Talk:Truck system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This not exactly the most dispassionate discussion on the topic. Regardless of what modern day opinion is of such a system, I think it would be more appropriate to split the article into two sections: one describing the economic structure of a truck system, and a second to discuss the abuses and criticism of the system and the history of its diminishment. As it stands, it mixes criticism and description too much.

Hi. To state the facts about something is not "dispassionate" or "criticism". If so then concentration camp and HIV are also problematic, and a truck system by definition is exploitative, as you will discover if you have look at the literature on the subject, such as George Hilton's definitive work, The Truck System, including a History of the British Truck Acts, 1465-1960. (Cambridge, UK: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, 1960.) A description of the "economic structure" should go at truck wages, since there is a difference between the payment of wages in a non-cash form, which is not necessarily exploitative, and a truck system (in the strict sense).Grant65 (Talk) 00:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Truck systems and company stores are sometimes identified with debt bondage, although the latter works through advances on wages; by contrast, truck systems exploit workers and their families by controlling consumption of essential items, such as food and accommodation." Who wrote this, Karl Marx? Just because you can quote people who wrote literature and agree with you on the subject doesn't mean it's not POV to declare the truck system "exploitative." If a worker and the employer voluntarily agree on such a system, many people would disagree that this is a system that exploits workers. This is blatantly POV and it should be fixed.

Furthermore, to define truck systems as "unfree labour" doesn't really fit the definition, which is forced labor. Now, of course, socialists argue that such systems are unfree and exploit workers, but this is one of those fundamental points where socialism and capitalism clash. Therefore, a statement representing one side has no place in a Wikipedia article. Aplomado 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comments at talk:unfree labour. Grant65 | Talk 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to ignore other viewpoints of truck systems in favor of one in particular, then fine, I'm putting up a disputed tag. Are you honestly going to deny that there are many scholars who disagree with the "exploitative" nature of truck systems?

Yes I am. As does everyone who has ever written on it. You clearly are not very familiar with the literature on truck systems. If it isn't exploitative it simply isn't a truck system, i.e. it's payment in kind, or truck wages, or barter or whatever you want to call it. The terminology is confusing, I agree, but that is what a truck system per se is and that is why governments throughout the western world introduced legislation to outlaw them. Grant65 | Talk 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how barter or "truck wages" are exploitative. You simply assume this to be true. If you want to quote scholars reasoning for this, fine. But as you said, it is confusing and it doesn't need to be. For example, Meriam-Webster merely defines a truck system as "the system of paying wages in goods instead of cash." I don't see "exploitation" as necessarily part of the definition. Instead of being condescending to your critics, make an effort to write a clear and fair article that addresses these concerns. Aplomado 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm re-adding the disputed tag until this "exploitation by definition" nonsense is resolved. Any significant reading of material on the company towns of the early 1900s will at the very least reveal this to be a disputed issue. Aplomado 03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Condescending? Don't be so rude. Since you raised your concerns — in an insulting and abrasive fashion — I have been attempting to rewrite to emphasise the academic usage of "truck system".

I would invite you to try a rewrite, but I don't think you know enough about the subject; you clearly haven't touched the relevant literature and you're still having trouble with the semantics.

For example, I never said that barter was exploitative. It generally isn't. However a truck system, per se is a form or subset of barter or truck which is exploitative. Some historians argue about the extent/limits of said exploitation in particular cases, but that's it.

Meriam-Webster is a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia. Any dictionary definition of commonly used terms is probably going to be inadequate compared to what we do. If we simply adopted literal, dictionary definitions of words/terms then there would be no Wikipedia.

I challenge you to find me a quotation from the historical literature that defines a truck system (not truck wages or any similar term) as simply payment in goods. The definitions all include exploitation and/or unfree labour.

Another example of your problem with semantics: a company town in 1906 or 2006 does not necessarily entail a truck system or exploitation. There are still plenty of company towns in the world. The article is about truck systems not company towns. Grant65 | Talk 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Grant, I invited you to explain how "truck systems" are exploitative by definition. I'm having trouble seeing how you can back up such a statement. A "truck system" is not necessarily exploitative. Most of the literature I've read on such systems speak of "company towns" in which employees are paid in a form of credit that can be redeemed in a company store. Of course they could be paid in cash, but they live in an isolated town where cash is of little value. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to demonstrate that company stores and truck systems fit into the narrow and inflammatory category of "exploitative," and not simply a system in which it is most convenient for such rural towns to operate. Aplomado 07:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aplomado, can you explain why think you insist on referring only to the company store scenario, when that was only one example of a truck system? I have already given one illustration of how another kind of truck worked.

If the word "exploitative" is the main problem for you, then I think it's going to be difficult to provide any fuller description of the workings of truck systems which you would find agreeable, since you have seem to trouble conceiving of the radically different ways in which workplaces have operated in the past and continue to operate in some countries even now.

Instead of just leaving a NPOV template, why don't you try writing your own version, as you did at unfree labour. Be bold, that's what we're here for. Grant65 | Talk 12:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrip

How does one propse that this page be merged with scrip? Jimworm 01:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

They are realted but separate things, so I would be opposed to any merger.Grant65 (Talk) 13:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)