Which oppressor would you confront?

A couple of days ago, I engaged with a friend's post about the uses of nonviolence and violence when confronting tangible evil. Faced with the ineffectiveness of non-violent means, he ends up asking himself whether it is better to ask for God's forgiveness for allowing the poor to be crushed while doing nothing about it, or wether we should do something about it, maybe use violence even, and beg God's forgiveness for using violence against those who crush the lives of the poor (which I undertand to be the option chosen by the likes of Klaus Von Stauffenberg and Dietrich Bonheoffer when confronting the n*zi regime).

The original post was a bit too general, and it was hard to pinpoint what type of an oppressor we would be dealing with. A n*zi leader, a local pimp, a "capitalist pig"? So I'm guessing that each reader just undertood the post in relation to the form of oppression which they are most aware of. In my case, it is the systemic oppression of globalised capitalism which most captures my imagination. I read "oppressor" and the first thing I think about when I think of nasty b*stards crushing the poor are fat capitalists, so my comments related to the very tangible exploitation of young Jasmine, who works in a jeans factory in China, and whose experience is depicted in the documentary China Blue. I could not stop thinking about it because Jasmine is really grateful for her job, and yet her job is massively exploitative. The kind of exploitation that makes you want to confront the nasty b*stard who makes her live in these conditions for a ludicrously small salary. So which oppressor should I confront:

- Jasmine’s dad, who got around to having a second baby, in the hope of having a boy, but Jasmine was a girl. She grew up trying to make up for that and earning some hard currency in the big city was one way in which she could do that.

- Jasmine’s direct manager, who implements the drastic productivity expectations of her workplace.

- Jasmine’s employer, who is trying to stay in business by agreeing to his client’s ridiculously cheap prices (less than four dollars a piece for a set of jeans AND jacket) and never misses a deadline, even if it means pushing his workers to exhaustion, on the fear of losing his clients.

- Jasmine’s employer’s client. An Indian guy who lives in the UK and buys clothes which he ten sells to retailers. He’s trying to deliver goods reliably and still make a margin to keep himself in business.

- The retailer of jeans made by Jasmine, who would also argue that he’s trying to make a margin and stay in business in tough economic times, when everybody else is selling similar goods cheaper.

- The girl who works at the retailer of jeans made by Jasmine who needs a job (and pays taxes).

- The buyer of jeans made by Jasmine who likes fashion, preferably cheap, and at the end of the day keeps that particular industry going.

- The person who refuses to buy jeans made by Jasmine and threatens her livelihood without doing anything postive about her situation.

- The person who works in a relatively ethical field, funded either by taxes or donations, and who still ultimately benefits from the system.

Who’s the nasty oppressor, I wonder? I’d say track the one with the most unreasonable margins, and encourage them to redistribute these in terms of better resources and quality of life for Jasmine. But then compared to Jasmine's wages, all of the above make unreasonable margins, and all should redistribute some of it towards her well-being.

It just gets me thinking of Clause IV. You know, the clause that got slashed when Labour became New Labour, and lefties started to largely disinvest the party-political processes to do whatever it is they do outside of it*. It used to be printed on all membership cards. Clause IV read:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best attainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

*Some of it is eminiently worthwhile, don't get me wrong. It is a mistake, a cop-out , and a wate of our time to wait on political parties to bring about the tangible solidarity which is our God-ordered responsibility. We're better of developing versions of it on the ground. But it might also be a mistake to abandon the party entirely to forces that move it away from solidarity.