4 ms·

The difference is that in Soviet Russia, people were forced to work in labor camps. In many developing countries, adults and children work of their own free wil

by x220 8y ago

The difference is that in Soviet Russia, people were forced to work in labor camps. In many developing countries, adults and children work of their own free will in bad conditions because it's the best option they have.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Isn't this the same justification for the horrible conditions during the industrial revolution? If the system mandates that the only good option to live life is to work under such conditions of your own 'free will', doesn't mean that there's a problem with the system? Aren't you ignoring the effects of structural (rather than merely direct, as we saw in the USSR) violence? Here's a quote dated 1864 from "Dr. Simon", the chief medical officer of the Privy Council and the official editor of the “Public Health Reports,” says: “In my fourth Report (1863) I showed, how it is practically impossible for the workpeople to insist upon that which is their first sanitary right, viz., the right that, no matter what the work for which their employer brings them together, the labour, so far as it depends upon him, should be freed from all avoidably unwholesome conditions. I pointed out, that while the workpeople are practically incapable of doing themselves this sanitary justice, they are unable to obtain any effective support from the paid administrations of the sanitary police.... The life of myriads of workmen and workwomen is now uselessly tortured and shortened by the never-ending physical suffering that their mere occupation begets.” Have conditions improved elsewhere in the world today compared to 1863 England? Is there any justification, other than an economic one, for someone's only option to be living such a qualitatively depraved and horrid life, only of production, even if better than other options? It's hard to believe that you're making an excuse for child labour by saying it's the best option they have. If it's the best option they have then we should damn make sure it's not.

by x220 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

Isn't this the same justification for the horrible conditions during the industrial revolution? If the system mandates that the only good option to live life is to work under such conditions of your own 'free will', doesn't mean that there's a problem with the system? Aren't you ignoring the effects of structural (rather than merely direct, as we saw in the USSR) violence? Here's a quote dated 1864 from "Dr. Simon", the chief medical officer of the Privy Council and the official editor of the “Public Health Reports,” says: “In my fourth Report (1863) I showed, how it is practically impossible for the workpeople to insist upon that which is their first sanitary right, viz., the right that, no matter what the work for which their employer brings them together, the labour, so far as it depends upon him, should be freed from all avoidably unwholesome conditions. I pointed out, that while the workpeople are practically incapable of doing themselves this sanitary justice, they are unable to obtain any effective support from the paid administrations of the sanitary police.... The life of myriads of workmen and workwomen is now uselessly tortured and shortened by the never-ending physical suffering that their mere occupation begets.” Have conditions improved elsewhere in the world today compared to 1863 England? Is there any justification, other than an economic one, for someone's only option to be living such a qualitatively depraved and horrid life, only of production, even if better than other options? It's hard to believe that you're making an excuse for child labour by saying it's the best option they have. If it's the best option they have then we should damn make sure it's not.