I hope that you all excuse me for starting another post as a reply to the previous one; however, gs´ post set me on to a lot of thinking, considering that I am currently living in an area of the world (Central America) that´s deeply affected by international labor and trade issues, and that I´m reading two books right now* that address these issues in completely different ways.

What gs´ post really got me thinking about is the need for anybody interested in social change to attempt to understand the world, and especially problems and movements that are seen as single issues, as whole, interconnected, and possessing relevant histories.

I think it is especially necessary to contextualize the points that gs made about the potential effects of opposing sweatshop labor. While it is true that when viewed as a particular instance, the arrival of sweatshop factories in impoverished regions often brings jobs that improve the standard of living for many of the workers, I would say that seeing this as positive is somewhat short-sighted. Leaving alone any potential arguments about trickle-down economics, which in my (admittedly limited) understanding of economics has been mostly discredited as any kind of main route to aid poverty, we should probably look at the historical background against which most sweatshop factories hire their impoverished workforces.

Let´s take, for example, Indonesia. This is a country with a history of intense colonial subjugation on the part of the Dutch, with a postcolonial history similar to many others: A national independence movement that eventually turned into right-wing dictatorship, followed by a slow movement for democracy after years of oppression. On top of the poverty caused by the colonial power and the dictatorship left in its vacuum, Indonesia was more or less forced to accept unfavorable economic policies in exchange for loans from the IMF**. So if we look at this hypothetical factory as moving into Indonesia after a massive economic crash mostly caused by the wayward policies of the IMF (as occurred in the late 90´s), which is arguably heavily influenced by the interests of North American corporations, it seems a little different.

Which is not to say that it necessarily changes the simple fact that divestment from sweatshops might cut off income from people who severely need it. But it does mean a few things. The first is that that divestment will hopefully be accompanied by investment into unionized, sustainable purchasing from factories in area where that income is also badly needed (because, let´s be honest, it´s not like Stanford kids are going to ever stop buying hoodies from the bookstore). It also should be a cause for suspicion when unequitable labor situations are hailed as necessary development just because the workers were previously living under worse conditions. To me, many of the anecdotal arguments concerning sweatshop workers who support the existence of foreign factories in their towns aren´t too far a cry from antebellum myths of slaves who just love to work.*** The choice between death from starvation and a life of near-starvation isn´t much of a choice at all. We should stop to ask what caused those conditions, and what role our own government and corporations, and the governments and corporations directly benefiting from this ¨development¨, have had in causing those conditions. And finally, we should ask how we benefit from this, and have been complicit partners in both the ¨pre-development¨poverty and the working poverty of the sweatshops.

Which brings me to my next main point, which somewhat ties into the arguments gs was making about the motivations and tactics of the sweatshop movement at his university. As admirable as it may be to change your own consumption habits to support more equitable practices, you also need to acknowledge the damage even that choice makes, as well as the fact that even the buying patterns of large universities may not necessarily effect lasting change in the world. The responsibility of those who are seriously concerned about fair labor practices is to examine the wider system of oppression that allows sweatshop labor to persist, and ask how they can change that, or more important, act to support those who are suffering from and struggling against it. Although I agree with ablackone’s comment that we need to eliminate hypocrisy in our own lives, I don´t think that should limit our ability to critique and work against the larger forces of hypocrisy in this world. Because as much as you may try to live as a saint, every North American is the beneficiary of the toil of many who support our way of life. One sweatshirt that costs five dollars less because of sweatshop labor may not make a big difference in your standard of living, but every sweatshirt, every sock, every agricultural product or toy or little crap piece of plastic does. And to start thinking about systematic change means you need to start thinking about whether some stranger getting paid more is worth a significant change in how you live.

Which is why I think so many of gs’ points about the people behind the university sweatshop movement are so valid. Obviously, I don´t know the two people he specifically mentioned. But I found his indictment of self-glorifying activists who are involved in single-issue politics to ring true. It´s depressing when those who are ostensibly committed to social change can´t even make the connection between the economic oppression in one part of the world and military oppression in others. However, I don´t think the blatant hypocrisy of some activists should be a discouragement from being involved in political work, I think it should be a challenge to people who can work in a better way (and who can consistently question their own hypocrisy and privilege while doing it). I don´t know if it´s necessarily better to be aware of injustice and not work against it than to be working against injustice and also contributing to it; and whether you want to identify as an activist or not, I think that the simple awareness of these issues brings with it a responsibility to try to do something about it.

*Globalization and It´s Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Upside Down by Eduardo Galleano

**Stiglitz describes in his book a photo taken at an opportune moment in this process: “The IMF´s managing director… is standing with a stern face and crossed arms over the seated and humiliated president of Indonesia. The hapless president was being forced, in effect, to turn over the economic sovereignty of his country to the IMF in return for the aid his country needed. In the end, ironically, much of the money went not to help Indonesia but to bail out the ¨colonial power´s¨private sector creditors.” (p. 41)

***It´s also important to recognize that for every community that decides it needs to work in foreign factories, there´s one that resists it. Last Saturday I was working with a small reforestation project in the mountains outside of Quetzeltenango when somebody asked the man leading the project why there was a ditch dug around the side of the mountain. He explained that in the 80´s the military government wanted to move a factory owned by an American corporation into the area. The community objected, as they didn´t want to work in the factory and were worried that the factory would draw too much from the town´s water sources and pollute the area. The ditch we were looking at was dug to be able to place artillery around the town- the community was given the choice of accepting the factory or being shelled to the ground by their own country´s army. The choice was averted after the town agreed to pay a ¨fine¨which included selling off most of the land owned by the campesinos in the area.