Bet you thought our student anarchists were keeping a low profile these days:
Anarchist students of the Purdue Alliance of Libertarian Socialists, in solidarity with the Purdue Organization of Labor Equality and the oppressed workers of the world, are currently engaged in a hunger strike and camp-in, the purpose of which is to pressure Purdue University to stop having its apparel maunfactured in sweatshops.
What a well-fed student in America considers a sweat shop might seem like salvation to someone begging on the streets in the Third World, but never mind that. Isn't a hunger strike a little organized for anarchists? And "libertarian socialist" is a completely nonsensical term.
Comments
Not to mention that the Libertarians as a party don't need crackpot radicals any more than conservatives need military-funeral-protestors nor liberals need what's-'er-face camping in the ditch outside Bush's ranch (or PETA accosting schoolkids in Fort Wayne, for that matter).
The whackos don't help anybody. Unfortunately, they often vote party despite our general disgust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist
Maybe you should do more research, Leo Morris. (Although the term "libertarian" has free market implications in the US, throughout Europe and the rest of the world, the term is used in conjunction with anarchism.)
Leo,
You are an American. As such, you enjoy the right to organize (i.e. form a union). Workers in "sweat shops" are not afforded this right. If an institution discontinues buying merchandise made without these rights, producers will be forced to afford these rights to their workers. They will not close their doors and relocate to another city, as the location of the factory is arbitrary when the institution will not purchase goods from them. Complicated problem, simple solution. I would love a response if you have the time.
I don't mean to get in the way of the rest of the dialog, but haven't we just learned it's not a "simple solution"? -- when American companies are currently busting unions right and left, precisely by doing what you seem to be asserting is impossible in the face of public protest -- by closing their doors, relocating to other cities, NOT affording rights to workers?
I would be glad to read a response if you have one that solves any of these problems right here at home. My contention at this point is simply that I can't help others if I don't survive, myself.
Steve,
You seem to be helping yourself quite nicely (e.g. access to a computer, the internet, and some free time to post on this blog).
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Buy American"? This oft quoted phrase is used by supporters of local labor to reprimand multinationals for moving out of country. Companies close their doors and move overseas, BUT an overwhelming majority of Americans continue to purchase their overseas-made goods. I am not arguing that public protest will force doors to stay open. That decision lies with the corporation. What I am arguing is precisely what "Buy American" argues: it is not prosperous for a corp. to move overseas when they stand to lose their place in a major market. The students at Purdue realize this, but lack overwhelming public support to stage a boycott. This is why they have resulted to asking Purdue to discontinue purchasing sweat-shop goods. Unless these sweat-shops change their practices, they stand to lose their place in a major market. Again, it is arbitrary where they move the factory because they will not gain access to the market when the market will not purchase.