The Sweatshop Culture of Capital

The economic realities that force those in the lower strata of global society to accept employment in industries that are reliant on the quasi-slavery of sweatshops are the result of a greater symptomatic issue that lies within the capitalist economic role played by globalization. While thinkers such as Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman extoll the fringe benefits that the sweatshop brings to impoverished, undeveloped nations, what the sweatshop- and in a broader sense, the influence of capital itself- really delivers to the people and nations it is customarily seen in is an upheaval in social norms and destruction of not only traditional ways of life, but also the unique cultures that existed beforehand. The sweatshop and the shifts in culture, economy and life that come with its arrival parallel the broader destruction capital leaves in its wake as it expands.

John Miller’s article on Africa and sweatshops in Real World Macro, “Nike to the Rescue?”, illustrates the sweatshop problem well. On the one hand, Miller recognizes the need for some economic stimuli for the beleaguered and destitute African populations, and knows this need will not be simply taken care of without some investment from wealthier nations. On the other hand, this investment need not be based upon multinationals setting up shop within these countries, using the cheap labor available until the workers collude to strengthen their bargaining position, then use the power of capital flight to move on to the next impoverished area of the world, and so on. The investment, rather, should come in the form of what the World Bank and IMF are ostensibly all about, that is, assisting developing nations to build their economies up from the ground and increasing the standard of living for their people.

But the World Bank and the IMF are notoriously deserving of the mistrust their overtures are greeted with in many, if not all, developing nations. The loans given by the World Bank and the IMF are frequently dependent on certain provisions that consistently have the result of depriving the populace of state support and selling national resources to the highest- and generally foreign- bidder. These, what Larry Peterson in his article “Wolfowitz and the World Bank: A Temporary Farce, but a Continuing Tragedy” defines as “austerity measures- cuts in health and education spending for instance”, which lead to domestic bankruptcy of the national industries and hasten the looting of the carcass of what may have once been a poor, but somewhat stable, nation. The entire scam is perpetuated by a global debt trap.

The global debt trap is an ingenious and sadistic piece of business used by those nations with power to force their will on those nations who are weak and vulnerable. The trap is simple. Take Nation A, the rich nation, and Nation B, the poor one. Nation B is dependent on Nation A for certain goods it needs for the subsistence of its populace. Nation A can provide these goods, or, at least, can provide the capital needed in the form of a loan so Nation B can purchase these goods from other nations. The loans must be repaid, and therefore Nation B becomes more and more in the hole as it attempts to repay, but as the interest accrues, the debt becomes insurmountable. After a certain amount of time and capital loss, Nation B has no choice. It must go to the World Bank and the IMF. And these international banks impose “structural adjustment programs on countries which have no choice but to comply or risk their continued access to capital” (Peterson).

So here the sweatshop and the upheavals of capital come into play. With an economy already in shambles and the implementation of austerity measures completed, Nation B has no choice but to continue on the path of allowing itself to be looted ad infinitum by multinational companies which have been circling, like vultures, the corpse of the nation. The World Bank and IMF have exacerbated the situation by their forcing of privatization down the throats of nations without the necessary standing to deny it. No capital controls here, as industry clear cuts culture in its drive for cheap labor and resources. Indigenous populations are wrenched from their homes and livelihoods in order for industry to attain the resources their land sits atop and in order for more and more urban labor. The cultural transformations of capital are never pretty.

Capital cannot sustain cultures it encounters, rather, it must destroy them to survive. Whether through the introduction of labor division in the form of sweatshops, industrial production, the annihilation of the safety net or resource grabbing, capital’s encounters with society are never pretty. For the introduction of capital into poor nations to be described as beneficial to those nations is nothing short of preposterous, yet this preposterousness is the hallmark of much of the New York Times’ editorial board. Capitalism destroys all cultures it encounters, and in the spectrum of globalization, this destruction is increased.