>Nike's workers aren't slaves. They're proletarians.
of course, they are proleterians. but Marx says that wage labor is another
form of slave labor, especially in the initial stages of capitalist
development. He talks about coercion and "forceful expropriation of
agricultural folk from the land" in the primitive accumulation chapter of
CAPITAL. Wage laborers were not formed on the basis of _consent_.
moreover, how would US develop its own capitalism without slave labor (
especially agricultural production in the South)?
>Do you have any idea
>of what rice farming without modern machinery is like? You wade around in
>a field all day, hunched over, getting sunburnt to a crisp, attacked by
>mosquitoes, flies, and leeches, and have to put up with endemic malaria
>and other gruesome diseases. At home, you have to cook meals with
>firewood, take care of umpteen kids, and obey your elders, even if
>they're
>incompetent or cruel.
which proves my point that women are treated as slaves. AND the same
elders who beat women ALSO traffic women from South east asia to US,
Japan and Europe via brokers in the cities. As the statistical evidence I
sent to the list suggests, significant amount of women trafficked also
constitute "rural women" (even some aboriginal girls in the pacific rim
according to 1984 survey, %34)..
another contradiction in your statement is that if Vietnam is so much
proleterianized and urbanized in some unilinear fashion (which it is not,
btw), then we would consequently assume traditional patriarchy would
wither away. So are you telling me that Vietnam is still patriarchal
because it is not capitalist enough? then why does patriarchy still
persist even after market reforms? why do we have still job segregation in
women's occupational attainments in the job market?
Mine Doyran
Phd student
Politiacal Science
SUNY/Albany
