CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The exploitation of less fortunate nations has gone too far. The workers there are deliberately paid less for their services so profit margins can be increased. This is unfair exploitation of labor and must be stopped.
This sort of business practice is most common it communist countries like china and Vietnam. Though the factory's are contracted to western companies by the country's government and are sometimes owned by the companies themselves its the lack of labor laws in these countries that allows this to happen. So I agree as far as it needs to stop but the title should be should the communist countries like china and Vietnam stop allowing and using child labor.
3.) In Vietnam, child labor is regulated, and most children work in the family business. (Not defending it, but it is better than such nations as India)
4.) The countries which have the most problems (and the ones I am referring to) are Bangladesh, India, et cetera. The recent disaster In Bangladesh happened because a western company, Joe Fresh, made people work in deplorable conditions.
China isn't communist are you serious? It's under the control of the Chines communist party, its called the people's republic of China, its army is called the People's Liberation Army, it has secret police (the MSS), it has extensive social programs including government healthcare, sounds pretty communist to me.
Vietnam isn't communist I don't know a whole lot about Vietnam so you may be correct ill look it up. And if you are upset about the conditions in the joe fresh factory then you should be mad at the government of Bangladesh for not haveing better labor laws.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole.
Furthermore, the term: "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Please refer to the Communist Manifesto.
Same goes for Vietnam, however Vietnam is Socialist, whereas China is state capitalist. The name of the ruling party has noting to do with anything. When I say this, I think of the American "Democratic Party". It may connote democracy, but this party is full on plutocratic.
Anyhow, I am mad at the government of Bangladesh, but I am also very frustrated with the corporations. They are the ones which set up these factories. No matter how one looks at it, the corporations are not absolved of blame.
It's ruled by the Chinese Communist party that makes it communist. It has extensive social programs the government runs everything and on top of that it has a deplorable human rights record. Yep sounds pretty damn communist. The fact is the government owns most if not all of the means of production in China that's a BIG part of communism. Even thought there are "free market zones" in china the government really owns all the factory's in china COMMUNIST.
The United States is run by the Democratic Party. Does that make it democratic?
Canada is run by the Conservative Party, does that make it Conservative?
Burkana Faso is ruled by the Congress for Democracy and Progress! Does that make it progressive and democratic?
Furthermore, before you think you are an "expert" on communism, perhaps read the Communist Manifesto at least. China has no workers owning the means of production, no democracy, and lots of capitalism and wage exploitation on top of a class ridden society. NOT communism my friend.
If you answered yes any of these, than I give up. However, the actual answer is no, the same goes for the PRC.
No workers owning the means of production, no democracy, lots of capitalism wage exploitation on top of a class ridden society sounds like every communist state that's ever existed ever.
Please realize that Fox news is not a credible source. Could you please provide a source for this definition?
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies).[4]
Marxist theory holds that pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[5][6] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness and worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all. Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist movements themselves. Others have no concrete set of post-revolutionary blueprints at all, claiming instead that they simply trust that the world's workers and poor will figure out proper modes of distribution and wide-scale production, and also coordination, entirely on their own, without the need for any structured "replacements" for capitalist state-based control.
You have valid points, but the name of the ruling party doesn't mean anything at all. China is state-capitalist.
When looking at China, we see government, and complete private, or state control of the means of production. A pretty far cry from Communism don't you think?
Well, Capitalists aren't whom are using child labor. It would be Fascist/quasi-socialist regimes like China.
Capitalism, in its Free-Market form (what most self-described Capitalists tend to support) is a system of free trade/market/enterprise. The people have a right to work for whomever they wish. There is no government interference in the market.
Now, is child labor possible under a free market? Of course. However, that would be by a voluntary whim. As well, child labor is hardly useful in a developed Western nation. Often times the only child labor would exist in family owned businesses or paper boys and small stuff like that.
Child labor is more useful overseas in developing nations where people are poor and oppressed. This is why it is so prevalent (and even forced) in China. China allows trade with outside "Capitalsit" countries, and even fortifies most of its most low of labor into children. this is due to strict regulation in America and Western Nations that forces businesses to try and send their production elsewhere. In the States, Child labor would be possible without regulation, but not nearly what it is in China, where even the government itself uses children.
Child labor itself is not a bad thing. Exploitation and tyranny is. Often times, that exploitation and tyranny can drift into child labor, muddying the waters. In a nation where the people are free to make their own decisions, people naturally don't like a business that puts children into such terrible work camps. However in China, where government has made it common practice, the people there don't care and have learned helplessness.
I don't think you understand much about the philosophies or Chinese economics.
Long story short, China is extremely authoritarian and controls pretty much all aspects of the economy. What makes it NOT Communist is because it does allow for private property and the pursuit of enterprise. It isn't China, specifically, that trades with other countries all the time. It is many private businesses within China. This would be closer to Fascism. Fascism allows for private property but still has total control of the economy (as in, China can tell you to do something with your business and you can't say 'no').
China was at one time Communist, but in opening itself to trade it has lowered its authoritarian hold over the people by a slight amount.
As well, Communism differs in application. If Communism was by what Marx envisioned, even the USSR would not be considered "truly communist."
Fascism applies third way economics, mixing socialism with capitalism. This is what the West does, some leaning more toward Capitalism (America) others leaning away (France, Spain). None of the countries are fully Socialist, Capitalist, Communist, Fascist, etc.
Socialism varies on application, like all the other systems. What differentiates Socialism from Communism and Fascism is that Socialism, over time, has been specifically an economic system, while Communism has been a philosophy proposed by Marx (who used the term interchangeably with Socialism), and Fascism is a Nationalistic philosophy that applies variants of Socialism into its economics (however, like I said, Fascism applies Third Way Economics, not COMPLETE Socialism.)
If you are a State Socialist, you would support all goods and services to be distributed by the State. As well, this would mean that you support that all employment is by the State. How the hiring process works is up to the leaders.
If you are an Anarcho-Socialist, you would support a Collective cooperation of free people that avoids land ownership. Things would be mostly distributed fairly, but no one would "own" the means to production. It would be owned by entire communities, decided based on Direct Democracy.
Communism, as proposed by Marx, supports Anarcho-Socialism as the futuristic utopia. The State would only be necessary to fairly redistribute all the wealth. Once this wealth is redistributed, the state would be unnecessary and the people would be able to continue Socialism without a government. It would be post-monetarist and post-materialistic because the people would learn to live without pursuing their own self-interest that is beyond common need.
People will be exploited regardless. I disagree with exploitation and poor working conditions, but child labor is perfectly acceptable given equal protections and working conditions as as adults. If the adults have them good, the children should have them good, if the adults have them bad, why should the children be excepted? (And if the adults have it bad, it's likely the children will have it bad regardless anyway)
So, no, Capitalism should not stop using child labor. Though exploitation of peoples should be stopped regardless.
