How would you solve the problem that people in less developed countries, or at least where wages are significantly lower, get exploited, because of globalisation? Globalisation is an obvious thing, one should at least not say it must be prevented. Smaller markets etc. date from before the information era.
There is globalisation. There is exploitation.
The two are not necessarily related, and one does not follow the other.
(Exploitation can be done in a closed society.)
there’s quite some problems though, when large multinationals start controlling an country’s market
especially a poor country
those countries should protect their people from exploit, but a low income and a couple bribes left or right make the governments powerless…
costa rica for example
the government wants to increase tourism and save the rainforest in one go,
but the banana industry is being a pain in the arse and wants to claim the land/ buy it from private owners
mind you this is the richest central- and south-american country, what about the others then? what kind of control would money have there?
It makes no difference, in the end, if the damage is done by a multinational company or a nationalized one.
What is important is the end result. And, as I pointed out, government control is no guarantee of ‘good’ behaviour.
So?
I am only talking about the exploitation that results from globalisation.
an open market is a vulnerable market
a country where powerful capitalistic organisations can go as they please is a vulnerable country
globalism isn’t necessarily bad, but it can be
it is dangerous
Global capitalism needs global checks and balances like the ones we demand in our own countries.
What we need is a world-wide organisation to set minimum wages and conditions in each country (e.g. the minimum wage needed to live a basic life in that country); the multinationals would still get cheap labour but would not be able to pressure suppliers/workers to go below the fair and reasonable set rates.
While this wouldn’t be perfect – or a complete solution – it would at least be a start to seriously addressing the problem of explotation.
Oh? So someone who suffers from the exploitation of his own government does not warrant your compassion?
Your argument seems rather restrictive. In fact I may start applying it myself! You know… racism is bad only if it done by Whites. I only worry about suppression of free speech if it carried out by Western governments.
I might be wrong… but I thought this title of this topic said “globalisation”? 
Noel, we’re talking about globalisation and exploitation and yes… if there are global corporations owned and operated by poor, blacks (or non-western corrupt govts) then they are included too.
The only thing ‘global’ IS exploitation. Are you really suggesting that there is any country who’s population isn’t being exploited? There certainly is differences in standards of living, but those who exploit simply have different strategies for ‘mining’ any and all resources (us).
JT
There isn’t exploitation everywhere because of globalization, only I think in sweatshops in places like China, India, etcetera. I went to India recently and in Delhi and other places, there are people working for companies like MNC’s, I think it stands for multi national corporations, that are over the globe, and these people are paid very handsome salaries. There is no abuse by MNC’s in terms of salary/wages or type of environment. The salary is good and environment is posh. My niece works for an MNC firm in Delhi, India and earns a very good salary as a journalist/editor.
Absolutely. There’s quite a few ethical global corporations. I belong to an ethical investment group that monitors and recommends investments based on earnings x ethical behaviour. Many of them provide or enable better lifestyles, education and health benefits for their workers so to say globalisation = exploitation, is simplistic and incorrect.
Note: There are issues outside exploitation like cultural concerns that need to be considered too. For instance even if McDonalds treats its third world staff reasonably well, McDonalds will not be satisfied until it changes the eating habits of a country. If you get a few other global companies doing the same thing in different fields, the culture begins to crumble. (As this thread is about exploitation I’ll leave it at that)
We don’t want Europeans starting to like jazz, do we? Or Americans taking up Buddhism, right?
When does ‘cross cultural exchange’ become ‘cultural imperialsim’? (I’m only asking!)
Beena,
There are many forms of exploitation including the extremes you have mentioned, but capitalism is exploitation, no matter how hard or how soft. It is a giant game of musical chairs, and the multinationals ALWAYS land in a seat. There is this little thing called profit, and a corporation has to return profit to its’ shareholders or it ceases to exist. What is profit? It means taking out more than you put in. If you like, you can dress it up any way you want to. You can call yourself ‘green’, you can be ‘socially responsible’. Put on any face you like, but you still extract a profit. That is exploitation.
km2_33,
It is true that many corporations are better than others, but we are simply talking about the relative strength of exploitation. Many corporations put a portion of their profits into socially desirable projects and that is certainly to their credit, but it is still coming out of someone’s pocket.
You know that there is no exploitation when you break even -ie- you take out no more than you put in. Corporations aren’t in business to break even.
JT
Err, not exactly.
You make a profit if you add value. If you turn a tree into planks, you charge for it (call it profit if you like). Those planks are more useful than the original tree.
Hence the success of capitalism.
It is possible to destroy the environment, for example, outside of a capitalist system: see the destruction in ex-USSR.
Do not make the mistake of saying ‘I see capitalism and I see destruction (or exploitation) and therefore one causes the other’.
The two can be quite separate (and do not need the otehr to exist!).
As for
[quote]
You know that there is no exploitation when you break even
[quote/]
counter-examples are too numerous to list. A slave-owner not making a profit implies no exploitation?
Are you suggesting that the relationship between a ‘slave’ and ‘master’ is even? Surely the ‘master’ must profit from the situation, otherwise why would anyone have slaves?
Good heavens, no. I am not suggesting equality.
I am saying that one can have exploitation without profit. A slave owner might have a plantation but make no money from it, for example.
My example was in reply to Tentative’s statement that “no profit = no exploitation”.
(I also say that one can have profit without exploitation.)
Hi noel,
I’ll simply refer back to the original post. The term globalization, as used in today’s world, implies multinational corporate behavior, and it’s effects.
I did not in any way suggest that there aren’t many forms of exploitation that do not involve a ‘cash profit’. The slave owner sitting on the veranda sipping a mint julep while watching his slaves in the fields may not extract a cash profit, but the advantage is simply another form, leisure -vs- labor.
I don’t want to get into semantical exchange, but I think that if you trace any transaction related to the concept of globalization, you will find that profit is the motive, and no matter whether you call it profit, or advantage, or position, or … it remains exploitation.
JT
Most of the times these big corporations go into third world countries and provide them with jobs and thus some sort of income. As an outsider we may see it as exploitation but the fact that the people are being paid and that they are continuing to work shows that these people need the jobs. There is a huge debate about child labour, but in third world countries some children don’t even go to school and they live on streets or in poverty. Jobs being available to the children decreases street violence, gives families some sort of income, and offers the children some sort of skill. Of course it is sad, but not all societies are structured the same way. Kids do work in third world countries and it is considered the norm, especially for poor families. If the jobs were not needed, then people can choose not to work and thus forcing the corporations to out of their countries. I am not concerned about the choice of payment (minimum/maximun wage, hourly pay, etc) but I am worried about the safety of the workplace.
Oh, I forgot the solution. Since I am more concerned about the safety of the work place, I would say the UN or some other international organization should inspect work environments regulary and talk with random labourers (to get feed back). There should be a policy that indicates the requirements of a safe work environments, and there should be serious penalties for companies that fail to follow protocol and the public should know about the situation (just to put pressure on the companies to straighten up) via mass media.
Peace