Workers Burn 2 Factories in Bangladesh

<snip>
<snip>

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052200463.html

I don't think it's gonna do these Bangladeshi much good.

they should have just remained bent over indefinitely

positive social change would have happened... eventually

but violent ones are the ones that eventually get action.

I'm a pacifist and I hate to admit this, but it's true.

Sometimes the violence is the opposition against peaceful protests. More often it's the formerly peaceful who realize the opposition is beyond shame.

significant social change requires both peaceful and non-peaceful action.

"violent" direct action pushes issues to the forefront and helps to mobilize those that have been on the sidelines

Nothing reinforces the sort of increasingly police state style policing of large protest events like the idea that what peaceful protests take place are the direct beneficiaries of "violent" direct action and that the latter exists to serve the former and provide the former with plausible deniability. Sure, I've privately assumed this to be the case, but seeing it said so openly makes me groan and sigh because it makes the way the cops look at this stuff look correct, and their harsh reactions look more correct than they otherwise should. (Including overreactions which are bad in and of themselves.)

the social movement, whatever it is, is possibley the benificiary.

Police using the actions of a small number of a particular group to justify "police state style policing" is NOT OK.

Blaming that small group for what the police do is silly.
Do they have an affect on how the police act? YES
Does that justify the police violating somebody else's rights? NO

But they'll do it and cite direct action people being in cahoots with peaceful protestors regardless of what you and I think.

And it's actually not blaming that small group for what the police do, that's not what right-wingers do. They blame the peaceful protestors - the large group - for harboring the provocateurs and cheering them on privately while denouncing them publicly.

That's just close enough to the truth to muddy the waters, which is why I don't like talk like this.

Sorry if you think I misconstrued what you said. I just regard it as a distinction without a difference here.

50 years ago police would violate somebody's rights and cite the fact that he was black
30 years ago police would violate somebody's rights and cite the fact that he had long hair
now?
The fact is they still violated somebody's rights.
We should hold them accountable rather than giving up our rights to appease them

I realize what you're saying about the right and I agree, but that doesn't really change what I was saying.
Violence is still needed, just like non-violence is still needed, as are people like you and people like me debating if violence is acceptable.
It all plays a part.

Low pay is not the only reason companies move to 3rd world nations to set up factories. Little or no worker protection is a big reason too.

thank you.

I really don't think so...

But this doesn't mean somebody here won't use what they did there as though it were.

I'm saying a lot of people who didn't just lose their livelihoods as a result of arson will cheer. Subtext: Cheer, and then turn their backs and forget about the workers while they suffer acutely for their mob action. Or perhaps praise them for their sacrifice from long distance.

Edit: Maybe "all Bangladeshi" will benefit from this action someday, but the Bangladeshi I was referring to, the ones who actually committed this act, are likely in grim straits.

Their labor movement is young... give them time.

I doubt anyone is happy about the arson. I think if there is happiness, it is because the spirit of labor is still alive, even where slave wages are the norm.

That is encouraging news. :)

and I expect many more are happy but just don't want to say so in public or haven't read this thread yet.

the people aren't having their demands met and I bet they found that if they talked too much or asked for a day off...they found themselves fired...and replaced in a heart beat...very much like how the early laborers in this country were treated...and still are...

So for people to burn down the plant...well that basically tells me that they had a belly full....you can only push people so far and then they react.

I don't find it sensible to assume readers are happy about arson but just won't say so.


edit: I do see that at least one person has admitted to being happy about the destruction. However I don't think that translates to "many".

But there's a broad "one small step for direct action, one giant step for workers' rights" sentiment out there even just on this thread.

I stand by my opinion.

*sigh*

is worse than a factory being burnt down. They keep up the oppression, there will be more factories on fire.

reading that started my day off on a positive note :)

From TFA they were protesting for "better pay and one day off per week"

They work in a sweatshop and wanted a day off.
The authorities sided with the sweatshop owners and sent in the riot police.
The workers said "screw you" and burnt down the shops.

All in all a good day :woohoo:

withOUT handing the fascists another excuse to do away with liberty.

Pardon me for not sharing in your joy over the destruction.

Where machines are far more efficient, jobs can be moved fairly easily, with 6.5+ billion people on the planet.

We can no longer afford to believe the lie that people must work for someone or produce some profit-producing good in order to live.

That way of looking at life has been with us though for a couple thousand years of agriculture and civilization. There used to be other ways of living. Until they were eradicated for unproductive practices.

Labor history in this country is literally riddled with violence coming from both the workers and the police.

Much of our current labor law was paid for with blood.

however, were entire factories burned down?

No black and white...

You said the labor movement here managed to secure rights without handing the fascists an excuse to further do away with liberty.
and I responded by pointing out that violence was endemic to the history of our labor struggle.

Every violent action from our own labor movement was used by the fascists as "an excuse to further do away with liberty"

however, violent actions of the sort that occurred back then are nothing compared to millions / billions in damages

context is everything

What's a Bangladeshi worth? What about the 7 year old girl who makes the shoes we wear?

Property before life.

Did they kill her?

Sorry... I see the point you're trying to make... but IMO destroying the factories was a mistake.

The value of a textile factory in the early 1900's was probably roughly equivalent to the value of a textile factory today if the dollar values are adjusted.

If anything the burning of a factory today likely has LESS financial impact than it did in the early 1900's because that burned textile factory likely represents only a small fraction of a larger corporation.

I'm NOT saying everybody should voice discontent by burning down factories.
I AM saying that this sort of violence is an integral part of labor struggles, and the fact that it happens bodes well for labor.

The labor movement here managed to secure rights by, among other things, getting shot and killed. Maybe they should have burned a few more factories.

what these poor workers have resorted to for humane treatment.

...at WalMart.

if these folks had just gone on strike...they would fired and turned out on the streets to starve.

When people have nothing...they have nothing left to lose...

Burning the factories was their way of saying ..."stop treating us like animals"

This scenario has been played out time after time and yet the rich folks never quite figure out that treating people decently will make for a better world....they always have to keep squeezing until the workers unite and fight back.

the fundies would like to believe.

workers, and that is why the Senate Bill exempted Employers from being penalized for hiring illegals.
These people are creating the same work situation in our once democratic country.

a few more short years.

McCain-Kennedy specifically increases penalties on employers hiring illegals, it also moves enforcement to the Dept of Labor instead of INS. If we aren't careful and learn what the hell is really going on, then yeah, we'll be in the same boat here because we fought against the very things that could have saved us.

Where does the Senate Bill exempt employer from being penalized for hiring illegals. And where'd you get that information. I gotta see this.

:popcorn:

It could be argued that a guest worker program will legalize substandard wages thereby rendering "fines" moot.

The whole point is to give workers legal status so they can file complaints when labor laws are broken. I'm not a fan of the revolving door guest worker plan, but it's just wrong to say the Senate Bill, which usually refers to McCain-Kennedy, exempts business from labor penalties. It just doesn't.

Either we here in the U.S. must lower our standards, or workers in these sweatshop countries must raise theirs to stop the flux of jobs leaving here.

Burning the places down was certainly ONE way to get a day off!

Homer: I think I'll take Friday off.

Mr. Burns: Simpson, if you take Friday off don't bother showing up on Monday!

Homer: WOO-HOO! Four-day weekend!

This happened all the time in England and Europe.

you can't keep the slaves down...

they do not have any access (yet) to the vinyl-Las Vegas paradise workers here have. Which is also why they are cheaper there than here, still. They are just one illusion behind us.

from sabot, the French pesants' wooden shoes... which when thrown into the works of a machine tend to break said machine... workers of the world, unite...can't blame them for wanting to trash the factories that treat them like slaves... same thing happened here during the beginning of the labor union movement... more power to them...

granddaughter of a local labor organizer

When I learned about companies like Nike, I tried to avoid their products. It didn't work, because I've always been on a budget, and their competitors did the same thing.

It's also a dilemma, do you buy products where the people make little money, or do you avoid the companies and let the country starve?

I realized Americans were undermined by companies moving to places like Mexico. Mexico in turn had to compete against countries like Bangladesh. Workers have no bargaining power, as long as someone else will do more for less. If there is to be change in the world, it has to start with a revolt by the lowest people on the economic ladder. They have had more power than than they have realized, and are starting to find their voices. I for one wish them good luck in their struggle.

in the sad history of garment factories....

http://www.csun.edu/~ghy7463/mw2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/pwwmh/ny30.htm

Why do corporations move factories overseas? To royally FUCK the workers!

and this is the thanks we get...

:eyes:
rocknation