This is brilliant. I think every Marxist should be made to do a compulsary course in microeconomics. I was reading recently that allowing a free market to reach equilibrium is a way of “making the pie larger” for everyone else, and from there then we employ measures of equity to make sure everyone gets a slice. Commerce does not impoverish the worker. How would it be, if that was true, that we have progressed from peasants and subsistance farmers to people sitting in luxury that a few hundred years ago emperors wouldn’t have dreamed of? Yes, inequality still exists between rich and poor, but it is not caused by the market, but by emposed social order on free transactions between individuals, the stifling of innovation and corrupt officials.
There’s this ethical issue raised in business which refers to the use of child slaves in developing countries. On the one hand, they’re children with shitty hours and pay. On the other hand, they earn income for their families which allows them the means to buy food, survive, etc. Also if you boycott their products, you are effectively harming their job security and thus, their living. (Argument error of slippery slope here but just imagine).
The only way I can really think of this model working ethically is if they had better working conditions, but yeah. Do you think there should be a ban on child slavery?