Help Disassembing Sinclair's "The Jungle"?

[Dragonwriter]

Does anyone have any good strategies for taking apart Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? I mean, I know it was written by a devout socialist, and I know the government jumped on it as an excuse to regulate, so I'm sure that the conflict-of-interest is there, but I'd like to check and see if anyone has done the legwork on this topic before I go and do days or weeks worth of research on it. Are there any good fact-checking sources that would be useful in determine just how bad conditions in meat-packing plants actually were, assuming they actually were horrible?

 

Also, if anyone has any efficient and effective counter-arguments against people simply whipping this book out all the time, I'd really love to hear them.

[Magnus]

Does anyone have any good strategies for taking apart Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? I mean, I know it was written by a devout socialist, and I know the government jumped on it as an excuse to regulate, so I'm sure that the conflict-of-interest is there, but I'd like to check and see if anyone has done the legwork on this topic before I go and do days or weeks worth of research on it. Are there any good fact-checking sources that would be useful in determine just how bad conditions in meat-packing plants actually were, assuming they actually were horrible?

 

Also, if anyone has any efficient and effective counter-arguments against people simply whipping this book out all the time, I'd really love to hear them.

 

It was a novel.

[Dragonwriter]

That is certainly a useful counterpoint, and one that I've made before, but it alone is not enough to be a strong and definitive counter-argument. At most, I can usually get people to acknowledge it as "worth noting."

[Magnus]

That is certainly a useful counterpoint, and one that I've made before, but it alone is not enough to be a strong and definitive counter-argument. At most, I can usually get people to acknowledge it as "worth noting."

 

Then you're not talking with people who can separate fact from (literal) fiction.  If their minds are stuck in a mode of perpetual fantasy and storytelling, why would you assume they would be receptive to (or persuaded by) a well-organized, well-cited stack of facts? 

[Dragonwriter]

He won't be. That's the point.

 

The goal isn't to persuade the one troll I'm arguing with - the goal is to show him for what he is (and, much more importantly, to show his bad arguments for what they are) to all of those that are silently watching the conflict who might yet be persuaded. If I can effectively eviscerate this icon of popular culture propaganda publicly in front of everyone, I still won't convince the troll, but I might just be able to get some others to start thinking outside the box.

[Magnus]

He won't be. That's the point.The goal isn't to persuade the one troll I'm arguing with - the goal is to show him for what he is (and, much more importantly, to show his bad arguments for what they are) to all of those that are silently watching the conflict who might yet be persuaded. If I can effectively eviscerate this icon of popular culture propaganda publicly in front of everyone, I still won't convince the troll, but I might just be able to get some others to start thinking outside the box.

That's a difficult task, since the majority of people are not only ignorant of the economics of the early 20th century food processing industry (a specialized field if ever there was one), but more importantly, they lack the logical reasoning skills to examine such a topic, or even know they should develop such skills in the first place BEFORE forming an opinion about it. So, my recommendation is to begin at the beginning, and start with the argument for using reason and evidence as the proper mode of thought. When one does so, the first inescapable conclusion is that novels are not data. It was written as fiction, and openly admitted to have been written to circumvent reason and evidence. It's a propagandistic novel. Until people admit and understand that, no amount of rational argumentation is going to penetrate.

[Level_One]

Well, the actual conditions of the meat packing plants are irrelevant. The plants are just a representation of a very real issue in industry: sanitation (and overall integrity of standards). The challenge of this argument, as it so often is in making the case for anarchism, lies in convincing people that the free market can replace the functions currently performed by the state.

Firstly, manufacturers do have a selfish incentive to uphold standards. If a disgruntled employee happens to spread word that McDonalds is blending the factory mice into the burger to reduce manufacturing costs (and word will spread in the internet age), then McDonalds suffers a blow to its reputation that consumers' stomachs may never forgive. 

Secondly, in order to maintain a good reputation, foster a healthy image, and ease public suspicion, manufacturers are bound to institute policies to such ends. For example, they might encourage employees to look for any infringement of standards, by offering a monetary reward for the employee who does so successfully, serving as an incentive for the manufacturer to maintain standards and as a means to satisfy consumer suspicion.

Could the manufacturer bribe said employee to stay quiet about the mice in the blending room? Yes, at a steep cost that serves as its own incentive to avoid the situation altogether. The manufacturer would have to compete with the value of selling the secret, with the fact that a company's reputation is priceless and therefore grants the person being bribed a nearly blank check, and the fact that if another employment opportunity ever becomes more profitable then the employee will leave and spill the secret anyway. The manufacturer is utterly doomed if more employees catch word.

Could the manufacturer threaten the employee? It is hard to imagine an instance where this is possible. If they fire him, then he tells anyway. If they twist his arm too harshly, then he tells anyway. If they don't twist his arm enough, he tells anyway. 

A free-market version of the FDA may also be established to satisfy the demand for peace of mind in purchasing our food. A reputable inspection agency to slap its seal of approval on manufacturers who check out, paid for by the manufacturers themselves in order to enforce that healthy image. The grunts on the ground who are actually responsible for the inspection may also be offered bribes to overlook blender-mice, but then we have the above mess all over again. 

Always remember that the free market adapts. A very self-interested entrepreneur will always find a way. Let me know if any of this helps!