at a mass scale (something I see in fellow Gen Yers.)
There is something deep in human nature that sees something it wants and narrows our thoughts to just getting that item. Maybe its a holdover from our Hunter/Gatherer instincts. But we seem to be using it to hack our minds to ignore the damage we do to our fellow humans in the process of acquiring.
We may need to aspouse minimalist ideology at a mass scale (something I see in fellow Gen Yers.)
Around half of all eggs laid in the UK come from free range hens (1) - I believe this increasing proportion is partly due to a sticker requirement to mark eggs with 'Eggs from caged hens'.
I wonder what effect there would be on the electronics industry if all iPhones in the EU had to be sold with a prominent sticker 'Produced with slave labour' ? I honestly think that regulations can nudge the behaviour and expectations of 'the masses' through this kind of labelling.
(1) http://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/layinghens/far...
I wonder what effect there would be on the electronics industry if all iPhones in the EU had to be sold with a prominent sticker 'Produced with slave labour' ? I honestly think that regulations can nudge the behaviour and expectations of 'the masses' through this kind of labelling.
(1) http://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/layinghens/far...
The problem is that "free range" is easy to define.
Which criteria should we label for that are meaningful in other countries across the world?
Made by workers:
Receiving Minimum wage (which one)?
Receiving Free healthcare?
Working a maximum of 8 hours / day?
Over the age of 16? 18?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but defining what is acceptable is not easy. Don't forget that in most western countries no access to free healthcare would be defined as unacceptable. Also in some poor countries 14 year old "kids" have fought against anti-child labour laws because they were the only provider for their family and there is no help from the government regardless of your condition.
Which criteria should we label for that are meaningful in other countries across the world?
Made by workers:
Receiving Minimum wage (which one)?
Receiving Free healthcare?
Working a maximum of 8 hours / day?
Over the age of 16? 18?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but defining what is acceptable is not easy. Don't forget that in most western countries no access to free healthcare would be defined as unacceptable. Also in some poor countries 14 year old "kids" have fought against anti-child labour laws because they were the only provider for their family and there is no help from the government regardless of your condition.
There's ISO 26000 [1] which is voluntary and SA 8000 [2] which is a certification. That would be a start.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26000
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA8000
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26000
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA8000
"Free range" actually isn't so easily defined, and most "free range" eggs, come from hens living in conditions that most reasonable people would still consider absolutely appalling.
Yea, now I aim for pasture raised which is essentially the gold standard here in the USA and implies the hens lived primarily outdoors and ate what they wanted.
Lots of time "free range" is the same as caged, just... without the cages. The hens are too fat to go anywhere anyways.
Lots of time "free range" is the same as caged, just... without the cages. The hens are too fat to go anywhere anyways.
"Free range" isn't the label used in the example you replied to, but "from caged hens".
The problem isn't trying to define meaningful labels, but to record the most salient facts. For starters: record and disseminate the human hours exerted and wage paid for each manufactured item.
2 Assemblers @ 1 hr/each @ $2/hr
1 Packager @ 1 minute @ $1/hr
etc
Consumers may then dynamically choose based on their current preferences. I don't think it's an ideal system, but it would be a significant improvement over the current situation.
The problem isn't trying to define meaningful labels, but to record the most salient facts. For starters: record and disseminate the human hours exerted and wage paid for each manufactured item.
2 Assemblers @ 1 hr/each @ $2/hr
1 Packager @ 1 minute @ $1/hr
etc
Consumers may then dynamically choose based on their current preferences. I don't think it's an ideal system, but it would be a significant improvement over the current situation.
That makes sense to me. If we accept that the market isn't perfect, and that all participants do not have perfect information (or even as a corollary market participants will not always recall or connect known information to the transaction they are considering), then increasing awareness of market information allows the market to perform better. In this case, people want free range eggs for whatever reason (there could be many, but I'm sure we can all think of the obvious ones), and making them aware of that helps them make that decision.
'Produced with slave labour'
Love it.
Daylighting externalities is key to changing behavior. Enough of us vote with our dollars to move the needle.
I stopped eating chocolate (cold turkey) when I first learned about the plantations using slave labor, children, etc.
I resumed buying chocolate when I learned about the Fair Trade program.
http://fairtradeusa.org/products-partners/cocoa
Love it.
Daylighting externalities is key to changing behavior. Enough of us vote with our dollars to move the needle.
I stopped eating chocolate (cold turkey) when I first learned about the plantations using slave labor, children, etc.
I resumed buying chocolate when I learned about the Fair Trade program.
http://fairtradeusa.org/products-partners/cocoa
I can just imagine how much having to mark phones "made by slaves" in a non removable way would impact sales.
Imagine a state passing a law requiring stickers like that, but not outright banning items known to be produced by slave labour. The message would basically be that yes, we are fully aware that some products are made with slave labour and we are OK with that (as long as it's clearly marked).
Apple removed an app that hinted at that:
http://www.geek.com/apple/apple-approves-then-removes-app-hi...
http://www.geek.com/apple/apple-approves-then-removes-app-hi...
I agree! I the US we have focused more on branding the positive aspects (local, organic) and socially stigmatizing the negative (e.g. labeling smoking). But as I mention above, that ends up making a class distinction more than real change.
The Prop 65 problem[1].
It's impossible to prove that the entire supply chain for any electronic device is 100% free of exploitative labour conditions. Metals are fundamentally untraceable and a modern device contains components from hundreds or even thousands of suppliers, sub-contractors and second sources. All it takes is one manager twenty steps down in the supply chain to lose a piece of paper and your chain of custody is broken for a sizeable batch of devices.
In practice, every electronic device would be required to carry such a warning label simply as a precaution, rendering it meaningless.
[1] http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html
It's impossible to prove that the entire supply chain for any electronic device is 100% free of exploitative labour conditions. Metals are fundamentally untraceable and a modern device contains components from hundreds or even thousands of suppliers, sub-contractors and second sources. All it takes is one manager twenty steps down in the supply chain to lose a piece of paper and your chain of custody is broken for a sizeable batch of devices.
In practice, every electronic device would be required to carry such a warning label simply as a precaution, rendering it meaningless.
[1] http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html
The point the article seems to be making, though, is that pretty much everything is made with slave labor. Phones, computers, tabletops, tombstones, shrimp, fish, steel, sugar - everything. So you'd be slapping the "Produced with slave labor" label on everything, which probably wouldn't change behavior.
"This product is known in the state of California to..."
[deleted]
What smartphones do you imagine aren't produced with slave labor? Is there even a phone on the market with no Foxconn parts?
For this to work, there has to be an ethical alternative available (if at slightly higher cost).
For this to work, there has to be an ethical alternative available (if at slightly higher cost).
> Ethical supply chains will become a badge of honor in the future for the upper class who can afford it
The same society whose middle and lower classes are demanding ever lower prices at the cost of inhumane treatment of workers is the same society which produces the upper class you hold that hope for. I think you must be living in a different world than I am, because the upper class I'm familiar with is just as happy as everyone else to have their goods produced by the not-quite-but-almost-slave labor described in the article.
I agree that this will require a cultural change, but at all levels. The upper class isn't going to jump on that any sooner than the rest of us without a major shift.
The same society whose middle and lower classes are demanding ever lower prices at the cost of inhumane treatment of workers is the same society which produces the upper class you hold that hope for. I think you must be living in a different world than I am, because the upper class I'm familiar with is just as happy as everyone else to have their goods produced by the not-quite-but-almost-slave labor described in the article.
I agree that this will require a cultural change, but at all levels. The upper class isn't going to jump on that any sooner than the rest of us without a major shift.
The badge of honor is, of course, meant pharisaically.
The upper class I'm familiar with consumes products by people like Brunello Cucinelli who goes to great lengths to verify the ethical sourcing of his products. They eat localvorically, and in general buy ulta-high end goods that they research a bit before purchasing (because they are finicky about many aspects). This new hobby is a ultra-status conversation piece that can be traded at parties. You should be able to name the region your boat deck's teak came from, and then drop that the hunting rifle you just had hand crafted has a recovered Lebanese cedar stock that came from an old chest of drawers.
The upper class I'm familiar with consumes products by people like Brunello Cucinelli who goes to great lengths to verify the ethical sourcing of his products. They eat localvorically, and in general buy ulta-high end goods that they research a bit before purchasing (because they are finicky about many aspects). This new hobby is a ultra-status conversation piece that can be traded at parties. You should be able to name the region your boat deck's teak came from, and then drop that the hunting rifle you just had hand crafted has a recovered Lebanese cedar stock that came from an old chest of drawers.
Ethical sourcing is privilege, yes, and status as well.
That doesn't mean it's wrong.
Food in particular is a source for this controversy. Over the past fifty years, the population of the planet has doubled, but food cost as a proportion of the economy has halved. This is due to the techological advances of "green revolution" agriculture - tractors, transportation, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Cheap food comes at the price of health and environmental damage, among other things. (want slavery? Check out the chocolate supply chain.) And it's not a huge luxury to eat more ethical foods. Middle class people can afford it.
That doesn't mean it's wrong.
Food in particular is a source for this controversy. Over the past fifty years, the population of the planet has doubled, but food cost as a proportion of the economy has halved. This is due to the techological advances of "green revolution" agriculture - tractors, transportation, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Cheap food comes at the price of health and environmental damage, among other things. (want slavery? Check out the chocolate supply chain.) And it's not a huge luxury to eat more ethical foods. Middle class people can afford it.
For the middle class, it requires you spend more money that you likely don't have on an intangible benefit that doesn't factor into your bottom line equation. Upper class folk will concern themselves with Davos-esque visioneering, societal progress, and "downshifting" as their free time and resources allow themselves to explore new ethical practices.
The true middle class is focusing on critical value trade offs (getting more for your money) and family unit stability. This narrows their energy away from the broader problems and closer to matters of survival. Consider how even Whole Foods or "Goop" is seen by your average middle class individual -- a spot for dilettantes to overpay for apples rather than a representation of hope for working farmers and healthy children.
I think the upper-class must steer away from the concerns of themselves and shoring up their wealth and towards a reinvestment on society, something the recession in the US and depots in Russia and China have set back as members now fear assets could disappear at any time. A portion of the super-class (Gates, Buffet etc) have already tried to evangelize this with some progress -- whilst facing opponents like the Kochs and others who seem to have a more socially adverse ideology.
The true middle class is focusing on critical value trade offs (getting more for your money) and family unit stability. This narrows their energy away from the broader problems and closer to matters of survival. Consider how even Whole Foods or "Goop" is seen by your average middle class individual -- a spot for dilettantes to overpay for apples rather than a representation of hope for working farmers and healthy children.
I think the upper-class must steer away from the concerns of themselves and shoring up their wealth and towards a reinvestment on society, something the recession in the US and depots in Russia and China have set back as members now fear assets could disappear at any time. A portion of the super-class (Gates, Buffet etc) have already tried to evangelize this with some progress -- whilst facing opponents like the Kochs and others who seem to have a more socially adverse ideology.
Depends on where you live, maybe. Here in Minneapolis, quality food is a thing, not just for the rich, but for the middle class and even the poor. Sure, there are always tradeoffs, but we're not living on the McDonalds dollar menu and Maruchan Ramen - not if we can afford better, and most can.
The real cost of quality food isn't so much money as time. My daughter does most of the cooking for the household, because she loves it. She spends a couple of hours a day at it. I love to cook too, but I don't spend hours a day cooking, because it's not a good tradeoff in my life.
The real cost of quality food isn't so much money as time. My daughter does most of the cooking for the household, because she loves it. She spends a couple of hours a day at it. I love to cook too, but I don't spend hours a day cooking, because it's not a good tradeoff in my life.
I love your adverbs.
that's a pretty broad stroke you are applying
I'll bite: What happens to the poor when the inhumane supply chain that has sustained them (albeit poorly) goes away?
Also, a googler complaining about slave-labor prices is rich with irony.
Also, a googler complaining about slave-labor prices is rich with irony.
What happens everywhere, they go find something else to do. And the odds of that being ethically better go up as fewer at the top order from unethical suppliers.
Current failings of our world are not excuses not to improve it, or to be better people.
On another note, a personal attack is not appreciated here, regardless of where I work. Your comment history is rich with these types of things. We are happy to have you here, but please think about contributing more constructively.
Current failings of our world are not excuses not to improve it, or to be better people.
On another note, a personal attack is not appreciated here, regardless of where I work. Your comment history is rich with these types of things. We are happy to have you here, but please think about contributing more constructively.
Lets assume it costs more to make a job ethical (fewer hours, higher pay etc) - otherwise why not do it now? This means higher prices for consumers, so they now buy fewer products. This means less products need to be produced, so fewer persons are employed in making these ethical products. What happens with the workers who are now redundant?
Concretely, if an iPhone is replaced on average every other year but goes up 30% to the the ePhone (ethical phone) it is now only replaced every 3 years. This means fewer ephones are produced, which means that roughly 1/3 of the workforce is no longer required. What are those 1/3 to do?
Concretely, if an iPhone is replaced on average every other year but goes up 30% to the the ePhone (ethical phone) it is now only replaced every 3 years. This means fewer ephones are produced, which means that roughly 1/3 of the workforce is no longer required. What are those 1/3 to do?
And if the work they can do happens to be in a different country?
The question here is really "Do they have the resources to move to where the work is?" Immigration to work better and earn more, whether temporarily or permanently, has been happening since transportation became a thing. Go to Dubai and see how many Pakistanis are doing jobs there. Or look in the average American commercial kitchen and count the Mexican and other latino immigrants.
Almost everyone in America is a descendant of immigrants, for that matter. In many cases, those immigrants were fleeing violence and persecution, their passage paid by overlords who felt it was very decent and moral of them to ship the people overseas rather than just killing them off (i.e. the Irish in America).
Almost everyone in America is a descendant of immigrants, for that matter. In many cases, those immigrants were fleeing violence and persecution, their passage paid by overlords who felt it was very decent and moral of them to ship the people overseas rather than just killing them off (i.e. the Irish in America).
Are you seriously suggesting that a humane system of production is impossible? The status quo or oblivion' is a terrible false dichotomy.
It is impossible in the near term. One only needs to look at what happened when protest against child labor resulted in companies no longer using child labor in their supply chains. Ideally, those children should've been cared for by welfare, but in many places thew welfare system either wasn't there, wasn't able to handle the change, or it was too slow to aid. Many of those children ended up in a worse situation; some even changing to even worse illegal professions to survive.
Now, in the long run, that will be better than just keeping the status quo. But we should remember that a quick change can be significantly worse in the short term, especially one where the focus is incorrectly applied (in these cases, the focus is on goods being produced by a child labor instead of the conditions that result in children working to begin with; ending the child labor does not end the conditions and will sometimes make things much worse).
Now, in the long run, that will be better than just keeping the status quo. But we should remember that a quick change can be significantly worse in the short term, especially one where the focus is incorrectly applied (in these cases, the focus is on goods being produced by a child labor instead of the conditions that result in children working to begin with; ending the child labor does not end the conditions and will sometimes make things much worse).
This is an important lesson. Even the most noble of intentions come with unintended consequences.
It's one thing if the situation was a matter of children being forced to work. If a kid finds work on purpose to help himself or his family eat and you suddenly make it illegal without removing the NEED for him to have to work to help his family then you've made the situation worse while instituting a policy to make yourself feel better.
My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
It's one thing if the situation was a matter of children being forced to work. If a kid finds work on purpose to help himself or his family eat and you suddenly make it illegal without removing the NEED for him to have to work to help his family then you've made the situation worse while instituting a policy to make yourself feel better.
My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
If generations are exploited and then we decide we can no longer carry the ethical burden of exploitation, then we have a responsibility to help them recover as well (or hell, reparations).
But in these "We must keep the slaves so they don't starve" arguments, there's always a nasty whiff of condescension - the implication that they cannot care for themselves, without handouts. Given freedom and sufficient resources, most people will choose to better their circumstances. Humans fed themselves for a long time before they were enslaved. Getting back to feeding themselves may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible.
But in these "We must keep the slaves so they don't starve" arguments, there's always a nasty whiff of condescension - the implication that they cannot care for themselves, without handouts. Given freedom and sufficient resources, most people will choose to better their circumstances. Humans fed themselves for a long time before they were enslaved. Getting back to feeding themselves may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible.
I poked at a different part of this post, but I'm glad you replied with tihs. You've isolated a big problem with the rhetoric in this thread. Kipling would be nodding at a whole bunch of it.
The problem in the responses is the logical inconsistency.
In my reply, I said if they were being forced to work (aka - slaves) it was not okay but if they went out and choose to work it was another story.
In your response you cited a "we must keep the slaves so they don't starve" argument...which is not at all what I said. That's the logical disconnect that happens in many political discussions of these types. You're arguing with something I didn't say unless I'm misreading you, because it partially looks like you're agreeing with me as well regarding people choosing to better their circumstances.
In my reply, I said if they were being forced to work (aka - slaves) it was not okay but if they went out and choose to work it was another story.
In your response you cited a "we must keep the slaves so they don't starve" argument...which is not at all what I said. That's the logical disconnect that happens in many political discussions of these types. You're arguing with something I didn't say unless I'm misreading you, because it partially looks like you're agreeing with me as well regarding people choosing to better their circumstances.
They're slaves because they are prohibited from bettering their circumstances. Now, if you abolish the slavery and then say "You're free now! Go better yourself!" without giving them any resources with which to do so - if they lack the tools to feed themselves - they'll starve, yes.
To better themselves, they need to be able to make something where they're at, or be able to go somewhere else. If they're sitting on ruined land, unable to leave, that's a problem that can't be solved with mere hard work. But that's a problem that would not have happened without the slavery in the first place.
To better themselves, they need to be able to make something where they're at, or be able to go somewhere else. If they're sitting on ruined land, unable to leave, that's a problem that can't be solved with mere hard work. But that's a problem that would not have happened without the slavery in the first place.
> My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
This is a really good way to make sure that important things aren't talked about (and, it should go without saying, disproportionately hurts already marginalized people even further). Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution. It may take time to get there, and the process might be annoying (heaven forfend). But I would suggest considering the circumstances you find yourself in that allows you to find them annoying, and being charitable about the search for a solution instead of decreeing from on high.
This is a really good way to make sure that important things aren't talked about (and, it should go without saying, disproportionately hurts already marginalized people even further). Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution. It may take time to get there, and the process might be annoying (heaven forfend). But I would suggest considering the circumstances you find yourself in that allows you to find them annoying, and being charitable about the search for a solution instead of decreeing from on high.
I expect people who are not in positions of decision making power to talk about things and complain about things.
I expect people who are campaigning on the basis of those complaints to be able to explain why the problem is a problem and exactly how they plan to solve it along with the expected ramifications of their solution.
Campaigning on complaints without being able to extrapolate those details is essentially nothing more than pandering.
I expect people who are campaigning on the basis of those complaints to be able to explain why the problem is a problem and exactly how they plan to solve it along with the expected ramifications of their solution.
Campaigning on complaints without being able to extrapolate those details is essentially nothing more than pandering.
> Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution.
Can parties opt-out of your definition of a collaborative solution, or does your definition of collaborative include forcing people to participate, whether they wish to do so or not?
Can parties opt-out of your definition of a collaborative solution, or does your definition of collaborative include forcing people to participate, whether they wish to do so or not?
Of course you can opt-out. But rejection goes both ways: we live in a society, and there are consequences to being asocial and antisocial, and depending on the problem, and the solution, that might be a thing. But you can always leave if something's so untenable, if you can find somewhere with rules more to your liking.
Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Can I choose not to leave, if I respect other people's natural rights?
My issue about leaving is that if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to flee from others who wish to violate my rights. Instead, they should respect my right to be unmolested.
Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to expand on this topic.
Can I choose not to leave, if I respect other people's natural rights?
My issue about leaving is that if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to flee from others who wish to violate my rights. Instead, they should respect my right to be unmolested.
Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to expand on this topic.
I tend to fall in line with Rousseau in that "natural rights" are not relevant in a societal context and that what we conceive of as rights exist only in the context of the society that grants them--basic social-contract stuff, subordination to the general will rather than subordination to the will of other citizens being as close to optimal as a practical society is likely to become. I think that the notion of "rights" as something sacrosanct is frankly hilarious and that jurisprudence should not rely on them, but rather build upon the notions of the body politic (and in practice this is what happens; see the contortions in many SCOTUS rulings that are a legalistic form of "yeah, we get it, the zeitgeist has spoken"). This has its drawbacks--demagoguery is a threat, for one--but I contend that there isn't a better method that doesn't enshrine one particular group of people as being Special Enough to enjoy a place of permanent privilege.
To that end, there is no "right to be unmolested", and I would underline that particularly for--given the context of this thread--conceived-of rights that effectively serve to provide legal supremacy over other people. (Of which we have many.) "Done nothing wrong" can mean very different things to very different people, and while I am not in favor of ex post facto convictions or anything of the like, I am in favor of amending the rules to the game to be more equitable and, I hold, thus better for the aggregate of humanity--and enforcing them to that end.
So, no. The general will sets the rules of the road, and dissenters can comply (and seek to change that general will if they so choose; part of the societal privilege to try to change that general will is the societal responsibility to obey it when it breaks against you), accept the consequences of civil disobedience (the abrogation of the aforementioned responsibility in hopes of demonstrating injustice to encourage a change in that general will), or leave (fold your hand). As it happens, there are cases where I'd do the second and a couple where I'd do the third.
To that end, there is no "right to be unmolested", and I would underline that particularly for--given the context of this thread--conceived-of rights that effectively serve to provide legal supremacy over other people. (Of which we have many.) "Done nothing wrong" can mean very different things to very different people, and while I am not in favor of ex post facto convictions or anything of the like, I am in favor of amending the rules to the game to be more equitable and, I hold, thus better for the aggregate of humanity--and enforcing them to that end.
So, no. The general will sets the rules of the road, and dissenters can comply (and seek to change that general will if they so choose; part of the societal privilege to try to change that general will is the societal responsibility to obey it when it breaks against you), accept the consequences of civil disobedience (the abrogation of the aforementioned responsibility in hopes of demonstrating injustice to encourage a change in that general will), or leave (fold your hand). As it happens, there are cases where I'd do the second and a couple where I'd do the third.
Thank you for your detailed comment. I now think I understand where you stand.
>No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
How does this fix the problem of solutions not actually solving things?
How does this fix the problem of solutions not actually solving things?
The idea is that I expect people to explain how their solution will solve the problem. That's lacking in most political proposals.
Source? I have a hard time believing that. If companies really stopped using kids in their supply chains, common sense would be for more adults to find jobs, which would result in better conditions for other kids.
In other words focusing on "conditions" misses the whole point: child labor is anticompetitive because it's all about lowering prices by exploiting the weak and the defenseless. Thinking about the "conditions" won't move the needle, not as long as child labor remains competitive. Child labor would happen near you if the law would allow it, because it makes economic sense to hire children instead of adults for half the price and there are always poor people to exploit.
Also, have you ever considered that some of those exploited children were born because child labor is a possibility?
One should not forget that an economy is a very complex beast, any changes have far reaching consequences and that doing the right thing is never easy.
In other words focusing on "conditions" misses the whole point: child labor is anticompetitive because it's all about lowering prices by exploiting the weak and the defenseless. Thinking about the "conditions" won't move the needle, not as long as child labor remains competitive. Child labor would happen near you if the law would allow it, because it makes economic sense to hire children instead of adults for half the price and there are always poor people to exploit.
Also, have you ever considered that some of those exploited children were born because child labor is a possibility?
One should not forget that an economy is a very complex beast, any changes have far reaching consequences and that doing the right thing is never easy.
Basic income is easy and would solve all of these problems. Just ensure everyone has the capital to satisfy their basic needs. Then if child labor emerged near me I'd know it was inspired by self-discipline or ambition and not poverty. I wanted to work when I was 14 but I wasn't allowed to. Apparently my employment was caught in the crossfire of the rich people exploiting poor kids and the regulators trying to stop them. You can't just ban the employment of poor kids. That's certain to fail politically. So ban the employment of all kids? Ugh. It doesn't have to be like this. Just make it impossible to be poor. You can say that it just changes what it means to be poor. In fact that's essential. When someone with food, shelter and the unsatisfied desire for an Xbox can't see themselves as poor it is only because there is someone poorer. I can't compete with this poorer person's desperation for security. They would do anything for food and shelter. Despite being a member of this new poor class I'm totally secure. I just want an Xbox. I won't enter a job market that is merely good enough for the desperate until I am also sufficiently desperate. Like much of America is becoming. The only solution to this problem is to extinguish the status quo of insecurity. The poorest of the poor need to be secure or soon none of us will be.
"Are you seriously suggesting that a humane system of production is impossible?"
I am reminded of Joseph Campbell:
“Life lives on life. This is the sense of the symbol of the Ouroboros, the serpent biting its tail. Everything that lives lives on the death of something else. Your own body will be food for something else. Anyone who denies this, anyone who holds back, is out of order."
No, there is not going to be pure and blameless system of production and consumption.
I am reminded of Joseph Campbell:
“Life lives on life. This is the sense of the symbol of the Ouroboros, the serpent biting its tail. Everything that lives lives on the death of something else. Your own body will be food for something else. Anyone who denies this, anyone who holds back, is out of order."
No, there is not going to be pure and blameless system of production and consumption.
"Pure and blameless" need not be our standard for "humane". At the least we can accept that a system of production better than the one we have is possible; let's start there. For example, enforcing the existing debt slavery laws and having labeling laws indicating this status would be a great start.
The inhumane supply chain is feeding them because it won't allow them to feed themselves. Humans fed themselves for many thousands of years before the modern mechanisms of oppression were introduced. Remove the oppression, and they'll go right back to it.
>Humans fed themselves for many thousands of years before the modern mechanisms of oppression were introduced.
Older forms of oppression have always existed. Look at other species to see that even without a culture or society, the weak are exploited.
Older forms of oppression have always existed. Look at other species to see that even without a culture or society, the weak are exploited.
The point is, without the exploitation, they would care for themselves. The original argument suggested that modern slaves would not be able to feed themselves without their masters providing the food. That's wrong.
The problem is you can't do a full social change. If all you do is stop the undesirable labor, you can end up with people unable to feed themselves. This has happened before with ending child labor.
You might want to rethink the word 'modern', unless you consider the grain riots of the Roman Republic ~2000 years ago 'modern'
I do, actually. Human civilization is 3-5 times older than the Romans, and human existence a hundred times older. The Romans had steel (swords and shackles), literacy, and a sophisticated transportation network. What we have today is just refinements on Roman ideas.
Welcome to HN, where 'classical antiquity' is modern.
On HN, most people think of an iPhone3 as some sort of incomprehensible antique from the Dark Ages.
The point, though, is that Roman slavery wasn't very different from modern slavery. They had all the key elements we do - the tools to both imprison humans en masse and exploit natural resources, a standardized transportation network to move both troops to where the exploitation happened and and remove goods from where the exploitation happened, literacy and bureaucracy to manage large-scale, ongoing enterprises, etc. And of course, they had their moral rationalizations for brutality, especially brutality that happened somewhere out of sight.
Without metal, without roads, without heavy transport, without structured military units, without literacy, the tools for mass enslavement really don't exist.
The point, though, is that Roman slavery wasn't very different from modern slavery. They had all the key elements we do - the tools to both imprison humans en masse and exploit natural resources, a standardized transportation network to move both troops to where the exploitation happened and and remove goods from where the exploitation happened, literacy and bureaucracy to manage large-scale, ongoing enterprises, etc. And of course, they had their moral rationalizations for brutality, especially brutality that happened somewhere out of sight.
Without metal, without roads, without heavy transport, without structured military units, without literacy, the tools for mass enslavement really don't exist.
Going from Hunter Gathers to farmers may have been humanities worst mistake, but we are so far past the carrying capacity of earth as human-gathers that we would have to kill 99.999% of the population to be able to feed the rest without agriculture and even the survivors would have to forgo things like antibiotics.
[deleted]
I wonder why it is we assume it's even possible to successfully maximize happiness on a global scale.
Has there ever been a time in human history where slavery wasn't the fundamental backbone of a prosperous society?
Has there ever been a time in human history where slavery wasn't the fundamental backbone of a prosperous society?
I trust regulatory policy much more than badges of honor. I always laugh when I see "fair trade coffee". Is it really fair trade? Do most people care about it? Would the socially conscious hipster just as easily drink non-fair trade coffee if the budget got tight or they thought no one was looking?
You can't depend on people to do the right thing. That's why we have laws. International labor laws will hopefully one day become a thing. In the meantime we have trade agreements. We shouldn't allow import of slave produced goods to western societies. IMHOP.
You can't depend on people to do the right thing. That's why we have laws. International labor laws will hopefully one day become a thing. In the meantime we have trade agreements. We shouldn't allow import of slave produced goods to western societies. IMHOP.
> the socially conscious hipster
Maybe we'd make more progress if we stopped denigrating people for trying to do what they can. It may not be enough, but at least some people are trying to do _something_. But when you put people down this way, it makes them less likely to do anything, because no one wants to be labeled as vacuous and superficial (AKA "hipster").
Maybe we'd make more progress if we stopped denigrating people for trying to do what they can. It may not be enough, but at least some people are trying to do _something_. But when you put people down this way, it makes them less likely to do anything, because no one wants to be labeled as vacuous and superficial (AKA "hipster").
I think this is a valid pushback against making lifestyle changes that are "something" but not meaningful, especially when this is used as a social cudgel. You don't get brownie points for rubbing other people's noses in the ineffective shit that you do in order to make yourself feel fuzzier.
Anecdotally, FWIW. I've been a vegetarian for about ten years. I'm not religious, but came to this decision after a lot of thought and reflection about my own ethics. I have no illusions that my behavior will help animals, meat packers, etc.; I just wasn't comfortable being a party to that system any longer.
I've been surprised, at times, that others can interpret this personal decision about my own behavior and beliefs as some "social cudgel" that I am wielding against them. I guess it doesn't take much to leap from "oh, are you a vegetarian?" to "you must think eating meat is unethical," to "you must think I'm evil for eating this burger," to "annoying snobby vegetarians, always acting superior and rubbing it in your nose."
Anyway. That hipster buying his fair-trade coffee might not be doing it to insult you. It might be something he's read about, thought about, and decided he cares about. He might figure that mostly it's an empty gesture, but maybe it'll do some good. If you want to buy some other coffee, he might be totally OK with that. Of course, YMMV.
I've been surprised, at times, that others can interpret this personal decision about my own behavior and beliefs as some "social cudgel" that I am wielding against them. I guess it doesn't take much to leap from "oh, are you a vegetarian?" to "you must think eating meat is unethical," to "you must think I'm evil for eating this burger," to "annoying snobby vegetarians, always acting superior and rubbing it in your nose."
Anyway. That hipster buying his fair-trade coffee might not be doing it to insult you. It might be something he's read about, thought about, and decided he cares about. He might figure that mostly it's an empty gesture, but maybe it'll do some good. If you want to buy some other coffee, he might be totally OK with that. Of course, YMMV.
As someone who's been vegan for eight years, I can empathize. There are definitely a lot of people very threatened by it.
That said, I think the "socially-conscious hipster" is less likely to be vegetarian or vegan and more likely to buy "free range" eggs and eat "happy meat". The thing that makes them hipsters is their lack of commitment and their willingness to abandon the position once something more hip comes along.
That said, I think the "socially-conscious hipster" is less likely to be vegetarian or vegan and more likely to buy "free range" eggs and eat "happy meat". The thing that makes them hipsters is their lack of commitment and their willingness to abandon the position once something more hip comes along.
I'm sorry, I don't see any denigration. Just an example of human nature being human nature. I'm sure you can think of plenty more if the term "hipster" bothers you.
"I always laugh when I see "fair trade coffee". Is it really fair trade? Do most people care about it?"
Some people do care. Enough for an ever-growing range of products that are part of the Fairtrade scheme.
In the UK, the Fairtrade logo is almost universally recognised by consumers because you can find fair trade products in just about every supermarket (obviously the number of products varies by supermarket, but even discount Supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi stock a few items).
One major supermarket in the UK (Sainsbury's) sources all it's bananas under the fair trade scheme.
Fair trade has its critics and perhaps the scheme fails at times to live up to its ideals, but it's still a scheme worthy of support. And I'm glad it's going strong (at least in the UK - I think other countries have their own versions).
Here's an excellent blog post from the Fairtrade foundation on some common misconceptions about fair trade
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/media-centre/blog/2015/july/d...
Some people do care. Enough for an ever-growing range of products that are part of the Fairtrade scheme.
In the UK, the Fairtrade logo is almost universally recognised by consumers because you can find fair trade products in just about every supermarket (obviously the number of products varies by supermarket, but even discount Supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi stock a few items).
One major supermarket in the UK (Sainsbury's) sources all it's bananas under the fair trade scheme.
Fair trade has its critics and perhaps the scheme fails at times to live up to its ideals, but it's still a scheme worthy of support. And I'm glad it's going strong (at least in the UK - I think other countries have their own versions).
Here's an excellent blog post from the Fairtrade foundation on some common misconceptions about fair trade
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/media-centre/blog/2015/july/d...
>I trust regulatory policy
The same regulatory policy regularly subverted by small bribes in the article?
The same regulatory policy regularly subverted by small bribes in the article?
Ya well... nothing human is perfect. Doesn't mean it can't be better (and it will be). But regulation generally trumps people behaving ethically on their own. Sadly.
Also, couldn't small bribes also be a problem in things like fair trade certification?
Also, couldn't small bribes also be a problem in things like fair trade certification?
> Sadly
well, except that in a way.. regulation comes from the government, which is the collective us. I prefer that the government spends some money to work out what regulation would be useful so that the collective us can spend our money on fairly traded goods (as an example) rather than every person in the collective having to do that research constantly to overcome the hard sell and marketing lies that are produced to facilitate somebody making a quick buck and externalising costs which I wouldn't otherwise wish to pay.
As an example, if the government says that in truth, gravestones imported from India are largely produced by slave labor and then it refuses to admit them into the country. That means, that when my relative died and I am not really in a frame of mind to research the supply chain of the headstones and the sellers lay on the hard sell, I can still be assured that I am not funding this terrible system. I would welcome that..
well, except that in a way.. regulation comes from the government, which is the collective us. I prefer that the government spends some money to work out what regulation would be useful so that the collective us can spend our money on fairly traded goods (as an example) rather than every person in the collective having to do that research constantly to overcome the hard sell and marketing lies that are produced to facilitate somebody making a quick buck and externalising costs which I wouldn't otherwise wish to pay.
As an example, if the government says that in truth, gravestones imported from India are largely produced by slave labor and then it refuses to admit them into the country. That means, that when my relative died and I am not really in a frame of mind to research the supply chain of the headstones and the sellers lay on the hard sell, I can still be assured that I am not funding this terrible system. I would welcome that..
The copy is also very important. If you use the negative form: 'unfair trade coffee' the impact is much stronger.
>"Slavery in granite quarries is a family affair enforced by a tricky scheme based on debt. When a poor family comes looking for work, the quarry bosses are ready to help with an “advance” on wages to help the family settle in. The rice and beans they eat, the scrap stones they use to build a hut on the side of the quarry, the hammers and crowbars they need to do their work, all of it is provided by the boss and added to the family’s debt. Just when the family feels they may have finally found some security, they are being locked into hereditary slavery. This debt bondage is illegal, but illiterate workers don’t know this, and the bosses are keen to play on their sense of obligation, not alert them to the scam that’s sucking them under."
This is very much not slavery. It's terrible, it's fraud, and it's arguably some form of servitude, but it's not slavery. Calling it slavery is an insult to people who are owned and chained.
Edit: much, much later at the very end of the article there is a more in depth accounting of what's happening. It seems to be mostly fraud tied with corruption, but there are accounts of straight servitude and some of the men say they were not able to leave. If this testimony is accurate, i'd say it's slavery.
This is very much not slavery. It's terrible, it's fraud, and it's arguably some form of servitude, but it's not slavery. Calling it slavery is an insult to people who are owned and chained.
Edit: much, much later at the very end of the article there is a more in depth accounting of what's happening. It seems to be mostly fraud tied with corruption, but there are accounts of straight servitude and some of the men say they were not able to leave. If this testimony is accurate, i'd say it's slavery.
There is a technical legal distinction between the status of these people those referred to as "slaves" during the colonial era.
But at the end of the day (and from the point of view of those directly affected), it's a fairly picayune one. And to deny, from the safety of the comfortable and protected position where we sit, that it isn't basically the modern, moral equivalent of slavery is to dodge the key issue at hand, and seems quite callous to the suffering of those affected.
But at the end of the day (and from the point of view of those directly affected), it's a fairly picayune one. And to deny, from the safety of the comfortable and protected position where we sit, that it isn't basically the modern, moral equivalent of slavery is to dodge the key issue at hand, and seems quite callous to the suffering of those affected.
If I could give ten upvotes to this comment, I would.
To be a slave is to be the formal or informal property of another. It is to be considered subhuman, and all the dark implications that go with that status.
Pretending that the lowest pits of wage-slavery, as described in this article, does not qualify as slavery is the mark of the cruel and misshapen.
To be a slave is to be the formal or informal property of another. It is to be considered subhuman, and all the dark implications that go with that status.
Pretending that the lowest pits of wage-slavery, as described in this article, does not qualify as slavery is the mark of the cruel and misshapen.
I never intended for this to be an argument about "who has is worse" or something like that. What's being described in the article is obviously terrible. However, by the author's own admission, the people here could get up and walk away at any time, and that they are staying merely because of a sense of duty tied to a legal fiction. This is terrible, i repeat, it's an illegal, shameful, terrible act, but it is not slavery. I'm not in anyway trying to trivialize what's happening, i'm upset because the author is clickbaiting something that doesn't need it.
>However, by the author's own admission, the people here could get up and walk away at any time, and that they are staying merely because of a sense of duty tied to a legal fiction.
Where the hell does it say they could just get up and walk away? Do you seriously think that the people in this situation wouldn't have done so if it were possible?
Where the hell does it say they could just get up and walk away? Do you seriously think that the people in this situation wouldn't have done so if it were possible?
"This debt bondage is illegal, but illiterate workers don’t know this, and the bosses are keen to play on their sense of obligation, not alert them to the scam that’s sucking them under."
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean they wouldn't be restricted from leaving. Clearly the rule of law is not strong in these areas or this wouldn't be happening in the first place!
>Pretending that the lowest pits of wage-slavery,
Once you include wage-slavery as slavery, you open up a big question of what wage-slavery counts and what doesn't.
Once you include wage-slavery as slavery, you open up a big question of what wage-slavery counts and what doesn't.
>This is very much not slavery. It's terrible, it's fraud, and it's arguably indentured servitude, but it's not slavery. Calling it slavery is an insult to people who are owned and chained.
Actually trivializing it because it doesn't meet some ideal of what slavery should be is the actual insult to people who have to live through that hell life.
And the people indeed are or have been "owned and chained" would have no problem with calling such an injustice slavery too. That would be actually petty of them...
Not to mention that historically and globally there have been many forms and traditions of slavery and servitude -- including similar debt schemes, used even back in ancient Greece and Rome.
Actually trivializing it because it doesn't meet some ideal of what slavery should be is the actual insult to people who have to live through that hell life.
And the people indeed are or have been "owned and chained" would have no problem with calling such an injustice slavery too. That would be actually petty of them...
Not to mention that historically and globally there have been many forms and traditions of slavery and servitude -- including similar debt schemes, used even back in ancient Greece and Rome.
This is exactly why i'm so infuriated with clickbaity titles. I'm not trivializing what is happening at all. It's the author who has a perfectly good article to write, about horrific, illegal, dangerous, and downright immoral business practices throughout a major supply chain, and then he has to go and say that it's something it's not to get a few more clicks.
It's also problematic since it seems like many people only read the title and not the article itself, and then assumed that the article is about iPhone production in Foxconn factories (which it isn't).
Authors rarely write the titles.
Chattel slavery is the most sever and inhuman form of slavery, but it's not the only one.
Indeed. This discussion would work better if it had started with some defined terms and people stuck to them.
I think if humans could handle it, matching concepts with made up words would even be useful (rather than each side insisting that a word with a lot of baggage be attached to this or that concept).
I think if humans could handle it, matching concepts with made up words would even be useful (rather than each side insisting that a word with a lot of baggage be attached to this or that concept).
One of the best ads I've seen on this topic is a picture of big rubber gloves near the SF Ferry Building. Under the gloves it says "Could these be shackles? Ask your janitor."
I thought it was powerful. My girlfriend who grew up here didn't get it.
Faux slavery of this kind is very widespread. Very.
I thought it was powerful. My girlfriend who grew up here didn't get it.
Faux slavery of this kind is very widespread. Very.
I searched for it and this is part of a campaign from a workgroup called "No Traffick Ahead":
http://www.notraffickahead.com/campaigns/
Powerful indeed.
http://www.notraffickahead.com/campaigns/
Powerful indeed.
Anyone working to reduce indentured servitude calls it modern slavery.
So I can believe alll those workers in many multinational agencies who all call this modern slavery, or I can believe you.
So I can believe alll those workers in many multinational agencies who all call this modern slavery, or I can believe you.
Many years ago, I was arrested for something annoying and dumb. I was separated from the group (several friends) and questioned before we were formally arrested, getting a coerced confession from me. In court, the confession was thrown out - the police argued that I was not under arrest at the time, but when the judge asked if I was free to go, the police had to say no. That meant I was under arrest, whether or not I was cuffed, whether or not they had read me my rights.
It's not slavery because it's legally called slavery. It's slavery because those people are not in any way free to leave.
It's not slavery because it's legally called slavery. It's slavery because those people are not in any way free to leave.
Yes(ish)
This is Debt Slavery (or Debt Bondage)[1], and you are correct that it is a different thing to chattel slavery. However, it is still considered slavery. In particular, it is outlawed under international law under the "Convention on the Abolition of Slavery"[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_th...
This is Debt Slavery (or Debt Bondage)[1], and you are correct that it is a different thing to chattel slavery. However, it is still considered slavery. In particular, it is outlawed under international law under the "Convention on the Abolition of Slavery"[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_th...
Isn't this the classic company store scam?
What's the material difference between being forced to work to pay off an unpayable debt and being forced to work because of a legal fiction of ownership of another human being?
There isn't one. This article is about slavery as a real, physical condition, not a legal condition.
There isn't one. This article is about slavery as a real, physical condition, not a legal condition.
The difference is that a slave is the legal property of the owner to do as he or she pleases (including destruction of said property, if they deem it necessary). That's a pretty critical difference.
Things can still be characterized as being pretty messed up without resorting to misrepresentation.
Things can still be characterized as being pretty messed up without resorting to misrepresentation.
This is not accurate. Slave codes in the American South often made outright killing of slaves illegal -- I mean killing in the sense of first degree murder (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes#Proper_treatment_o...).
There were allowances made for crimes of passion in some cases, and slave codes differed from place to place. Slave codes were revised over time, depending on the goals and fears of the plantation class at the time.
You're trying to draw a bright line here, but it will be hard to do so, because forms of slavery did differ, even in the heyday of slavery in the Americas.
For example, the Code Noir that controlled slavery in New Orleans was less draconian than the codes used in other parts of the American South (e.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir). This is one reason for the unique character of black/white/creole relations in New Orleans to this day.
There were allowances made for crimes of passion in some cases, and slave codes differed from place to place. Slave codes were revised over time, depending on the goals and fears of the plantation class at the time.
You're trying to draw a bright line here, but it will be hard to do so, because forms of slavery did differ, even in the heyday of slavery in the Americas.
For example, the Code Noir that controlled slavery in New Orleans was less draconian than the codes used in other parts of the American South (e.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir). This is one reason for the unique character of black/white/creole relations in New Orleans to this day.
[deleted]
I mean, you're wrong. The sibling comment to mine that links to wikipedia is a starting point from which one can discover that the United Nations and basically everyone agrees that debt bondage is slavery. Because people think of slavery in terms of its material conditions, not the vagaries of its legal procedures.
My original point is the article very explicitly points out that the people are not actually being held in debt bondage. That they are simply staying out a sense of duty.
This is a fundamental distinction. It's still fucked up, but it's not slavery.
This is a fundamental distinction. It's still fucked up, but it's not slavery.
> My original point is the article very explicitly points out that the people are not actually being held in debt bondage.
Actually, your original point referenced people being "owned and chained" as being distinct from what was described in the quote you pasted from the article, which has this right in it: "This debt bondage is illegal".
Do you also take issue with the article's use of the term debt bondage?
From Wikipedia:
> Debt bondage (also known as debt slavery or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation.
How is debt bondage different from "staying out [of] a sense of duty"?
Keep in mind that these people aren't free to just walk away--if they are to escape, it has to be just that: an escape. I saw a documentary on this a year or two ago, probably by Vice. The family wanting to leave had to run under the cover of night and rendezvous with someone with a car--only possible with existing outside connections.
Actually, your original point referenced people being "owned and chained" as being distinct from what was described in the quote you pasted from the article, which has this right in it: "This debt bondage is illegal".
Do you also take issue with the article's use of the term debt bondage?
From Wikipedia:
> Debt bondage (also known as debt slavery or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation.
How is debt bondage different from "staying out [of] a sense of duty"?
Keep in mind that these people aren't free to just walk away--if they are to escape, it has to be just that: an escape. I saw a documentary on this a year or two ago, probably by Vice. The family wanting to leave had to run under the cover of night and rendezvous with someone with a car--only possible with existing outside connections.
By this argument, Solomon Northup (of 12 Years a Slave) was not a slave.
You can leave. You can get up and walk away and deal with the law, and possibly go to jail. In this case, it'll 'free' them because they are being defrauded according to the author. A slave cannot leave. A slave will not be jailed, a slave will be returned to their master and forced to work again.
It's fucked up, but it's not slavery.
It's fucked up, but it's not slavery.
>It's fucked up, but it's not slavery.
I'm not an expert on this subject, but have learned in the past minute of looking at the bonded labor links in this thread that the UN and other international organizations agree that bonded labor is within the modern definition of slavery. Do you have any sources that say otherwise?
I'm not an expert on this subject, but have learned in the past minute of looking at the bonded labor links in this thread that the UN and other international organizations agree that bonded labor is within the modern definition of slavery. Do you have any sources that say otherwise?
The right to choose is only ever as good as your BATNA, it does not confer power in and of itself. Also, are you sure they're aware of their ability to leave without government-enforced intervention?
It's not an issue of whether they are aware or not. By the author's own admission, they are only staying because of their own sense of duty, that the debt is illegal, that they are being defrauded.
It's one thing to say, workers are being shorted, cheated, etc, but if your headline is "your iphone is being built by slaves" then you should be referring to, at least, people who are being held against their will. Not simply people who are confused about the law and are working for free because of this confusion.
It's one thing to say, workers are being shorted, cheated, etc, but if your headline is "your iphone is being built by slaves" then you should be referring to, at least, people who are being held against their will. Not simply people who are confused about the law and are working for free because of this confusion.
So you're saying they are confused about their legal rights? As in, they are threatened with violent arrest, imprisonment, loss of their children, and torturous prison conditions. You don't see the powerful coercion to perform bonded labor here?
Never mind that the slavemongers are generally incredibly abusive on their own because their victims believe they will have no recourse from the government.
It's slavery.
Never mind that the slavemongers are generally incredibly abusive on their own because their victims believe they will have no recourse from the government.
It's slavery.
If you don't leave for fear of being punished, are you being held against your will?
Do you understand what debt bondage is? If you walk away from debt bondage in a society that enforces it, you get dragged back to working in debt bondage.
Honestly this is such a pedantic distinction to make for anybody but a human rights lawyer in court.
Honestly this is such a pedantic distinction to make for anybody but a human rights lawyer in court.
True. That, however, has nothing to do with the people in the article. The author makes it clear that this WOULD NOT HAPPEN to them.
So you are saying that slavery does not exist unless it is legally sanctioned?
I disagree. Any form of coerced labor is slavery whether the coercion is legal or not.
I disagree. Any form of coerced labor is slavery whether the coercion is legal or not.
You have been down voted, but I think your point is a good one. To rephrase what you said, the actual, on-the-ground difference between chattel slavery (say, as practiced in the American South) vs. this kind of open-ended debt bondage, which is apparently being winked at by the state and by society at large, may be small.
> forced to work because of a legal fiction of ownership of another human being
The same can be said of any piece of paper that assigns ownership to a piece of land, or anything else on this earth.
The same can be said of any piece of paper that assigns ownership to a piece of land, or anything else on this earth.
No argument from me here: i don't support ownership of the means of production, state or private.
You are absolutely right.
Sometimes I wonder how much, if anything, has really changed since this fellow ruled the day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium
Other than that machinery for exploitation has been geographically dispersed and greatly optimized, such that these days, our slaves don't drop like flies quite so often, but instead are kept around in a state of minimal sustenance -- so that their skills can be most efficiently extracted without all the, you know, rotting corpses, piles of severed limbs & ensuing bad PR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium
Other than that machinery for exploitation has been geographically dispersed and greatly optimized, such that these days, our slaves don't drop like flies quite so often, but instead are kept around in a state of minimal sustenance -- so that their skills can be most efficiently extracted without all the, you know, rotting corpses, piles of severed limbs & ensuing bad PR.
For those interested in Leopold's rule: "The crime of the Congo" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle https://archive.org/details/crimeofcongo00doyliala
"King Leopold's Ghost" is also very good
Well, your phone probably wasn't actually built by slaves. However it probably uses the element tantalum some of which come from ore mined in Congo and some of that is probably mined by slaves.
The reason slavery goes on there is armed thugs from neighbouring counties (Rwanda and Zaire) have invaded and are forcing the locals to hand over the ore which is not a good thing. Though the solution is not to feel guilty about using phones, it's to kick the thugs out.
The reason slavery goes on there is armed thugs from neighbouring counties (Rwanda and Zaire) have invaded and are forcing the locals to hand over the ore which is not a good thing. Though the solution is not to feel guilty about using phones, it's to kick the thugs out.
The reason slavery goes on there is armed thugs from neighbouring counties (Rwanda and Zaire) have invaded and are forcing the locals to hand over the ore which is not a good thing.
I disagree with you, there.
The reason slavery goes on there is because we choose to permit it. It may be a passive choice, rooted in (willful) ignorance for some, or a sense of powerlessness ("I can't help those people, what do my own decisions matter?") for others. But if we really wanted to, we could just stop buying (at least discretionary) products which, by this point, everyone knows to be sourced from conflict zones, and human suffering that are inseparable from them.
I disagree with you, there.
The reason slavery goes on there is because we choose to permit it. It may be a passive choice, rooted in (willful) ignorance for some, or a sense of powerlessness ("I can't help those people, what do my own decisions matter?") for others. But if we really wanted to, we could just stop buying (at least discretionary) products which, by this point, everyone knows to be sourced from conflict zones, and human suffering that are inseparable from them.
Well, it goes on because no one stops it. The obvious people to stop it would be the government of the country but they are not very effective. Failing that maybe some international body could help, the UN perhaps. I've also got a start up idea along those lines...
> neighbouring counties (Rwanda and Zaire)
I don't claim much knowledge of the area, but I'm confused that you're saying Zaire borders Congo, when in fact Zaire became the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997.
I don't claim much knowledge of the area, but I'm confused that you're saying Zaire borders Congo, when in fact Zaire became the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997.
Obligatory mention of Fairphone: http://fairphone.com/ who try to get rid of slavery in as much of their supply chain as possible (and detail exactly how far they get there transparently in their blog).
I won't cut and paste my comment[1] from the last time the cobalt-from-the-Congo issue made the front page, but I do want to repeat that I think it's a mistake to generalize from a single horrible situation.
Imagine we found a rich vein of cobalt ore in Tim Cook's backyard: The Congo would still be in an unimaginably terrible state, but at least that part of our phones would be humanely supplied. What's next on the list? My guess is that it would be substantially less upsetting, and probably much easier to address.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10930445
Imagine we found a rich vein of cobalt ore in Tim Cook's backyard: The Congo would still be in an unimaginably terrible state, but at least that part of our phones would be humanely supplied. What's next on the list? My guess is that it would be substantially less upsetting, and probably much easier to address.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10930445
This is the fundamental problem with the "but we can't price externalities because growth solves poverty" argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11228262
Many times what appears to be growth is really just inefficient forms of wealth transfer where we're seeing only one side, causing more poverty than it solves.
The word "externalities" don't mean that no one pays. It means that powerless third parties pay (who are unable to consent) -- poor children and the elderly breathing diesel fumes because their family can't afford to live far from the dump, or the indigenous people displaced/exterminated to raise cattle in slashed-and-burned rainforests, or the slave laborer, or our grandchildren who will have to deal with the effects of climate change and species extinction. Externalities aren't on a ledger somewhere, but it makes them no less real.
Environmental protection is actually just humanity's enlightened self-interest, a fact the human/"environment" distinction serves only to mask.
Many times what appears to be growth is really just inefficient forms of wealth transfer where we're seeing only one side, causing more poverty than it solves.
The word "externalities" don't mean that no one pays. It means that powerless third parties pay (who are unable to consent) -- poor children and the elderly breathing diesel fumes because their family can't afford to live far from the dump, or the indigenous people displaced/exterminated to raise cattle in slashed-and-burned rainforests, or the slave laborer, or our grandchildren who will have to deal with the effects of climate change and species extinction. Externalities aren't on a ledger somewhere, but it makes them no less real.
Environmental protection is actually just humanity's enlightened self-interest, a fact the human/"environment" distinction serves only to mask.
> "It’s hard to understand this much chaos, but imagine a city where the police and government have simply run away and five or six mafia gangs are running everything, each based in a different neighborhood. The thugs have total control and can do whatever they please, so just crossing from one part of town to another means paying a tax or risking attack or even enslavement. It’s a kind of feudalism, but these feudal lords have no sense of responsibility toward the people on their turf and there is no overlord king to keep order. For the thugs the townspeople are more like stolen cattle; there’s no investment beyond the effort of capture and little reason to keep them alive. Now imagine that when the government sends in the National Guard to confront the mafia, the Guard just carves out its own territory, settles in, and becomes another mafia. That’s the Eastern Congo."
I genuinely don't understand this.
Inasmuch as while the history of humankind seems to be one rife with violent domination of one group of people by another there is usually some overriding order enforced. Or if not an overarching order then at the very least some general mindfulness to a larger picture.
Even when comparing to organized crime in the States...there are rules and a set of "laws" that are generally followed. Not exactly and not without violation, but there is a group enforcement of a base set of standards that provides the stability required to find growth and development.
But in so much of Africa is seems that there is nothing but senseless savagery and violence.
The wealthier nations absolutely feed it...but if I'm recalling my history of the continent correctly there was plenty of violence and savagery long before the first European colonists invaded and exploited the indigenous peoples.
I genuinely don't understand this.
Inasmuch as while the history of humankind seems to be one rife with violent domination of one group of people by another there is usually some overriding order enforced. Or if not an overarching order then at the very least some general mindfulness to a larger picture.
Even when comparing to organized crime in the States...there are rules and a set of "laws" that are generally followed. Not exactly and not without violation, but there is a group enforcement of a base set of standards that provides the stability required to find growth and development.
But in so much of Africa is seems that there is nothing but senseless savagery and violence.
The wealthier nations absolutely feed it...but if I'm recalling my history of the continent correctly there was plenty of violence and savagery long before the first European colonists invaded and exploited the indigenous peoples.
It was pretty much the human condition until the invention of laws, writing and so on. Europe used to be pretty bad a few centuries back. Progress is just taking a little longer to reach central Africa but it probably will with the spread of the internet.
Lots of discussion but no simple solutions.
If somebody really wanted to help, there is an elegant way to correct this problem - airdrop AK47s and ammunition and let democracy take its course. Something similar to what the brits did over France in WW2 with small crude pistols.
Correlation between slavery and lack of care for environment laws is obviously correlated — but why does the author link them together as if one happens when and only when there is another? They just have the same cause (willingness to break the law/ethics for profits) and I assume that there's a LOT of businessmen acting outside of the law in terms of ecology who are not slavers.
The author probably does not know that 97% of rare metals necessary to produce phones is controlled by China, and China export quotas. And Chinese workers are by no means slaves. They are proud members of their society and enjoy benefits of it.
[deleted]
We replaced the baity title with the part of the subtitle that seems representative of the article. If someone can suggest a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
Submitters: the HN guidelines ask you not to use the original title when it is misleading or linkbait.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Submitters: the HN guidelines ask you not to use the original title when it is misleading or linkbait.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This isn't so much an article as it is an excerpt from a book that is linked at the bottom. If you are looking for a pithy expose on the link between slavery, iPhones and environmentalism, you won't find it here, but the book does seem like a good read on the subjects it brings up.
Replace "advance on wages" with $200+K of educational loan in US Higher Ed system.
Or Replace "advance on wages" with "Free Higher Ed system" EU but 50%-70% tax for life.
Are we all slaves, one way or the others? :-)
Minus a few 1% who become the masters with luck, family connections or intelligent.
Or Replace "advance on wages" with "Free Higher Ed system" EU but 50%-70% tax for life.
Are we all slaves, one way or the others? :-)
Minus a few 1% who become the masters with luck, family connections or intelligent.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11246628 and marked it off-topic.
| Are we all slaves, one way or the others? :-)
Absolutely not. Our lives of relative luxury don't even come close to the misery experienced by bonded laborers.
At the end of the day - you go home to your laptop, heated apartment and fresh food (and can get legal protection for bankruptcy/loss of wealth).
Don't compare that to the suffering of the truly poor. I get your philosophical point, but it has no place here.
Absolutely not. Our lives of relative luxury don't even come close to the misery experienced by bonded laborers.
At the end of the day - you go home to your laptop, heated apartment and fresh food (and can get legal protection for bankruptcy/loss of wealth).
Don't compare that to the suffering of the truly poor. I get your philosophical point, but it has no place here.
No, we aren't all slaves despite how many edgy kids like to think. We can choose our job or not to work. We can decide not to pay our debts. I guarantee you if these people chose to run away or not pay they would be beaten.
You can't really choose not to work though. Ask anyone to honestly answer if they would work if they didn't have to and the answer is obvious: No one wants to work, not really. In America there are basically two choices for the majority: work or suicide
Technically, robots are slaves. But is that wrong? Phones production is made by robots snd only assisted by humans.
Robots are not slaves, because they are not living beings, and do not possess consciousness or free will.
It's not that complicated.
It's not that complicated.
Ehm... Slaves do not possess free will. That is why they are slaves.
Slaves possess free will. They do not possess freedom.
And why do not they enjoy freedom? Because they do not have enough free will to fight for it. Read Harriet Beecher Stowe classics on psychology of slavery. Hence, if you not command yourself, you subdue to the other. No one forcibly keeps those guys and gals at factories.
Robot actually means "slave" in Czech language.
And hey, the english word "slave" comes from the ethnic group that gave us the Czechs, but I don't think that says much about modern Czechs or modern slaves.
Amazingly, also cognate with "ciao" (via Italian "schiavo").
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ciao#Etymology_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ciao#Etymology_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao#Etymology
No it doesn't. That's "otrok". "Robot" is derived from the Polish for "chore".
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/where-does-t...
"Josef suggested ‘roboti’, which gave rise to the English ‘robot’. ‘Roboti’ derives from the Old Church Slavanic ‘rabota’, meaning ‘servitude’, which in turn comes from ‘rabu’, meaning ‘slave’."
"Josef suggested ‘roboti’, which gave rise to the English ‘robot’. ‘Roboti’ derives from the Old Church Slavanic ‘rabota’, meaning ‘servitude’, which in turn comes from ‘rabu’, meaning ‘slave’."
No. Thy the term itself was invented by Czech author Chapek, it has no that meaning.
For anyone who happens to actually be doing this or something like this, that is keeping back wages to enforce slavery, its worth noting that the rust of your wealth will burn like fire against you. Torture and torment await you without repentance and turning to Jesus Christ. For everyone pleading the cause of the poor and needy: God delights in you're doing that - expect reward.
The war came about after the dictator Mobutu died and the chaos and aftermath of the Rwanda genocide spilled over the border. All the surrounding countries saw enormous natural resource wealth to be claimed and started funding and equipping their own proxy militias to seize power. The whole thing was a huge chaotic mess that destroyed what little infrastructure there was in the country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD76cWdBHc&list=PLDD34C9812...