In this essay, I will examine the use of sweatshop labor through the critical perspective of the Communist Manifesto, as large transnational corporations move their production to developing countries in order to maximize profits. This allows these companies to reduce costs by paying lower wages and having more relaxed health and safety regulations in countries where laws are much less strict. Here I will raise the question of whether the use of this labor is simply exploitative or whether it improves the lives of workers by providing them with stable employment. Second, I will explore the manifestos' claims of an "inevitable" revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist system, by examining the riots of 2011. I will update the manifesto's ideas to try to determine whether these riots could be the start of the proletarian revolution announced. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Communist Manifesto identifies that for the bourgeoisie to survive, they must continually change and improve the way they produce goods (Terrell, 2015). At the time the manifesto was written, the mode of production had been revolutionized by machines and steam, which allowed the bourgeoisie to move from small manufacturing to large-scale production. This change occurred because old modes of production could no longer satisfy the growing demand for goods (Terrell, 2015). A new change has occurred in the contemporary mode of production; the shift of the production process to the third world and the increasing reliance on sweatshop labor. This allows the bourgeoisie to “gain a foothold everywhere, settle down everywhere, establish connections everywhere” (Terrell, 2015). This has helped create a global division of labor between developing countries and the West, in which poorer regions are expected to engage in labor-intensive industries and pay low wages for their workers. efforts. These changes allow large transnational corporations (the modern bourgeoisie) to maximize their profits by reducing costs, through the exploitation of the poor in developing countries. The bourgeoisie can pay even lower wages and force employees to work in dangerous and cramped conditions, due to more lenient laws in developing countries. As the communist manifesto identified, the bourgeoisie will only pay enough for its workers to survive in order to continue working and reproduce future generations of the workforce. Wages can be as low as $68 a month in Bangladesh, which is the world's second-largest clothing exporter. Although the cost of living is lower in Bangladesh, this is still a very low monthly salary, especially considering the huge annual revenues of companies known for using labor from sweatshops. According to the BBC, Primark generated a turnover of £7.05 billion between September 2016 and 2017, but is a company known for using sweatshop labor. Today, almost all of our clothes are made in other countries like India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. These clothes are sold at extremely low prices in most of our regular stores. In addition to being inexpensive, these clothes evolve quickly, which has led to the emergence of fast fashion. The continuous change of these modes allows the bourgeoisie(transnational cooperation) to increase sales and profits by creating ever-changing trends. This means that people must frequently buy new clothes to stay up to date, thus fulfilling the bourgeoisie's "need for an ever-expanding outlet for its products." The countries of origin of these garments are often devalued because we receive very little information about their provenance. This leads us to view these countries as a vague area, rather than individual places filled with individual people. The dehumanization of these places and people reflects the ideas of the manifesto. In a capitalist society, people are only seen in terms of "exchange value" rather than personal value. The manifesto argues that viewing people in this way leads to “brazen, direct and brutal exploitation” of workers. This is evident in the virtually non-existent safety measures at many of these factories, such as in the tragic case of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in 2013. 1,135 people died after five garment factories collapsed in due to poor quality buildings and security controls. The level of exploitation here is extreme, as workers' lives are considered secondary to the need to cut costs and make profits. This devaluation and dehumanization of workers is even more accentuated if we consider that certain companies have refused to pay compensation to victims. It was only when activists held marches in London in 2015 that demands for compensation were met, demonstrating that they were more keen on keeping relatively small amounts of money than feeling guilty about it. with regard to the victims. The application of the communist manifesto to the issue of sweatshop labor was not entirely successful. As I have identified, the Communist Manifesto's critical view on the issue of sweatshop labor would be negative, viewing it as a completely exploitative and dehumanizing process. However, it can be argued that this is not always true. Some critics suggest that work in these factories provides people with valuable employment that is imperative to their livelihoods and overall quality of life. Some economists argue that even though wages in these factories are low, the positive impact of these industries on these countries' economies will eventually lead to an overall increase in wages. They also argue that working in factories is an improvement over alternative jobs such as agriculture, in which they would not receive a stable wage and are expected to require more labor. From this point of view, the shift of production to developing countries is not always “brutal exploitation” but a chance to improve their lives through the possibility of work. However, it is important to note that low wages and poor living conditions are still unnecessarily inflicted on them by their billionaire bourgeois bosses. The communist manifesto states that workers "live only as long as they find work", which is particularly true in developing countries, where most countries have little or no social protection system. The poverty that workers live in forces them to accept these low-paid, labor-intensive and often dangerous jobs because not having a job is not an option. This is reflected in the manifesto's argument that capitalism "has left intact no other bond between one man and another than naked self-interest and unfeeling 'hard cash'." THE.