Pynchon and global capital/corporations

[Judy]

jbor wrote:
  > Better alive and working in what *Westerners* call a "sweatshop" than
dead
> in the street. The conditions before the factories came were far worse.

Why must there only be this choice: sweatshop or death?  Is it because these
people should be "grateful" that a corporation is "saving" them from death?
Perhaps conditions were worse before the factories came, but does that mean
that improvement must stop there? All people are entitled to more options
than what you seem to be suggesting, those abused in our countries as well
as those abroad and we are obliged to demand that it be so. The fact is we
cannot depend on corporations because they only seem to have their bottom
line in mind. Take the recent example of the pharmaceutical companies who
would never have conceded were it not for the enormous public outcry (so
long in coming due to extremely limited media coverage) which meant that
their image had received quite the black mark.  And now, as Mike points out
from the Manchester Guardian, we have reason to fear as the media becomes
even more within the control of corporate power. Are we content to hand over
the responsibility so we don't feel the weight of what we are not doing?

Of course, as everyone here demonstrates, none of this is simple, but there
is nothing wrong with asking for change, looking for ways other than those
present at the moment. Facts can be used to death to prove whatever is
promoted by a particular speaker. What's fascinating about Pynchon is his
use of what is known, how he intertwines all fields to lead a reader outward
and then not allowing that reader to sit back contentedly in certainty.  I'd
be the first to admit that my reading of Pynchon is far from extensive,
however, what it has led to is exploration of ways of seeing, not narrowing
of ways of being.

- Judy