5 ms·

but I always feel very guilty every time I go, because I see firsthand how badly the staff are exploited You have to consider any situation holistically. What

by crusso 13y ago

but I always feel very guilty every time I go, because I see firsthand how badly the staff are exploited You have to consider any situation holistically. What you call exploitation is often a tremendous improvement over the alternatives those folks have in their countries of origin. Go on the cruise, tip well, and be polite to staff.

e12e 13y ago
> You have to consider any situation holistically. What you call exploitation is often a tremendous improvement over the alternatives those folks have in their countries of origin. To consider the situation holistically would mean to look at the global system of capitalism bootstrapped by years of outright colonization and exploitation that lead to the situation where doing low-skilled manual labour is considered an improvement in lifestyle for otherwise healthy and able individuals -- rather than (say) getting free, high-quality education or vocational training and a reasonable share of the improvements in life style industrialization and science have enabled. I'm not buying into the idea that not going on a cruise would improve things, and I'm not even saying don't go on cruises -- but why delude yourself that exploiting people is ok, just because someone else have set the stage for doing so? It doesn't stop being exploitation just because someone comes from a worse situation than they're in now. That just makes participating in the exploitation is a rational choice by the one being exploited -- it doesn't make it a moral choice by the exploiter...
- pjlegato 13y ago
  This is Armenian Radio. Caller asks us, what is difference between capitalism and socialism? We reply, under capitalism, man exploits man; under socialism, it's just the opposite.
  - e12e 13y ago
    True enough. I've never considered socialism much of an alternative, but I do think both (modern) anarchism and communism holds great promise. As for the more fundamental question of "why can't we just all get along?" -- we'll just have to keep working on it...
    - pjlegato 13y ago
      Once, there was a peaceful anarchic village, where everybody was perfectly equal and there were no laws or rules. People shared everything freely and never fought. Then, one day, the neighboring village invaded, killed all the men, raped all the women, and enslaved all the children. That was the end of that. Even if somehow the whole world were to switch instantaneously to the state of anarchy, it would be a very short matter of time before someone internally decided to take over and enforce rules with the threat of violence. This person would then be the "government." As for Communism, Armenian radio listener calls in and says, "We are told that true Communism is just on the horizon now. I ask, what is horizon?" We reply, "Horizon is imaginary line that always recedes as you approach it." The fundamental misapprehension at work here is confusing two meanings of the word "system." There are systems created by humans, such as "the justice system of Japan." We can change those, since they derive entirely from human control. Then, there are emergent or natural systems, such as gravity. These cannot be changed simply because people decide they don't like them. Capitalism is of the latter category. It is not a human-created system; it did not emerge from colonialism. It is merely the natural emergent behavior of actors under resource scarcity. As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic trade. It is not possible to alter this scenario simply because it doesn't seem pleasant; that's wishful thinking. All that can be done is to make the market more or less efficient. The Soviet Union and North Korea, for example, have always had internal capitalist black markets, despite massive penalties. Prisons have internal black markets. Countries that try to control their currency's value have massive internal black markets for hard currency. Cocaine is readily available for a price almost everywhere in the world, despite massive and coordinated efforts to suppress that market. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity, it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system. Illegal music and movie trading online, for example, continue to grow despite massive efforts to prop up the market, because there is no actual scarcity.
      - e12e 13y ago
        > Capitalism is (...) not a human-created system; it did not emerge from > colonialism. It is merely the natural emergent behavior of actors > under resource scarcity. 1) I didn't mean to imply that capitalism emerged from colonialism, but that the current distribution of wealth an power within capitalism is connected to colonialism (among other things). 2) I don't think you're assertion of capitalism being "an emergent system" is correct -- capitalism is defined by having capital and private ownership over means of production. There are many other systems for regulating scarcity (artificial or otherwise) (eg: feudalism). > As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what > they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic > trade. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity, > it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent > property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system. 3) You imply that there aren't enough resources. While that may be true, I think the issue is more one of uneven distribution. This obviously also depend on your clause "for everyone to have what they want". I think the current system encourages aggregation without much regard for what individuals actually want (Who "wants" Foxxconn to dominate in certain areas of industrial production?). 4) Not all markets and trade systems define a capitalist system. Note also that I specifically said modern anarchism. That doesn't necessarily define away the right to self defence. Communism certainly doesn't. The main difference between the two, is that communism seeks to maintain a form of government, highly localized and highly democratic -- but with the option to retain such things as a police force and a justice system (reserve the right of the government to use violence such as detaining and investigation of crimes for the common good) while anarchism is generally more sceptical of any power structure and any use of force against the individual.
- crusso 13y ago
  why delude yourself that exploiting people is ok I don't accept your interpretation of "exploiting". They have jobs. They get paid for their jobs. They're getting paid more by doing their jobs than whatever alternatives they had since this isn't slave labor. You're redefining what "exploiting" means and you're casually throwing concepts around like the perpetual victim status of entire societies due to colonialization. Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA were colonies too... we got over it. If there's an evil in the whole colonial relationship, it's do-gooder Westerners who think they should care for and dictate to other societies rather than just letting them get jobs, sell their products, sell services, compete on the worlds stage, learn lessons, improve their lot, etc.
  - e12e 13y ago
    > Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA were colonies too... we got over it. For Canada and the USA at least, I think it's a little strong to say that the indigenous inhabitants "got over it".

by crusso 13y ago

e12e 13y ago

> You have to consider any situation holistically. What you call exploitation is often a tremendous improvement over the alternatives those folks have in their countries of origin. To consider the situation holistically would mean to look at the global system of capitalism bootstrapped by years of outright colonization and exploitation that lead to the situation where doing low-skilled manual labour is considered an improvement in lifestyle for otherwise healthy and able individuals -- rather than (say) getting free, high-quality education or vocational training and a reasonable share of the improvements in life style industrialization and science have enabled. I'm not buying into the idea that not going on a cruise would improve things, and I'm not even saying don't go on cruises -- but why delude yourself that exploiting people is ok, just because someone else have set the stage for doing so? It doesn't stop being exploitation just because someone comes from a worse situation than they're in now. That just makes participating in the exploitation is a rational choice by the one being exploited -- it doesn't make it a moral choice by the exploiter...

pjlegato 13y ago
This is Armenian Radio. Caller asks us, what is difference between capitalism and socialism? We reply, under capitalism, man exploits man; under socialism, it's just the opposite.
- e12e 13y ago
  True enough. I've never considered socialism much of an alternative, but I do think both (modern) anarchism and communism holds great promise. As for the more fundamental question of "why can't we just all get along?" -- we'll just have to keep working on it...
  - pjlegato 13y ago
    Once, there was a peaceful anarchic village, where everybody was perfectly equal and there were no laws or rules. People shared everything freely and never fought. Then, one day, the neighboring village invaded, killed all the men, raped all the women, and enslaved all the children. That was the end of that. Even if somehow the whole world were to switch instantaneously to the state of anarchy, it would be a very short matter of time before someone internally decided to take over and enforce rules with the threat of violence. This person would then be the "government." As for Communism, Armenian radio listener calls in and says, "We are told that true Communism is just on the horizon now. I ask, what is horizon?" We reply, "Horizon is imaginary line that always recedes as you approach it." The fundamental misapprehension at work here is confusing two meanings of the word "system." There are systems created by humans, such as "the justice system of Japan." We can change those, since they derive entirely from human control. Then, there are emergent or natural systems, such as gravity. These cannot be changed simply because people decide they don't like them. Capitalism is of the latter category. It is not a human-created system; it did not emerge from colonialism. It is merely the natural emergent behavior of actors under resource scarcity. As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic trade. It is not possible to alter this scenario simply because it doesn't seem pleasant; that's wishful thinking. All that can be done is to make the market more or less efficient. The Soviet Union and North Korea, for example, have always had internal capitalist black markets, despite massive penalties. Prisons have internal black markets. Countries that try to control their currency's value have massive internal black markets for hard currency. Cocaine is readily available for a price almost everywhere in the world, despite massive and coordinated efforts to suppress that market. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity, it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system. Illegal music and movie trading online, for example, continue to grow despite massive efforts to prop up the market, because there is no actual scarcity.
    - e12e 13y ago
      > Capitalism is (...) not a human-created system; it did not emerge from > colonialism. It is merely the natural emergent behavior of actors > under resource scarcity. 1) I didn't mean to imply that capitalism emerged from colonialism, but that the current distribution of wealth an power within capitalism is connected to colonialism (among other things). 2) I don't think you're assertion of capitalism being "an emergent system" is correct -- capitalism is defined by having capital and private ownership over means of production. There are many other systems for regulating scarcity (artificial or otherwise) (eg: feudalism). > As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what > they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic > trade. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity, > it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent > property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system. 3) You imply that there aren't enough resources. While that may be true, I think the issue is more one of uneven distribution. This obviously also depend on your clause "for everyone to have what they want". I think the current system encourages aggregation without much regard for what individuals actually want (Who "wants" Foxxconn to dominate in certain areas of industrial production?). 4) Not all markets and trade systems define a capitalist system. Note also that I specifically said modern anarchism. That doesn't necessarily define away the right to self defence. Communism certainly doesn't. The main difference between the two, is that communism seeks to maintain a form of government, highly localized and highly democratic -- but with the option to retain such things as a police force and a justice system (reserve the right of the government to use violence such as detaining and investigation of crimes for the common good) while anarchism is generally more sceptical of any power structure and any use of force against the individual.
crusso 13y ago
why delude yourself that exploiting people is ok I don't accept your interpretation of "exploiting". They have jobs. They get paid for their jobs. They're getting paid more by doing their jobs than whatever alternatives they had since this isn't slave labor. You're redefining what "exploiting" means and you're casually throwing concepts around like the perpetual victim status of entire societies due to colonialization. Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA were colonies too... we got over it. If there's an evil in the whole colonial relationship, it's do-gooder Westerners who think they should care for and dictate to other societies rather than just letting them get jobs, sell their products, sell services, compete on the worlds stage, learn lessons, improve their lot, etc.
- e12e 13y ago
  > Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA were colonies too... we got over it. For Canada and the USA at least, I think it's a little strong to say that the indigenous inhabitants "got over it".