If you think any of this gibberish looks interesting, you should poke around and subscribe to my RSS feed to keep up with new content.
I’ve learned pretty much one thing from my three courses in economics and countless classes in world history, politics, and culture: economics trumps human rights.
I thought about this while I was listening to the music of Fela Kuti in my music of Africa and the Middle East class. Fela was essentially a revolutionary and a musician in Nigeria. I believe that in his lifetime he had about 6 million wives, promoted anarchy, and founded his own nation within Nigeria.
It goes without saying that the government hated him. The police abused him all his life. He was arrested numerous times. But he got away with a lot of things because he was famous.
He was famous for being a good musician. But someone had to record and distribute his music. My bet is that some of those same people who did the recording and the distributing had a lot of interest in the Nigerian government, or at least in maintaining the power structure that lets them be record executives.
But they recorded his music anyway. They made him famous and more powerful as a political figure. Why? Because they could make money. Thus, economics helps in the fight against human rights abuse. “They” (whoever they are) would rather make the money from his music than preserve their power structure.
Of course, this is a double-edged sword. The much more obvious and depressing examples are those of sweat-shops, wal-marts, and monopolies. All over the world, developing economies have the powers to crush the individual worker and their human rights.
Thing is I’m really an optomist at heart, and I think that if anything the developmental path of the US is proof enough that there’s an upward push when you mix two parts bald-faced capitalism with one part semi-corrupted democracy.
Go mixed drinks.
{ 6 comments }
Ben Adlin 04.22.06 at 4:16 am
Hm. I don’t really know that economics necessarily just trumps human rights. Sure, you provide a fairly compelling example that, in this one instance, so-called economics has triumphed over human rights. But let’s look at it a bit closer.
First, let’s look past the very likely possibility that the music was recorded and distributed by people who were very anti-Nigerian-government (as I’m sure that these people exist both in Nigeria and nearby). Even if your example is factually true, I don’t think it’s proof enough that econ trumps human rights.
What about boycotts or strikes? Yes, I realize that you might argue that strikes improve one’s economic standing, but also note that one’s “human rights” improve as well.
What about the abolition of slavery*?
My point is, just as you can name a great many examples that support your claim, I can point to instances that support the opposite, or at least suggest that the two are not as diametrically opposed as you suggest in both your title and your post.
Nevertheless, I think you might have a strong point if you were to argue that flawed economic systems can lead to human-rights violations. Take a look at capitalism’s alienation of workers, or the push-pull factors of global inequalities (caused by capitalism) that coerce people into slave-like conditions.
But in arguing this, you’d also need to re-assess your argument in which you say, “All over the world, developing economies have the powers to crush the individual worker and their human rights.” It’s far more complicated than this, as established economies are crushing developing economies AND contributing to a system in which human-rights are undervalued.
So while the principles of economics are both immensely powerful and tremendously important to understand, it’s important not to conflate these principles with the economic systems themselves. The systems are influenced and built by paradigms and policies that are off-base and unfair – policies that are racist, sexist, and tainted in so many ways. What results from this is not a system of rational, “pure” economics, but an irrational, biased structure that flies in the face of fundamental economic theory.
*”Slavery” here refers to the Atlantic slave trade that dominated history books, not modern-day human trafficking.
Jason 04.22.06 at 11:36 am
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying well enough to make an argument out of it, but let me just follow up with a few points:
What about boycotts or strikes? Yes, I realize that you might argue that strikes improve one’s economic standing, but also note that one’s “human rights” improve as well.
I’m not saying that economic factors make it harder to achieve human rights goals - in fact I’m kind of pointing out the opposite. My fascination is that what has driven the American working public from indentured servitude to today’s set of rights has been in large part economics.
I’ve never heard of a kind-hearted factory owner in the 1860’s who decided to give his workers an 8 hour working day, paid vacation, and a decent wage just because he thought it was a good thing to do. In each instance the economic hardships caused by the organization of labor (which was fought heavily - literally), strikes, and boycotts are what eventually drive the changes.
What about the abolition of slavery*?
Fundamentally, and you may call this splitting hairs, this was still a political and economic decision. When the Civil War broke out in the US it wasn’t technically a war over slavery. The North initially had no intention of freeing slaves or abolishing the practice.
It wasn’t until the economic difficulties of war, and the political reality that Britain would support the north only if Slavery was made an issue, that Lincoln read out the Emancipation proclamation. Which, of course, freed only the Southern slaves. (I just sneezed like 10 times in a row typing that sentence…I hate allergies).
I guess I’d argue that, since the adoption of capitalism, almost ever major social change has been effected by economic forces that may or may not be easy to pinpoint. Our society is (I think Marx would agree with me, but that’s your field not mine) fundamentally goverened by individual economic transactions which create a relationship scalable to countries.
The result is that those transactions are “more fundamental” than any other causal forces in society, including “good will and the desire to improve human rights.”
Does that make sense?
Ben Adlin 04.22.06 at 2:54 pm
Dude, it makes sense, but it’s so counter to this idea of the two being “versus” one another or having economics “trumping” human rights. If anything, you’re simply showing how the two go hand-in-hand (which is something I agree with entirely).
Boycotts and strikes: The fact that strikes were allowed depended largely upon their protection by legal statutes, which were formed in order to protect human rights, rather than for the sole purpose of increasing profits or productivity. Being exploited like nobody’s business placed workers in economic hardship, but it was also a violation of their human rights. This itself should be evidence enough that the ability to support one’s family, earn a fair wage, etc. is itself a human right, rather than merely an economic incentive.
Abolition of slavery: Why did Britain only support the Union on the condition of slavery being revised/abolished? Was this decision made on economic principles or human-rights ideals (or both)? I don’t understand how such a complex blending of the two can reduced to the idea of “Economics vs. Human Rights.”
Arguing that “almost ever[y] major social change has been [a]ffected by economic forces” is entirely justified, but it’s not what you implied in the original post. In the post, you clearly say that “economics trumps human rights.” While this was an interesting hook, I think it’s a rashly made observation.
The truth is, every major social change has been affected by countless factors. The fact that economics is one of these doesn’t mean that it’s the influence of prime importance.
What we have in this country is not “bald-faced capitalism,” which would run rationally and objectively, in an attempt to simply maximize profits. Rather, we live in a system which is governed by irrational (at least economically) chumming and discrimination. I believe that Marx would think that one of the reasons this capitalistic system hasn’t yet failed is because we continue to indoctrinate Americans with this unattainable “American Dream” mentality, which tricks them into buying into the system rather than recognizing its inhumanity and overthrowing it.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the last paragraph, my only point of contention with you is your exaltation of economic forces and diminishment of other factors. It’s not one vs. the other; it’s a complex combination of many.
Jason 04.23.06 at 3:38 am
RE: Marx - I think he would say the reason this capitalist system hasn’t yet failed is because it continues to be far more flexible that he ever predicted. Marx never expected workers to really get rights.
RE: Arguments - I feel like you’re being a bit nitpicky, “Bald-faced capitalsm” is never something I said we lived in (I said two parts, which makes a difference), and using “versus” and “trumped” makes sense to me because what I’m saying is that, given that a certain even is influenced by both human rights and economics motivations, I’m guessing that economics will give the more powerful push.
Slavery is an example of something that was abolished for largely economic reasons (I don’t know British history, but I’m betting there were some economic reasons there, too) and we’re still dealing with racism today. Which tells me that there are still social forces in motion.
I would probably change my mind if you could come up with some good examples of historical cases where economic incentives went up against human rights considerations and lost - i.e. gladiators were very popular in Rome and were a huge financial benefit, but they were “inhumane” and were therefore stopped. (I don’t think that’s what happened).
Jónas 04.23.06 at 5:59 am
What an interesting discussion you have here. I’m afraid my language skills will not permit me to make such an intelligent sounding post as your posts but I will try.
What I feel is missing from this discussion is the global perspective of capitalism. Jason you said: “I would probably change my mind if you could come up with some good examples of historical cases where economic incentives went up against human rights considerations and lost”. We needn’t look far back in history to see how our clothing for example is made in sweatshops in the “3rd world”. There the strategic economic decision has been made to make western goods in “3rd world” countries often times jeopardizing human rights of the workers who have no agency.
So what I am saying is that while in western capitalist countries workers have acquired more rights and an agency to strike, boycott and there have an influence on their work hours, salary and such other workers around the world do not have that same privilege and continue to be exploited by capitalism. And why does this happen? Why does capitalism allow some workers to have rights and benefits and others not? I believe that is were racism comes in, or at least regional racism. I say the lives of the workers in the “3rd world” are not valued as much as western lives and therefor the exploitation is justifiable, of course no one will say this out right, they will use the economic justification.
Perhaps I am am missing or misunderstanding points, but that is my opinion
Jason 04.23.06 at 12:27 pm
Well I think your example is in line with what I’m saying. The fact is that the understanding of human rights we have for workers in the United States and other developed nations doesn’t extend to our operations in third world countries because there isn’t enough economic pressure for them to do so.
In other words - the economic benefit of exploiting third world countries is greater than our moral loss from exploiting them.
Comments on this entry are closed.