Published on pslweb.org, the website of the Party for Socialism and Liberation:
Texas explosion shows: Capitalism threatens communities and workers
The collapse of liberal regulation
MAY 31, 2013
View the complete issue.
The deaths continue to mount from the April 24 collapse of Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh, which housed five garment factories making clothes for Western brands like Gap and H&M. As of May 11, the death count has reached 1,000 workers.
The tragedy was not caused by nature, but by capitalist employers who forced their workers back into buildings for the sake of profit, even though authorities had told them they were unsafe.
The disaster came just months after a fire in another Bangladeshi garment factory killed hundreds. It too could have been avoided had the employers put in place the most basic of health and safety protections.
Halfway around the world, on April 14, a hellish explosion at the West Texas Fertilizer Company devastated the small town of West, Texas. It killed at least 30 people, including several first responders, and injured some 200 others. The force of the explosion flattened a 50-unit apartment complex, demolished about 50 houses and battered a nursing home and several schools. Dozens of other homes were reported to have been damaged.
In the wake of the disaster, questions are being raised about the failure of government agencies to provide protection to workers at the plant and the people of the town. Early analyses point to a collapse of government regulatory oversight — OSHA had not inspected the plant for 29 years — and bad corporate practices. The company had 1,300 times more explosive anhydrous ammonia on-site than it was authorized to store.
West is a small bucolic town located in central Texas, settled by Czech and German immigrant farmers and incorporated at the end of the 19th century as a railroad town. However, during the era of chemical-intensive agriculture, West transitioned to become home to West Fertilizer, which produces fertilizers from chemicals, including anhydrous ammonia.
A large-scale company harboring explosive chemicals should not be located near residential areas. But West Fertilizer not only produced products important to the farming economy of West, it also provided employment to West residents.
West residents may have assumed they were protected by government oversight of the plant, but essentially there was none. In the United States, there are 16 worker deaths per day because of recklessness on the part of their employers. The criminal punishment for reckless negligence leading to death is appallingly low: At most, a $70,000 fine and six months in jail. There have been very few criminal prosecutions under this law.
The collapse of regulation
The story of West, Texas, follows similar stories of how nonexistent regulation has led to mining disasters; oil well blowouts; airline accidents; outbreaks of food poisoning; the production and sale of dangerous toys and infant formula; truck, bus and train accidents; and corporate fraud.
But if these disasters are so widespread, why do they recur with such regularity? Why can’t the government prevent them?
The short answer is that, despite significant technological advances in accident prevention and a long list of proposed reforms, capitalist governments lack the will or power to change how the system works. The real power is held by capitalists who manage the for-profit system. Particularly since the late 1970s, the capitalist class has been on a rampage to reduce regulations, break up labor unions and eliminate all government interference that might get in the way of “competitiveness” — in other words, profit.
That is the case with environmental regulation as well. Many modern environmental agencies and laws, including the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, were developed in the early 1970s, when the U.S. ruling class was in turmoil, the rank-and-file labor movement was rising, the U.S. military was defeated in Vietnam and Black rebellions had shaken the country to its foundation. The environmental reforms were largely passed under the Republican Nixon administration, showing that the decisive factor in winning reforms is the organization of the people, not which politician is in office.
When the social movements subsided and a new economic crisis hit in the late 1970s, the capitalist class took it as an opportunity to strike back, and they have been undermining regulations for the last 30 years.
Considering that liberal regulation has largely failed to protect workers and the environment, what is the answer? We must rebuild strong social movements and fighting workers’ organizations that can defend their members’ interests on the job and in their communities.
From Bangladesh to Texas, the capitalist class cuts corners, treats workers as disposable and abuses the environment in an endless effort to secure higher profits. Ultimately, we need not just policy change, but systemic change — a revolution to take the power out of the hands of the ruling capitalist class.
Content may be reprinted with credit to LiberationNews.org.
Article source:
Be Rational provide some facts to back that up.
My comment is more abt safety than the environment. I am suggesting one of the stalinist states as examples. Both the USSR and the PRC had/have environmental records that rival the US robber barons in its scope and willful horrendous actions.
My suggestion that employee owned enterprises would give the workers self interest in their enterprises is different from the self interest a sole proprietor would have? It seems the same to me, just differently organized.
Mark Jones @10; “What real world evidence do you have for socialism protecting the environment better than market economies?
NONE, because there ISN’T any
One of the most underreported stories of the past few years is that the Pentagon is America’s biggest polluter. In fact, the Department of Defense (DoD) pumps out more than 750,000 tons of hazardous waste every year—more than the top three chemical companies combined. According to Planet Green, “pesticides, defoliants like Agent Orange, solvents, petroleum, lead, mercury, and depleted uranium are among the many deadly substances used by the military.”
Deran,
What real world evidence do you have for socialism protecting the environment better than market economies?
The reality is that employee owned businesses in the US and around the world have no better record in safety nor in compliance with socialistic government regulations than general stock owner businesses. This is because employees have the same self interest as any other owner – personal benefit, including profits.
In addition, workers tend to be lazy and actually cause safety problems that put their own lives and health at risk: they don’t follow safety rules, disconnect safety devices and require constant monitoring by management to ensure safety – this is true no matter who the owners are.
In a socialist society, the managers have little incentive to be vigilant in the pursuit of safety. However, in a free market society, the cost of failure to provide safe working conditions and safe operations of facilities will ultimately borne by the owners, so there is an incentive to promote safety at every step.
The result, in both theory and the real world, is that free market producers are always safer than socialist producers.
Socialism always fails, both in theory and in the real world.
That’s the theory. What has happened in practice is that a bureaucratic managerial class emerges, acting much like capitalist owners but without the bottom line pressure of competitors and consumers to keep them in check, and since management and workers are presumed to be on the same side, no independent unions represent the workers either.
What about those activities that produce consumer goods? Who decides whether to make television sets or something else?
@5, the customers will also be owners of the enterprises they work for. The idea being that the people producing things will also be consumers. Richard D. Wolff, a Marxian economist, puts out the idea that enterprises could all be cooperatives.
For instance, let’s say publicly owned water or electricity, the “users” could organize themselves into user groups like the former Citizen Utility Boards that used to be in Illinois and had some say in how the utilities operated.
“Well socialism is an economic system where the working people would have control the economy in their own self interests.”
That sounds good but what about their customers? Who comes first? The needs of the workers or the desires of the customer?
“It’s the failure of socialism. Government doesn’t work. Government regulation doesn’t work. Socialism of any kind always fails.”
LOL
You never have a rational argument, just your simple minded prattle.
This was a failure of government oversight and the greed of the corporation that owns this plant. The corporation was purposefully not taking safety precautions, putting their employees in danger to increae their profits. And it was a failure of government because the government did not do a serious check on the facility for YEARS before this disaster.
In a democratic socialist society the employees would “own” the plant, and in their own self interest they would be much more diligent regarding their own safety.
Don’t libertarian capitalists go on abt self interest? Well socialism is an economic system where the working people would have control the economy in their own self interests.
“In the wake of the disaster, questions are being raised about the failure of government agencies to provide protection to workers at the plant and the people of the town.”
It’s the failure of socialism. Government doesn’t work. Government regulation doesn’t work. Socialism of any kind always fails.
Chernobyl? Oh wait…
Much more intersting news about a socialist candidate in the US. The Socialist Alternative got their candidate for city council in Boston on the ballot. They collected enough signatures to end up with 1500 valid voter signatures to get Seamus Whelan on the ballot.
http://www.votewhelan.org/