text:
- Jah Kable
- Troy, NY
- United States
Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,
This conversation is closed.
Why is it OK for corporations to outsource work to countries that violate the corporation's home country labor laws?
Prime Example: Nike and Apple. Paying about 15 bucks a day to KIDS in other countries making their products so they can sell them for a major mark up everywhere. Now If they can make these products for a total of like 5 bucks, why do we pay 100-500 bucks for these things? This just seems greedy to me And seems like it could be a legitimate reason for the recession. GRRRR this is frustrating. They are hoarding so much money they couldn't possibly spend it. Letting this happen is madness. Yet not doing or saying anything is the standard "accepted" action. Like a friend told me "We don't need a revolution because that implies returning to a broken point in the cycle, We need an evolution." Yeah he blew my mind too. :D Keep it clean and friendly everyone. Looking forward to your ideas. Lets get this some traction and change the world.
Aug 2 2013: You are right. But what can the customer do about it? It is a clever move of the manufacturers. The relatively high price of our clothes is based on the historic price of manufacturing them here, with high overheads. The manufacturers move overseas they escape all those high overheads which are the reason for the price, have the goods made dirt cheap by exploited labour, and make massive profits. There is a role for govt here, but govt tends to stay sweet with the monied interests. And there is nothing the customer can do to reduce the prices. Perhaps we need more ethical firms - that would introduce customer choice - but most business is run for profit, not for philanthropy. Good comment.Jul 31 2013: Jah, I think it has a lot to do with the definition of the phrase "OK".From a capitalist point of view it is "OK". The manufacturer is maximising the net income. I think it goes against the principles of the World's great religions as well as general philosophical ideals..I feel those who profess belief in such religions, but take advantage of the poor are hypocrates. If we wish to stop such behavior, we must let the world know and stick our necks out. Boycot the stores and tell people why you nare doing so.Jul 30 2013: Outsourcing for sometimes being considered one of the best way of profit maximization, so the corporations are after it.
wayne uejio
Aug 1 2013: lets switch you question slightly, should american workers in the US be ruled by the Japanese labor laws if they worked in a Toyota Plant?
- +2
I would say no, hence from a legal point of view no the American Labor laws do not apply in Asia.
On the moral question, I agree something needs to be done but in some countries, if you fire the child or parent, the entire family would starve. If you gave them the minimum wage from the US, they would be robbed as soon as they left the plant. What is needed on the moral issue is bringing up the entire country.
Aug 4 2013: That may be appropriate in the long term but the short term indicates that many of these people have gone from no food on the table to enough to feed more than one family. So, in some respect, the increase in jobs over there has elevated the status quota. The disproportions that occur between the wealthy and those who labour appear similar to those in a modern country.
Of course a major concern with labour in any country is "Child Labor Laws": Wikipedia cast some light on the evolution of these laws in a typical modern country like the United States:
"...It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children.[citation needed] In 1938, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor. However, The 1938 labor law giving protections to working children excludes agriculture. As a result approximately 500,000 children pick almost a quarter of the food currently produced in the United States.[4]..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States
Considering the historical dates I read in this article, still, many modern countries are not far removed from the conditions in developing countries, especially in some agricultural industries. The idea of equity in the markets of the world, between those who make the products and those who reap the profits, are still archaic and primitive, to this day, in both modern and developing countries. We are indeed bold to speak of conditions "over there" when our own back yard is in such dire need of landscaping.
I would suggest that the evolutionary powers associated with labour in developing nations will follow a similar course as those in modern countries. I don't see a speedy solution.
Aug 4 2013: agreed the history of the labor movement in the US and other countries is very long and filled with many injustices. How many realize that the 1st recorded strike was in 1648 or the number of strikes at the coal mines and railroads and how many of these strikes were broken by government troops?
The triangle fire in 1911 that led to some safety labor laws. 146 women died because the doors were locked and they could not get out. News report said some leaped to their death with their clothes and hair on fire. This is similar to the Bangladesh disaster that happened this year.
Mandy Fisher
Jul 31 2013: I get it.
- +2
The fat kitties felt a rumble in their tummies, and then watched the skinny little mice scamper about, hungry in a different way, a desperate way... until one day, one of fattest cats said, "Hey, why don't we use them to make our cheese? Why, they'll be so thankful to get a crumb they'll work for just about anything; it's a win-win!". Of course, the other felines agreed, and so they threw the rats at home in the alley and made shop in the big, wide, wonderful world outside. It was perfect- go to the trailer parks and sing a song so sweet, with the tiny bits of chedder so fine, that they'll beg for the oppertunitiy; meanwhile, the cheese was being decked out by the tons, and the kitties at home were laughing as the plumb little hampsters nibbled away, slowly but surely, to their eventual fate within the bowls of consumption.
And you know what?
It sucks.
But there is very little to be done unless the mindset of consumers change. It's not the corrporations, it's you. It's me. It's our mamas and our daddys, our brothers and our sisters. If you force laws on business, the buisness will find another way to make money, and it may or may not be for the better. The big boys move across the pond because those laws do not exisit, it saves money, and once agian, it saves money. Model it after America and you will find those jobs disappear, that the companies move elsewhere, and that those poor people you speak of now are without any income, and they starve.
These countries are not america, and to demand assimilation to american standards is both naive and enthocentric. The people need, and more importantly, intensely desire these jobs. It isn't fair that the income is so low, and that the standard of living falls below ours, but I hate to break it to ya, Life Is Not Fair. Fight agianst child labor, agianst mindless capitalism, but fight a fight that will make positive, realistic change.
Ang Perrier
Jul 30 2013: Large corporations look for a way to avoid having to comply with federal standards. Federal standards are put in place for a couple of reasons, sometimes it's because of safety issues for the employees or consumers, sometimes it's to drive away the competition's ability to produce. Either way it costs money to comply and corporations justify off-shore production by claiming that they are financially unable to comply with the cost of production in America.
- +2
However when you employ Americans and pay them a decent wage they have more buying power and can afford to purchase the merchandise at a marginally higher price. Corporations then claim that they need to be able to cut costs because Americans can't afford to pay the higher prices but they first caused that problem and then continually perpetuate it by moving more and more of our jobs overseas.Jul 30 2013: "In Nike' s case, the actual production facilities are owned by South Korean and Taiwanese companies that manufacture the products under contract with Nike. The bulk of Nike products are manufactured in China, Thailand, and Indonesia, though some components or products involving more complex technology are manufactured in South Korea or Taiwan. In 1995, a Korean company opened up a major new facility in Vietnam, giving that country also a significant share of Nike' s production."
China = 0.80 (US) Thailand = $1.20 (US) Indonesia = 0.62 (US)
The above represents the average hourly wages in those countries ... at $15 per day that would be $1.87 per hour thus exceeding the average wage for non skilled workers.
Call it greed, smart management, or what ever you want .... the fact remains that the workers are being paid above the national average and want these jobs.
As for the price of the product .... I cannot explain why someone pays $500 for a pair of Nike's .... but no one is holding a gun on them to do it.
Be well. Bob.
Jul 30 2013: "the fact remains that the workers are being paid above the national average and want these jobs."
How could they turn the offer down? The power of the currency is not the same or the poor are being taken advantage of (inequality) within that country and now the businesses piggy back on it, "it is not me it's just the way the country is, look they are happy with what they get".
"I cannot explain why someone pays $500 for a pair of Nike's .... but no one is holding a gun on them to do it."
Marketing is the explanation. The lack of education in marketing is what controls marketing. It's like going to a magic show or politics and propaganda in comparison.
Jul 30 2013: Since these were national averages, I would suspect that unskilled factory workers average salary is well below the national average. A CEO makes more that a hamburger flipper .. inequality is everywhere. They make more doing this than they ever have before ... they have raised their earnings. So I guess that I do not understand your point.
Marketing is all about supply and demand. When there stops being a demand they will market a different product that is "in demand". Peer pressure is the biggest marketer. Take your teenager shopping and they will tell you that they will die without ABC pants and XYZ shoes. That they will be the laughing stock of the school ... no dates ... no friends ... you hate me ... and I hate you .. and so on and so forth. Now that is marketing ... no lack of education there ....
Go down to the welfare office or juvenile detention ... kids that have been on welfare with their parents or in custody are wearing $300 - $500 shoes, $100 dollar pants, and $100 dollar shirts, in addition to having a new car and a bankroll in their pocket ... it is not about lack of education it is about being somebody .... becoming the man .... being noticed .... buying respect within their group / circle.
Thanks. Bob.
Jul 30 2013: Bob, the point I make is they can't get someone flipping hamburgers from the country you and I live in to do it for that price, it is illegal. We can't put a kid to work (illegal) on top of less than min. wage (illegal). So, it's not OK to do in another country. Pay the adults more, 3X at least, so the kids don't have to work at all. Then the competition really comes back plus there is less profit in unnecessary imports just to make a dishonest buck because of the suppression put on these people. A real company would actually still pay their own min. wage to the people overseas to help the citizens of the world. I see a better solution than this but this is where we are at right now in time.
Again here too, kids do play a major roll in this, I agree. So if we teach the children better about becoming the man/woman (a good person), being noticed, respect within their peers and what that really means, would this not be good education many would agree with? Another thing... are we, as adults (I assume you are an adult), very far from practicing this or is the "American dream" something totally different?Jul 31 2013: Victor, I do not have time to instruct you in economics or business management. I can LEGALLY do business in country X at 0.62 cents per hour. I do not have the issues brought to the table by unions nor the problems presented by MANY government regulations. Your cost is lower and my profit is higher .... and no one is exploited.
Steve Jobs said it best to Obama ... I tried to do business in the USA ... government regs .. unions ... and a long waiting period to even begin ... big manpower issues, plus much more. I talked to China .. told them I need 1,400 engineers, two factory floors of approximately 7,000 feet each, 10,000 workers. The only question was ... is two weeks okay and do you want it by the sea or inland.
As to the other issue. I work in law enforcement, at a prison, in government work. Those kids sell drugs, pimp, steal, take cars, etc .... and live on welfare also. They say we are the stupid ones. They make a thousand dollars on a deal in a few minutes ... with little or no education. They can get caught but in a month they make as much as a small business owner (or more) and no overhead.
The American dream is dependent upon the dreamer.
See ya. Bob.Aug 2 2013: We had this problem in Britain 19thcentury, didn't we? If child labour is allowed it undercuts adult labour. children are never paid an adult rate, and adults can't get a job, but it is in their interests to have lots of children to send out to work. Our Western solution was to ban child labour, and it worked. Unless the rulers of 3rd world countries also abolish child labour the situation will continue. But again, the politicians and monied interests are hand in glove. They are the ones making money from this and keeping the general populace subdued. And our Western businesses probably don't want the situation changed for the same reason.Jul 29 2013: In the long run, it is better than being protectionist.
The wages in those countries will eventually go up. This implies that in the end, the world will be more equall and the jobs will go back because of transportation costs going up.
Of course, this doesn't solve current abuse of global production and trade. And it is not the best nor the fastest route to more equality.
But then again: if a kid can go to a factory instead of slavery or prostitution, the life situation is already improved.
If labour unions would encourage fair pay across the globe,... would be a good thing.
As for how multinationals work: it sees goverments as obstacles, and we would need a stronger united nations that can deal with them.
If you don't want to support Apple or Nike: there are fair phones comming on the market. There is fair footware.
Don't buy a brand if you don't buy their policies.
Jul 30 2013: What controls the transportation cost? How is this fact? If it would go up, how would this help or hurt the people over seas? And the oil field needs more greed? lol
Jul 30 2013: The energy indeed. Oil is still used most (for shipping, flight and trucks).
There is also the unpaid cost of oil: the CO2 emmission... and that needs a huge amount of money to get it under control. And there is the cost of the driver/people who handle the shipping.
The price of the end product will go up when transport cost goes up. When the total product cost is lower in your country, you will produce it in your country (or region).
It really depends how that helps/hurts. but in the end, a reduction in dirty transportation is beneficial to all.Jul 30 2013: Totally agree Christophe.
I'd like to add that the current abuses depend on the consumer to fix. When a big stink is raised about safe buildings or child labor or sweat shop wages for one company, many others follow suit and a new higher standard is then set. This consumer pressure can directly affect minimum wage standards for an entire country and it was done without involving the bureaucracy of that country. Change can be effected from the outside. It becomes a unifying and equalising force.
It depends heavily on ethical consumerism.
Barry Palmer
Jul 29 2013: It is not OK, it is just legal.
- +2
I would suggest spreading this idea with pictures and starting a boycott. Of course, it is not just Nike and Apple, it is now almost everything we buy in the USA. Still, a successful boycott of one large company could make the threat of a boycott very powerful.
A complete solution of this injustice will require some way to replace the lost income for the families of those children workers.
Jul 30 2013: To be successful in this boycott we would have to flash the message just as often as the product is marketed I believe. I could be somewhat off because the word of mouth spreads as well. People know these things already but it stays in the back of their minds and unimportant.
Steve C
Aug 5 2013: Very good point - we could contact our friends & family, let them know we're going to be boycotting so-and-so, 'why,' & 'how'.
- 0
And let them know that every time we see one of their commercials, just send them a quick message about the commercial or product-placemnt.
Hmm, maybe not a polished idea, but a beginning.
And to Barry: That reminds me of a recent quote I recently found: "All that is good
is not embodied in the law;
and all that is evil
is not proscribed by the law.
A well-disciplined society
needs few laws;
but it needs strong mores." ~William F. Buckley, Jr.
(I think that's how it goes.)Aug 12 2013: The emergent openness of the crowd will make awareness the primary driver of change, The capacity of the crowd within the cloud to redefine current governmental regulation is nothing short of revolutionary. The commerce of the internet is truly global which suggest labor is global as well. Perhaps there should be a more transparent international labor and trade protocol to allow all people the access and opportunity of global standards of living.Aug 12 2013: The thing is that there will never be law to prevent this (until we all call our selves united states of the world) , the problem is that at the end when you outsource all your jobs abroad to make the profit you will lose your market at home as result of transferring capital to other country.
And the problem is also in constant demand of profit growth in opposite to constant drop of human values and free time.
Daniel Early
Aug 10 2013: Because it lowers the bottom line and makes the product cheaper for us the consumers to consume. (Can you tell I'm wearing my homemade mask made of jade when I say that?)
- +1
Aug 12 2013: no it doesn't, it just increases their profit margin. also if there was no labor outsourcing, more people in this country would have jobs, thus there'd be more salaries paid. and people would be able to afford the higher prices.
Aug 12 2013: Do you not know what a homemade mask of jade is?Aug 10 2013: Jah, it's not that I disagree w/ you, but what you are essentially trying to do is take trillions of dollars out of the pockets of big corporations, who essentially have bought the governments of the world. The only way to improve the situation is to do two basic things: a) buy less of the products / services that these industries sell, which means changing the way we educate young people to think about things like Nike shoes, texting, and Big Macs; and b) fight fire w/ fire by creating industries that sell better products that are meant to last longer, like Apple vs. PC laptops. Apple products are more expensive, but they last longer and are mostly not the target of viruses. I've asked techies why hackers don't attack Apple w/ viruses, who say 'people LIKE Apple....'
Another thing you are fighting is a world-wide campaign against access to good education for ALL. If governments were to invest in addressing any / all learning barriers K to 6, along w/ rigorous & engaging education then everyone would be able think for, take care of, & respect themselves.
I work in the Mid. East, where many citizens are not educated enough to know that constantly eating Fast Food is not healthy, & where 70% of citizens are overweight (many of whom suffer from medical problems). We could produce healthier foods for everyone, but the profit margin would be lower....not going to happen...
Acquiring knowledge & critical thinking skills, and valuing hard work & citizenship are the keys to our future but BIG MONEY & POWER are fighting against this--they want young people to learn to become dependent on mostly unnecessary products and 'services', and simply be too dull to question this system.
We must learn to fight this by being smarter than those who think we are too stupid to understand what is going on--not that hard, but it means a life style change.
I teach my college students HOW to think not WHAT..
Keep thinking, questioning, learning, and getting smart. Prof. Schneider
Aug 12 2013: i personally try to buy less from the companies that pull this, but they've done pretty well to make sure there really are no other alternatives. buy from somewhere you think is honest and find they're a subsidiary of a big multi-national, or they don't have the goods you need or don't service your area, and then even if you do find a place the only way you can pay them is thru using the services of a big multi-national who take their cut. also they collectively pay very poor salaries to the majority of their workers, so most people just can't afford to shop somewhere that doesn't exploit, and people can't create industries because first they need funding and no-one's going to give it to them because they'll be working against one of their partners, and even if they do get started they'll be manufacturing at a disadvantage because the big manufacturers have already lobbied for tax breaks that the start up won't get.
Mark Hurych
Aug 9 2013: Hey there Jah Kable
- +1
Short answer: It is NOT OK. If you want to know HOW it happens, I think it might be instructive to revisit Bucky Fuller's "Grunch of Giants," or even his "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth." In those books he does suggest ways to evolve or get traction by re-conceptualizing wealth and big picture orientation.
Since a solution will be situated within the problem, maybe the self-reliant form of the question is: do I want a happy life or a meaningful one? Revenge does not produce either.
Perhaps compassionately working in the service of humanity is evolutionary enough.
Paul Lillebo
Aug 8 2013: "Outsource" as used in this question is essentially the same as "ordering," which is essentially the same as "importing," "buying" and "trading." The question really suggests that we should not order, import or buy from, or trade with countries that do not have our labor laws. The result of that policy would be havoc in both worlds.
- +1
Labor laws in some countries include a mandatory paid 5-week vacation for all workers, or a 38-hour work week. There are lots of OSHA safety laws specific to handling, storing, and transporting various materials. In the US, labor laws may vary from state to state. Must a client country copy all these? You probably have in mind certain labor laws, though you don't specify which. You refer to pay, but as for your example ($15 a day), that's more than most people make in many countries. If you offer to hire someone for $15 a day they'd be overjoyed. You also mention KIDS, and that's a serious issue. But the problem isn't that kids work, but the conditions they work under. My father grew up on a small family farm, and all the kids did work as soon as they could carry a shovel. That's how it still is in most places in the world. Kids can help to contribute economically to the family, but only under proper conditions.
Conditions under which we are willing to trade with another country are specified to a degree in trade agreements. The problem is often that many countries fail to supervise or enforce the agreements. Our commerce department needs to do a better job insisting on enforcement, and I think they're a proper target for protest.
If you buy food, you're buying from countries with all sorts of lacks in their labor laws. Think about giving it up.
Outrage over profit margins is misplaced. If I can pick up river rocks for free and sell them as "pet rocks" to fools for $5 apiece, that's great. It circulates unused money. If Nike can sell a sneaker for $500, I can only repeat, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Solution? Fewer fools.Aug 8 2013: It's terrible and it never should have been allowed to happen in the first place.Aug 6 2013: I am an insider to outsourcing. I am working in service sector. I'll try to correlate the scenario from my Industry's point of view. Consider a scenario where all the Jobs/industries/services are present locally. Means we are not exporting or importing anything from outside. Now consider following outcomes derived from this condition.
• The cost of same job done in developed world (US/ Western Europe) is approximately 6-7 times (if not more) than the same job done in third world country.
• Raw material/ resources taken out of these third world countries are at very very low prices (may be 10-15 times cheaper. Don't get shocked, it is reality).
• Now If product and services are done locally, cost will increase with same ratio as the cost of labor and raw material. Say cost will increase around 8 times of current cost of importing things/services from third world countries.
• Sellers cannot increase price by 8 times so they have to sell things at competitive prices. So lets assume they'll increase the cost of goods by 4 times and reduce their profit margins by 4 times.
• Now things are costlier by 4 times and profit margin of corporations is decreased by 4 times and salary of workers are as it is currently. (if corporation are not reducing salaries to increase their profit).
• As cost are increased and profit margin of corporations is decreased, the tax paid to govt will be decreased by 4-6 percent. Say 5 percent.
• Now assume that currently cost of living is divided into two halves 1.Services/goods currenty produced locally (house/medical/someproducts) and 2. Services/goods imported (most of stuff we buy from super market, services which include software / back office jobs including customer care or tech support :) ).
• Say these two portions are 50-50%. Local stuff remains at same price but cost of other half will increase by 4 times. Therefore total cost of living will be increased by 2.5 times.
Aug 9 2013: Let me get this straight, you are saying that manufacturing abroad can increase the corporations profit by 400% and/or reduce the cost of the item. This will significantly increase corporate tax revenue in this country.
Yet many others are complaining that these corporations are using overseas shell companies to hide profits so that they pay 0% in taxes. How is it that companies that sell billions of dollars of goods imported from overseas to the US pay 0% tax revenue. And, if that is the case then isn't the logical thing to do to put a stop to this practice?
According to your logic we should support this practice because we will get more tax revenue. If the premise is false the conclusion is false.Aug 5 2013: It is unfortunate that there aren't laws in place that prevent American companies from being accountable for the work conditions in the factories that make their products in other countries. This is aggravating as there are many other laws that do apply to American companies and how they conduct business in other nations. Since it is unlikely that our government will be able to swiftly create laws that appeal to this problem as consumers we can make ethical choices and insist that companies ensure the ethical and humane treatment of factory workers. The consumer shares equal blame if they choose to continue buying such products. If you are not part of the solution, you are probably part of the problem. COmpanies like Apple and Nike can improve these working conditions and still earn a strong profit. In the process this is also likely t help with the quality of the products as well. Although I must disagree that this contributed to the recession as these products actually maintain consumer spending. The financial crises is attributable to the banks and that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed as well.Aug 4 2013: For our friend John. It seems you are the eternal optimist, fantastic! I like optimists. As a rule,I too am an optimist. I can be a hard nose when it comes to competition, and getting off ones derrière to make a buck when the chips are down. I have to tell you John we've had Nafta, and Cafta for a while now. The only people that have benefited from it, are the multinational conglomerates who have done their best to destroy the sanctity, and security of the American work place. They used it under previous administrations, and todays congresses to destroy unions, pensions, and workers rights across the board. Who would think they would do such a thing huh? They're exercising a deliberate campaign to literally outsource the middle class to death. They have been, and continue to be engaged, in an all out, neofascist effort to destroy unions, and thereby decapitate the remainder of middle class political power. They have used the deliberately orchestrated financial crisis to steal trillions of dollars from Americans citizens, and investors around the globe. I'm not here to push for closed markets. I'm not here to call for protectionism in general. What I am here to say is this. Baby Huey is the (American worker), not the corporate syndicate, the industrial complex that serves only Wall Street. Those guys are doing just fine thank you very much. Corporate profits in the last three years are up by 30+%. Yet we have a supposed progressive president saying he's willing to "make a deal" to cut corporate taxes, when companies like GE get away without paying any income tax with a $30 billion profit? Meanwhile "certain types" want to throw millions of working single mothers off food stamps. (Baby Huey),the (American worker) i'm sorry to say is like a prize fighter who's punch drunk. Eventually, that Baby Huey, is going to realize he's not a chicken, but a big golden goose, and start kicking some corporate butt. I love business. I love competition, but on a level playing field.Aug 4 2013: There are many factors involved in outsourcing. Some times, it is on a borderline of business ethics. In general, outsourcing is about cost arbitrage. It presumes that that this arbitrage is at same living standards and is due to comparative easier availability of necessary resources incl. manpower, material or money. However it is not a reality. Arbitrage is due to poverty, population, governance and such interlinked aspects.
Choice is difficult. If companies limit the outsourcing, potential improvement in the developing countries will also be affected. At the same time, increasing some price of their products & services will make their boards unhappy. May be taking a combinational stand by the companies - mix of business and really good change - may improve the situation a bit. Not outsourcing all of the business means existing factories continue to work and do not destabilize any economy.Aug 4 2013: It's interesting to note, that when a corporation's PR division states they are supportive of elevating the general population in a modern developed country, expanding jobs, education, etc, we see their examples for our future in the developing nations as a different sort of animal.
PR is just another label for deception and deceit.
Then again, we must look at the economics of other countries and the cost of living there. If these corporations can pay less and the labourers can still maintain a base level life style, then how bad is it? Why can't we live a similar level of lifestyle in a modern country?
To truly explore this question, we need much more information.Aug 4 2013: Corporations (at least of the US kind that seem to be spreading everywhere like a wildfire) are culture- and nation-neutral superficial creations. Just dial some history of Byzantium (where war bonds issued by guilds/aka corporations were invented) to see for yourself. Or West Dutch India Company. Or British Indies.
Shareholders seem to be the major evil, but not only them. It is a complex combination of greed, irresponsibility and ignorance that makes them dangerous not to all, but to themselves as well. Many a corporations folded exactly because they failed to reflect on their past and took steps to align their actions with their surroundings/environment. Essentially, corporations are the modern equivalent of castles, complete with phony overlords, their goons and parasites that live off them. Names and titles are unimportant, actions speak for themselves.
Is there a better way? Many ways, in fact. First, corporations that lost their self-control should be reined in and shown their proper spot in the society at large - they are part of the foundation of the society and nothing more. Second, ungodly alliance government/corporations should be properly split into profit (corporations) and non-profit (government), just like church has been divorced from the government during the early stages of the US history. Third, society should start working on its asabya, solidarity, which should encompass all the classes regardless of the power they wield. Common goals will mean solid society. Both people and organizations, not only organizations and then maybe some people if organizations allow so.
But of course, nothing of this will happen any time soon. Given the circumstances, we should consider ourselves lucky if corporations don't force a major world war between classes. Classes, not merely countries. Class war is what they create and like to see going on forever. Shades are unimportant, it could be oil war, could be gold war, could be slavery war, etc.
Karmel Blue
Aug 3 2013: In Australia too many jobs going off shore and now we are rising unemployment. If you lose your job over 50 impossible to get another. A lot of pensioners/students could have done these jobs part time to help meagre pensions.
- +1
That said I speak with my Telco guys in India and they tell me the call centre jobs we have given them have supplied thousands of jobs to the poor classes of Indians making their lives much better. $15 bucks a day is like $80 in their currency so does provide a 'decent' income and they are employing some women.
Companies must pander to shareholders, who want returns for their superannuation funds to live on when retired is why we pay so much for these things probably ? A vicious circle.
The collapse of the clothing building in Pakistan was a disgrace and blight on the human race. It is Pakistan who must get tough on outside companies and up the pay and conditions for their people.
Next ....why is it that people in these countries go to work in such places ? Answer better than starving to death on the streets or being sold as domestic/sexual slaves to the west.
My view is the world is not infinite and our population is 7 Billion today by 2050 12 billion people. Solution less children being born to suffer poverty, desperation, child gangs, slavery and abuse.
Jah Kable
Jul 31 2013: I appreciate what everyone is posting and love all the ideas but now i realize i have another question. Why are profits more important than a persons rights or the welfare of your country?
- +1
If we didn't outsource so much in the USA we probably wouldn't be in the huge deficit we are in today. Now with that being said please continue the conversation. :DJul 31 2013: Yes, OK. It is legal, in accord with corporate aims (low costs, bigger business, profit) and customers accept it, apparently. Including profit margin described in question. Corporations are here to satisfy demand and make profit. That´s what they do in this case and that´s why it is OK.
It does not seem to be OK that some kids must work (for 15 bucks). I don´t believe they wish to. It seems to me that they really need those money. But without Nike and others they would have 15 bucks per hour less...
Jul 31 2013: " But without Nike and others they would have 15 bucks per hour less..."
What is this a laughing stock? This is per day...$15/DAY = $1.87 per hour if ...IF this is 8 hours of work per day.
Please, someone help me find the humanity in people. Maybe it's just the people within my country? I don't know.
Jul 31 2013: Sorry, you are right, my fault. I am not from your country and dont know how to help you.
Our minimum wage is about 2,66USD per hour, average 6,6, just to compare.
Btw, I found humanity in many including myself. In this case, cannot see anything better than to give people work. Any work for any money they are willing to work for. At te same time, we can feel sorry for working children and talk about it but it will help them less than $1.87 per hour .Aug 4 2013: Victor, I can live my everyday life on $15.00 a day. It's not that hard. In fact, as a hippy, I did it on less many years ago. A four day supply of healthy dry beans only cost $1.30. a bag of flour $1.60. Salt and pepper can be found at any restaurant. People are very charitable in the the US, especially religious people. Fish and frogs can be found in many places, along with clams, oysters, crabs, etc along the coastal regions.
If you don't see that many people dying of hunger and exposure along side the roads you travel, why be concerned?, Why claim there is a problem? How many did you you see yesterday in your travels?Jul 30 2013: Wonderful question. The old time barons started to make money, and finally figured out that if your employees couldn't afford your product, it was a problem. Ford, Hershey, and Kraft are three I will use. My family worked for Kraft for over the entire period that it has existed, and they took care of their employees because it made sense. The product, and the name, meant family, and the business was a baby to the CEO. I remember when my father used to tell me he,[ Mr. Kraft] would say, "the cost doesn't matter, if it tatse's good, they will buy it." That all went out the door sometime in the middle 70's when the bottom line became King. No more real sugar, lets use corn sryup, no more real cream, lets use whey product, and it continued to degrade. The bottom line is all that counts today, the name, or product is no longer thought of as a "Baby" by the CEO's, their profit comes before all else. It totally makes sense if you realise that humans are basically asses, and that they are totally self centered. It Takes true genius to create a product, factory, and look into the future for it's safety and continuation. There are a few still standing, but decline is going to happen, because, money has become king.Jul 30 2013: Because we live in a corporate neofascist state. There is no longer a functioning democracy. It is a giant staged performance, to placate the peasants, a facade to deceive the world community. The lives, and needs of average citizens, who aren't really citizens anymore, but (disposable corporate resources), have no meaning, little power, and no say, in anything, any more. Capital knows no boundaries, no law, and no longer faces the pains of (moral hazard), a simplistic outdated concept in a world where they control the legislatures, the laws, the courts, the prisons, the military, the intelligence apparatus, and the media. They do it (because they can)! Sadly their plan of defunding public education,ripping off college students on loans, sterilizing the evening news,filling the airways with hateful divisive propaganda, has done it's job. They have successfully buried the American middle class in a desperate survival struggle, and corporate confusion to the point where they're incapable of serious resistance. I hope the young people will think of the men that stormed the beaches of Normandy, and Iwo Jima. That is the depth ,and scope of the battle they have ahead of them, against the forces of neofascism, ignorance, and international cartels. Criminal thugs who will stop at nothing to control, and enslave are in charge now. I believe the analogy popular today is (WhacK A Mole) I hope i'm proven wrong. It isn't pessimism, for I have always been an optimist. It's reality.Napoleon use to tell his men; "don't come to my tent with good news until the battle is won". "If I don't know our weaknesses, and the enemies strengths, I cannot defeat them."
Jul 31 2013: While corporations can be made subject to laws, the punishment for violation is usually a negotiated fine. Corporations recognize only one true law. They must make a maximum profit. Fines for dumping poison in streams are merely a cost of business. If more money is saved by dumping than the cost of the fine, plus the cost of approved disposal, then dump they will. To do otherwise will actually lay management open to shareholder lawsuits for failure to maximize profits. They cannot help it, they are just designed that way. You might as well pass a law demanding leopards no attack underage deer. The same application goes to treatment of employees. If the cost of lobying Congress is less than raising minimum wages, then Congress will be lobbied. If there is some other way arround raising wages, they will take it. In the early '70's Cngress took a blind eye to illegal cheep workers from Mexico. Ronald Reagen proposed more "lega; guest workers" who could work for less than min. wage. This was supported by the lobies for the manufacturers. Those same lobbies work for pharmecuticle companies, for-profit Hosp. and Insurance co. It is a simple risk-cost-profit analysis.
Jul 31 2013: Sadly my friend this is our current reality. It is an abomination of the highest order. The fines levied against massive multi billion dollar companies that destroy our most precious resources amount to a slap on the wrist,and a slap in the face of the people, and the generations unborn who will deal with the poison legacy of their crimes. There should be an international tribunal to deal with special crimes across borders. Bring justice for environmental crimes specifically, with the power to seize bank accounts, and other assets. You must go after he money or they will continue to destroy, pillage, stall, and divert attention. Another abomination is to paint people like me as anti business, anti free market, leftists. That is an insult beyond description. Most people that I know who share my view are absolutely in favor of free markets, competition, hard work, all the things essential to a healthy economy. Unfortunately the powers that be in today's world, no nothing whatsoever about free markets, but a great deal about monopoly, de' facto monopoly, and bribery.Aug 2 2013: I agree with you, though I think you've got off the thread a bit. If you haven't already read "The Global Class War" by Faux, I think you will enjoy it. Keep your chin up.
Aug 2 2013: I certainly will read The Global Class War. I'm not sure we're off thread though Clair. The old saying goes (when your a hammer everything looks like a nail) It refers, of course, to the concept of people not seeing the bigger picture when trying to fix a problem on a smaller scale. It's a problem of perception, and relative understanding. Radical misguided economists have turned theories of laissez faire into fanatical religious devotion. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Free markets are a wonderful concept both on paper, and in reality when and if they actually exist. Most of us have never seen one. What the models in the halls of academia, and think tanks of fools fail to equate is the massive upheavals, and human suffering caused in pursuit of profit by giant multinational entities. They do not suffer the slings, and arrows of (moral Hazard) We are awash in a system of structured systematic (non accountability) That's a fact. Until giant multi billion dollar corporations feel the heat, and are brought to their knees to bend to the will of the democratic societies they operate in, we will continue to face economic, and environmental disaster.
These entities, and in fact all human beings do not exist in a vacuum. What they do, what they extract, what they leave for waste, all has consequences for the planet, and society. Until we force these giants to share a substantial part of the wealth they generate, we will continue to suffer, and destroy. When an entity becomes so large, so powerful, and so destructive that they become a (de facto corporate nation state) then they must be dealt with far more harshly ,and made to pay handsomely for extraction of resources, pollution, and human capital. There must be a measurement
system to quantify environmental damage more accurately, and human suffering must be compensated fairly. Today it's a joke. They are raping us blind.Jul 30 2013: I think some of the posters here are missing the point.
Regardless of what they say, it is all empty rhetoric
and perhaps trying to sound intelligent.
The answer to your question is simple.
It is NOT okay for corporations to do what your topic question asked.
It is not okay.
If people (and their comments) cannot begin there, then they have truly lost their sense of moral direction,
belief, conviction and trust in any kind of truth whatsoever and have given up on all they once believed in.
Being legal is also not a reason. It is a cop out from morality on the part of those who are involved
with such things. They change the laws to support whatever it is they wish or decide to do.
If it isn't clear by now, that the People need to "take away their power", then I guess it never will be.
There will only be discussions such as those here on Ted, getting nothing done.
An example in the news today is the U.S. judge who ruled that "proof of harm done" by someone
suspected or charged with supposed espionage, is not required to enact the Espionage Act!
Well, one should certainly be able to see where this is leading and that is to not even have to prove someone is guilty
of a crime in order to then completely destroy their life.
And that has been happening for sometime now. One no longer needs to be actually guilty of something, but in order
for their world to be turned upside down and ruined, they only need to become a suspect in a system that spies on
everyone and makes everyone a suspect by default.
Good luck with that system.
Intellectually discussing it is morally approving it.
Jul 30 2013: "Regardless of what they say, it is all empty rhetoric"
Jul 31 2013: What does that mean?
That thing at the bottom?
Are they your glasses?
True, I am nowhere near as smart as you or as most posters here.
Jul 31 2013: actually you tell me what the heck the quote is supposed to mean. in a debate, it is generally advisable to consider what the other party says. dismissing it before the words are even uttered renders the entire discussion useless. i mean, why would i present any thoughts if you already boxed them as "empty rhetoric"?
this is nothing new though. i see that reverse logic everywhere. some people start with the assumption that they are right. then conclude that any opposition obviously must be false. the only thing in question is how they are false. this attitude is as arrogant as fruitless.Jul 29 2013: okay, why don't you buy cheap shoes, and donate the difference to some charity organizations?
Jul 30 2013: Because he can see the major flaw in capitalism. Nike's are cheap shoes! Just like every shoe is or can be. You just don't get it, do you? Pull the market back together for everyone. Bring in the boundaries if that can even be accomplished anymore.
Jul 30 2013: in this case, buy nike shoes, and send the difference over to the workers. be a little bit creative, you don't need guidance for everything.
Jul 30 2013: That is a very creative idea, lol. Maybe Nike could run that in their marketing ads! "Buy our shoes and please send an additional $200 minimum to the suppressed workers we have overseas making your shoes for the best shoe made just for you". NIKE "just do it"Jul 30 2013: have an actual point, or just goofing around? in what sense those workers are suppressed?
Jul 30 2013: Totally goofing around here as you are, so...you wouldn't mind being in or trading your shoes for theirs then wouldn't you? Maybe your 6 year old child can help as well and I run the show and you watch how I live. Hey, at least I'm giving you and your child an "opportunity", eh?Jul 30 2013: i'm not goofing around, and also don't have time for those that are
Jul 30 2013: Dumb Q=Dumb A with explanation added and question. Why would anyone goof around about this? Obviously, I can not get you to understand even if I put you in their shoes! Do you have any kids my friend? If so, would you want them and yourself slaving over $5 shoes to make and $150 (I don't know, what in this hell does a pair of Nike shoes go for?) to be sold in your so called global "free market"? I'll answer this dumb question for you: No, you simply WOULD NOT. These corporations (lol, not people) don't know tenderness from a can of beans.Jul 31 2013: just to make it clear, maybe it will change your mindset, probably not. it is not you that want to make me understand something. i understand how it works, i studied it. it is my attempt to make you understand something. the conversation reopens as soon as you realize that.
Jul 31 2013: So, you studied humanity? WOW! Apparently it didn't get you anywhere. Maybe an overdose of TV? I'm done here Kris. You take the last word.
Amos Schrum
Jul 29 2013: The corporations do what ever gives more profit and no one blames them for it, I mean we have a free market. Thats okay, the corporations are not the root of the evil, they are just the symptoms.
- +1
To ensure that children and/or adults are not exploited in the process of making that product, we have to forbid importing goods from other countries, which is impossible.
Or we have to ensure world wide enforcement of western labour laws, which lies in the distant future.
Or we accept that this is a problem made by the western consumers. Because there are fairtrade seals out there, but now one cares as much about that as about the newest trend. We have to reeducate ourselves and start caring about the effects of our consumer behavior. On a broad scale this will change the society and the world. BUT it is really hard and i feel like a hypocrite for saying that, because I don´t live like that myself.Aug 12 2013: This situation can be changed but it will take collective and intelligent action. Gandhi, for instance, knew that people couldn't just peacefully protest every action of the British because for some situations the British would lose too much face if they backed down. A fact about education, for example, is that you don't need technology at all for children to learn all they need to--really, a house full of good books and supportive parents is all that is necessary. There are many ways around Big Brother, but enough people have to act to make a difference. Big Brother has trained people to WANT so many things they don't NEED; the more people who know this and act upon it, the more things will change.Aug 12 2013: Why would a person immigrate if pay and working conditions where the same as in their home country. Immigration is created by distortion in living standards.
Yes the corporations will make less profit and yes you will have to pay more for goods, but people would not immigrate because there is no incentive to do so in a world of globally equal pay and conditions.Aug 12 2013: that's a very good point. what's the solution? tax all cross-border transactions at whatever the cost reduction is? no that wouldn't work, they'd just route funds thru a middle country that does have those labor laws.boycotts won't work because people on low and even middle incomes won't be able to buy from honest companies because of the higher price. quite a conundrum...
what about a law fixing the maximum pay of anyone in the company to say 100x the minimum of anyone working for that company even in another country? they wouldn't be able to get away with paying even $1k a year because the directors wouldn't be able to make more than $100k. would need a clause included contracted work so they couldn't use that as a loophole, though there might be others.
Aug 12 2013: bastiat explained why these ideas are wrong. 150 years ago. the memo still not getting distributed.Aug 10 2013: Let's see, big companies are bribing big governments to exploit the people into low paying jobs.... I think that is what I am understanding... There may be some truth to that, but I am not in a big company and I only see my congressional representative on TV... so I'll take you word for that.... but I see a lot of the poor people are here and awhile back I had the opportunity to go to a part of the world where people are really poor. There is a big difference. So. just who are we talking about ? The poor in LA or those in Legos?Aug 10 2013: A key factor, which all must plead guilty to, is that the immigration policies of the rich nations keep cheap labor trapped to be exploited. Low paid workers accept illegal (by first world standards) working conditions because they a prisoner within the own nation.
We have a system where corporations can move freely to low cost nations (because they have capital) while their employees in that nation are trapped by immigration laws of the first world nations. Exploitation is derived from this market distortion. Immigration policies are design to contain cheap labor – and it works.


text:
Heeia includes Haikū Valley and Heeia Kea. The population was 4,944 at the 2000 census. The area is almost entirely one of homes and apartments. Parts of Heeia lie along Kāneohe Bay, but public access is non-existent owing to private ownership of the property behind the shore.
Notable in the Heeia area are:
Heeia Kea is a community and small, undeveloped valley separated from Heeia by Heeia Marsh and Kealohi Point. Heeia Kea Small Boat Harbor, the only public pier and boat ramp on Kāneohe Bay, is found here. Several fishponds have been restored in recent years. Although fishponds were developed on most of the islands, the largest concentrations were found in Keehi Lagoon, Pearl Harbor, and Kāneohe Bay on Oahu.
The U.S. postal code for Heeia and Heeia Kea is the same as for Kāneohe: 96744.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 2.3 square miles (5.9 km²), of which, 2.0 square miles (5.3 km²) of it is land and 0.2 square miles (0.6 km²) of it is water. The total area is 10.92% water.
There were 1,557 households out of which 28.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 73.2% were married couples living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 12.2% were non-families. 9.2% of all households were made up of individuals and 3.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.17 and the average family size was 3.32.
In the CDP the population was spread out with 21.4% under the age of 18, 6.9% from 18 to 24, 24.4% from 25 to 44, 31.5% from 45 to 64, and 15.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 43 years. For every 100 females there were 98.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.4 males.
The median income for a household in the CDP was $87,528, and the median income for a family was $90,435. Males had a median income of $55,179 versus $34,983 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $33,990. 0.5% of the population and 0.0% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 0.0% of those under the age of 18 and 0.8% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The migration of the Northwest Florida Daily News & Destin Log Online Edition accounts has been completed.
Go to the link below to get set up to log in/manager your Daily News subscription.
1. Login to the iServices site.
2. Register your account with your phone number and house number.
3. Then enter your email and create a password.
4. Finally you will receive an email that they need to click on to complete the registration.
Once your account is set up you can use the link located at the top of the page to the right of the search bar.
The site should load right up for you. If it does not, and it sends you back to the login page, please login again and then try to go to the Online Edition again. If it still does not work you can call Circulation Customer Service at 800.755.1185 and tell them you cannot log in to the online edition.
I appreciate everyones patience in this matter and am very excited to watch this finally working.
If you have an issue or need assistance with your account please contact: Circulation Customer Service at 800.755.1185
Your recurring billing account through Paypal & Freedom Interactive will be terminated this next week. If you are billed again from Freedom Interactive please contact Chrisa Changala at 850.315.4434 or send an email.


text:
Mark Christie is a member of the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, which regulates the public utility, insurance and financial industries in Virginia. He was first elected by the General Assembly in 2004 and re-elected in 2010.
He has taught at the University of Virginia School of Law for the past five years. He has taught constitutional law and history at the Universities of Luzern, Switzerland and Trento, Italy through the Fulbright program, and at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. He has also taught at the Florence School of Regulation of the European University Institute, and has taught law and public policy in a doctoral program at Virginia Commonwealth University since 2000.
Christie received undergraduate degrees from Wake Forest University in history and English, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He received his law degree from Georgetown.


text:
Happy Older Americans Month 2014
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Happy Older Americans Month 2014
Citywide calendar of events
The month of May is observed annually as Older Americans Month to celebrate the many contributions of Older Americans to their communities. Older Americans Month this year is celebrated under the theme "Safe Today. Healthy Tomorrow." The D.C. Office on Aging understands the importance of injury prevention and safety awareness in helping older adults remain active, healthy, safe and prepared for emergencies. Those that are able are living active lifestyles, participating in activities and giving back to the community.


text:
ok i have an action figure that is blue looks like a big elongated head going behind him. he has one blue claw on his right hand with blood on it. and a normal human hand on his left. he has a long mouth like something you would see on a spawn clown figure with blood along his top teeth. he has some goldish armor on his feet, waist chest and his human arm elbow and shoulder. he has red eyes. i have a pic but since you cant put pics here if you want to try to answer just let me know and i can e-mail the pic to you. pls any help would be appriciated. thanks.
says i cant post links yet. you can try to find it on my facebook page. look for steven kashmark best i can do


text:
Juicy Couture Beverly Hills G&P Barbie® Dolls
For the girl with the ultimate style, taste and sophistication comes the Juicy Couture Beverly Hills G&P Barbie® dolls that all her friends will envy. The dolls are tiny replicas of Pamela Skaist-Levy and Gela Nash-Taylor, the designers and co-founders of the sensational Juicy Couture fashion empire. Showcasing the hottest fashions, both dolls wear matching re-creations of the layered silk chiffon dress that's part of Juicy Couture's Couture Couture line. Glamorous accessories include earrings, rings, necklaces, "fab" fur coats, and of course their signature bracelets, some of THE most coveted accessories in Hollywood.
© 2007 Juicy Couture, Inc. The likeness of Pamela Skaist-Levy and Gela Nash-Taylor are used under license granted by Juicy Couture, Inc. Juicy, Juicy Couture, G&P, Love G&P, Defend Your Couture, Choose Juicy, Couture Royalty, Go Couture Yourself and the Juicy Fairytale are registered trademarks of Juicy Couture, Inc.
For the adult collector.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
The play opens with the character Estragon struggling to remove his boot from his foot. Estragon eventually gives up, muttering, "Nothing to be done." His friend Vladimir takes up the thought and muses on it, the implication being that nothing is a thing that has to be done and this pair is going to have to spend the rest of the play doing it. When Estragon finally succeeds in removing his boot, he looks and feels inside but finds nothing. Just prior to this, Vladimir peers into his hat. The motif recurs throughout in the play.
The pair discusses repentance, particularly in relation to the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus, and the fact that only one of the four Evangelists mentions that one of them was saved. This is the first of numerous Biblical references in the play, which may be linked to its putative central theme of the search for and reconciliation with God, as well as salvation: "We're saved!" they cry on more than one occasion when they feel that Godot may be near.
Presently, Vladimir expresses his frustration with Estragon's limited conversational skills: "Come on, Gogo, return the ball, can't you, once in a way?". Estragon struggles in this regard throughout the play, and Vladimir generally takes the lead in their dialogue and encounters with others. Vladimir is at times hostile towards his companion, but in general they are close, frequently embracing and supporting one another.
Estragon peers out into the audience and comments on the bleakness of his surroundings. He wants to depart but is told that they cannot because they must wait for Godot. The pair cannot agree, however, on whether or not they are in the right place or that this is the arranged day for their meeting with Godot; indeed, they are not even sure what day it is. Throughout the play, experienced time is attenuated, fractured or eerily non-existent. The only thing that they are fairly sure about is that they are to meet at a tree: there is one nearby.
Estragon dozes off, but Vladimir is not interested in hearing about his dream after rousing him. Estragon wants to hear an old joke about a brothel, which Vladimir starts but cannot finish, as he is suddenly compelled to rush off and urinate. He does not finish the story when he returns, asking Estragon instead what else they might do to pass the time. Estragon suggests that they hang themselves, the idea being that this may give them erections, but they quickly abandon the idea when it seems that they might not both die: this would leave one of them alone, an intolerable notion. They decide to do nothing: "It's safer," explains Estragon, before asking what Godot is going to do for them when he arrives. For once it is Vladimir who struggles to remember: "Oh ... nothing very definite," is the best that he can manage.
When Estragon declares that he is hungry, Vladimir provides a carrot, most of which, and without much relish, the former eats. The diversion ends as it began, Estragon announcing that they still have nothing to do.
Their waiting is interrupted by the passing through of Pozzo and his heavily-laden slave Lucky, who may, according to Beckett, "shatter the space of the play". Pozzo and Lucky have been seen to represent a sort of double of Vladimir and Estragon, with similar roles, anxieties and incertitudes. At one point, Vladimir observes that they are "tied to Godot" as Lucky is tied to Pozzo. Vladimir also refers to Estragon as a "pig" several times later in the play, echoing Pozzo's abuse of Lucky.
"A terrible cry from the wings heralds the initial entrance of Lucky, who has a rope tied around his neck. He crosses half the stage before his master appears holding the other end. Pozzo barks orders at his slave and frequently calls him a "pig", but is civil towards the other two. They mistake him at first for Godot and clearly do not recognise him for the self-proclaimed personage he is. This irks him, but, while maintaining that the land that they are on is his, he acknowledges that "[t]he road is free to all".
Deciding to rest for a while, Pozzo enjoys a pre-packed meal of chicken and wine. Finished, he casts the bones aside, and Estragon jumps at the chance to ask for them, much to Vladimir's embarrassment, but is told that they belong to the carrier. He must, therefore, ask Lucky first. Estragon tries, but Lucky only hangs his head, refusing to answer. Taking this as a "no", Estragon claims the bones.
Vladimir takes Pozzo to task regarding his mistreatment of his slave, but his protestations are ignored. When the original pairing tries to find out why Lucky does not put down his load (at least not unless his master is prevailing on him to do something else), Pozzo explains that Lucky is attempting to mollify him to prevent him from selling him. At this, Lucky begins to cry. Pozzo provides a handkerchief, but, when Estragon tries to wipe his tears away, Lucky kicks him in the shins.
Before he leaves, Pozzo asks if he can do anything for the pair in exchange for the consort that they have accorded him. Estragon tries to ask for some money, but Vladimir cuts him short, explaining that they are not beggars. They nevertheless accept an offer to have Lucky dance and think.
The dance is clumsy and shuffling, and everyone is disappointed. Lucky's "think", induced by Vladimir's putting his hat on his head, is a lengthy and disjointed verbal stream of consciousness. The soliloquy begins relatively coherently but quickly dissolves into logorrhoea — the rubble of a collapsing house of intellect — and only ends when a het-up Vladimir, on the advice of a bored Pozzo, rips off Lucky's hat.
The soliloquy is full of classical references, as well as words that are distorted versions of ordinary words, slang and vulgar speech — "Belcher" as "belch", "Fartov" as "fart", "Testew" as "testes", "Cunard" as "cunt", "possy" as "pussy" and "Feckham" as "fuck him". These words, although crude, describe normal human functions, which in some ways bring the discourse "down to earth". They also, however, represent or indicate a disordered and disintegrating mind, one perhaps disturbed by too much waiting.
Some other unusual words include "apathia", which is synonymous with "apathy"; "aphasia", the loss of ability to understand or to express speech owing to brain damage; and "athambia", the meaning of which has been subject to debate, but which may be broadly interpreted, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as "imperturbability". The implication may be that God is unfeeling, unseeing and inattentive. Also repeated is the word "quaquaqua", which may simply be meaningless sound, but which is similar to "quaquaversal", which means "pointing in every direction", appropriate to Lucky's roundabout discourse.
Broadly speaking, Lucky's speech falls into four gambits: "the first describes an impersonal and callous God, the second asserts that man 'wastes and pines', the third mourns an inhospitable earth and the last attempts to draw the threads of the speech together by claiming that man diminishes in a world that does not nurture him. It may be summarized as follows:
[A]cknowledging the existence of a personal God, one who exists outside time and who loves us dearly and who suffers with those who are plunged into torment, it is established beyond all doubt that man for reasons unknown, has left his labours, abandoned, unfinished.
Once Lucky has been revived, Pozzo has him pack up his things and, together, they leave. At the end of the act (and its successor), a boy arrives, purporting to be a messenger sent from Godot, to advise the pair that he will not be coming that "evening but surely tomorrow. During Vladimir's interrogation of the boy, he asks if he came the day before, making it apparent that the two men have been waiting for an indefinite period and will likely continue to wait ad infinitum. After the boy departs, they decide to leave but make no attempt to do so, an action repeated in Act II, as the curtain is drawn.
Act II opens with Vladimir singing a round about a dog which serves to illustrate the cyclical nature of the play's universe, and also points toward the play's debt to the carnivalesque, music hall traditions and vaudeville comedy (this is only one of a number of canine references and allusions in the play). There is a bit of realization on Vladimir's part that the world they are trapped in evinces convoluted progression (or lack thereof) of time. He begins to see that although there is notional evidence of linear progression, basically he is living the same day over and over. Eugene Webb writes of Vladimir's song that "Time in the song is not a linear sequence, but an endlessly reiterated moment, the content of which is only one eternal event: death."
Once again Estragon maintains he spent the night in a ditch and was beaten – by "ten of them" this time – though once again he shows no sign of injury. Vladimir tries to talk to him about what appears to be a seasonal change in the tree and the proceedings of the day before, but he has only a vague recollection. Vladimir tries to get Estragon to remember Pozzo and Lucky but all he can call to mind are the bones and getting kicked. Vladimir realizes here an opportunity to produce tangible evidence of the previous day's events. With some difficulty he gets Estragon to show him his leg. There is a wound which is beginning to fester. It is then Vladimir notices that Estragon is not wearing any boots.
He discovers the pair of boots, which Estragon insists are not his. Nevertheless, when he tries them on they fit. There being no carrots left, Vladimir offers Estragon the choice between a turnip and a radish. He opts for the radish but it is black and he hands it back. He decides to try and sleep again and adopts the same fetal position as the previous day. Vladimir sings him a lullaby.
Vladimir notices Lucky's hat, and he decides to try it on. This leads to a frenetic hat swapping scene (which was mimicked by Harold Pinter in The Caretaker). They play at imitating Pozzo and Lucky, but Estragon can barely remember having met them and simply does what Vladimir asks. They fire insults at each other and then make up. After that, they attempt some physical jerks which don't work out well, and even attempt a single yoga position, which fails miserably.
Pozzo and Lucky then arrive, with Pozzo now blind and insisting that Lucky is dumb. The rope is now much shorter and Lucky – who has acquired a new hat – leads Pozzo, rather than being driven by him. Pozzo has lost all notion of time, and assures them he cannot remember meeting them the day before, and that he does not expect to remember the current day's events when they are over.
They fall in a heap at one point. Estragon sees an opportunity to extort more food or to exact revenge on Lucky for kicking him. The issue is debated at length. Pozzo offers them money but Vladimir sees more worth in their entertainment value since they are compelled to wait to see if Godot arrives anyway. Eventually though, they all find their way onto their feet.
Whereas the Pozzo in Act I is a windbag, since he has become blind he appears to have gained some insight. His parting words – which Vladimir expands upon later – eloquently encapsulate the brevity of human existence: "They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."
Lucky and Pozzo depart. The same boy returns to inform them not to expect Godot today, but he would arrive the next day. The two again consider suicide but their rope, Estragon's belt, breaks in two when they tug on it. Estragon's trousers fall down, but he doesn't notice till Vladimir tells him to pull them up. They resolve to bring a more suitable piece and hang themselves the next day, if Godot fails to arrive.
Again, they agree to leave but neither of them makes any move to go.
Beckett refrained from elaborating on the characters beyond what he had written in the play. He once recalled them when Sir Ralph Richardson "wanted the low-down on Pozzo, his home address and curriculum vitae, and seemed to make the forthcoming of this and similar information the condition of his condescending to illustrate the part of Vladimir … I told him that all I knew about Pozzo was in the text, that if I had known more I would have put it in the text, and that was true also of the other characters."
When Beckett started writing he did not have a visual image of Vladimir and Estragon. They are never referred to as tramps in the text. Roger Blin advises: "Beckett heard their voices, but he couldn't describe his characters to me. [He said]: 'The only thing I'm sure of is that they're wearing bowlers.'" "The bowler hat was of course de rigueur for male persons in many social contexts when Beckett was growing up in Foxrock (when he first came back with his beret … his mother suggested that he was letting the family down by not wearing a bowler), and [his father] commonly wore one." There are no physical descriptions of either of the two characters however the text indicates that Vladimir is likely the heavier of the pair. They have been together for fifty years but when asked – by Pozzo – they don't reveal their actual ages.
Vladimir stands through most of the play whereas Estragon sits down numerous times and even dozes off. "Estragon is inert and Vladimir restless." Vladimir looks at the sky and muses on religious or philosophical matters. Estragon literally "belongs to the stone", preoccupied with mundane things, what he can get to eat and how to ease his physical aches and pains; he is direct, intuitive. He finds it hard to remember but can recall certain things when prompted, e.g. when Vladimir asks: "Do you remember the Gospels?" Estragon tells him about the coloured maps of the Holy Land and that he planned to honeymoon by the Dead Sea; it is his short-term memory that is poorest and points to the fact that he may, in fact, be suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Al Alvarez writes. "But perhaps Estragon's forgetfulness is the cement binding their relationship together. He continually forgets, Vladimir continually reminds him; between them they pass the time."
Vladimir's life is not without its discomforts too but he is the more resilient of the pair. "Vladimir's pain is primarily mental anguish, which would thus account for his voluntary exchange of his hat for Lucky's, thus signifying Vladimir's symbolic desire for another person's thoughts."
Throughout the play the couple refer to each other by pet names, "Didi" and "Gogo" although one of the boys addresses Vladimir as "Mister Albert". Beckett originally intended to call Estragon, Lévy but when Pozzo questions him he gives his name as "Magrégor, André" and also responds to "Catulle" in French or "Catullus" in the first Faber edition. This became "Adam" in the American edition. Beckett's only explanation was that he was "fed up with Catullus".
Vivian Mercier – famous for describing Waiting for Godot as a play which "has achieved a theoretical impossibility—a play in which nothing happens, that yet keeps audiences glued to their seats. What's more, since the second act is a subtly different reprise of the first, he has written a play in which nothing happens, twice." (Irish Times, 18 February, 1956, p. 6.) – once questioned Beckett on the language used by the pair: "It seemed to me … he made Didi and Gogo sound as if they had earned Ph.D.'s. 'How do you know they hadn't?' was his reply." They clearly have known better times, a visit to the Eiffel Tower and grape-harvesting by the Rhône; it is about all either has to say about their pasts. In the first stage production, which Beckett oversaw, both are "more shabby-genteel than ragged … Vladimir at least is capable of being scandalised … on a matter of etiquette when Estragon begs for chicken bones or money."
Although Beckett refused to be drawn on the backgrounds of the characters this has not stopped actors looking for their own motivation. Jean Martin had a doctor friend called Marthe Gautier, who was working at the Salpêtrièe Hospital, and he said to her: "'Listen, Marthe, what could I find that would provide some kind of physiological explanation for a voice like the one written in the text?' [She] said: 'Well, it might be a good idea if you went to see the people who have Parkinson's disease.' So I asked her about the disease … She explained how it begins with a trembling, which gets more and more noticeable, until later the patient can no longer speak without the voice shaking. So I said, 'That sounds exactly what I need.'" "Sam and Roger were not entirely convinced by my interpretation but had no objections." When he explained to Beckett that he was playing Lucky as if he were suffering from Parkinson's, Beckett said, "'Yes, of course.' He mentioned briefly that his mother had had Parkinson's, but quickly moved on to another subject."
"When Beckett was asked why Lucky was so named, he replied, "I suppose he is lucky to have no more expectations…"
Although it has been contended that "Pozzo and Lucky are simply Didi and Gogo writ large there is a different kind of dynamic at work here. Pozzo may be mistaken for Godot by the two men but, as far as Lucky goes, Pozzo is his Godot, another way in which he is lucky. Their association is not as clear cut as it first seems however for "upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that Lucky always possessed more influence in the relationship, for he danced, and more importantly, thought – not as a service, but in order to fill a vacant need of Pozzo: he committed all of these acts for Pozzo. As such, since the first appearance of the duo, the true slave had always been Pozzo." Pozzo credits Lucky with having given him all the culture, refinement, and ability to reason that he possesses. His rhetoric has been learned by rote. Pozzo's 'party piece' on the sky is a case in point, as his memory crumbles he finds himself unable to continue under his own steam.
We learn very little about Pozzo besides the fact that he is on his way to the fair to sell his slave, Lucky. He presents himself very much as the Ascendancy landlord, bullying and conceited. His pipe is made by Kapp and Peterson, Dublin's best-known tobacconists (their slogan was 'The thinking man's pipe') which he refers to as a "briar" but which Estragon calls a "dudeen" emphasising the differences in their social standing. He confesses to a poor memory but it is more a result of an abiding self-absorption. "Pozzo is a character who has to overcompensate. That's why he overdoes things … and his overcompensation has to do with a deep insecurity in him. These were things Beckett said, psychological terms he used."
Pozzo controls Lucky by means of an extremely long rope which he jerks and tugs if Lucky is the least bit slow. Lucky is the absolutely subservient slave of Pozzo and he unquestioningly does his every bidding with "dog-like devotion". 'Lucky' is a dog's name. He struggles with a heavy suitcase without ever thinking of dropping it. Lucky speaks only once in the play and it is a result of Pozzo's order to "think" for Estragon and Vladimir. Pozzo and Lucky had been together for sixty years and, in that time, their relationship has deteriorated. Lucky has always been the intellectually superior but now, with age, he has become an object of contempt: his "think" is a caricature of intellectual thought and his "dance" is a sorry sight. Despite his horrid treatment at Pozzo's hand however, Lucky remains completely faithful to him. Even in the second act when Pozzo has inexplicably gone blind, and needs to be led by Lucky rather than driving him as he had done before, Lucky remains faithful and has not tried to run away; they are clearly bound together by more than a piece of rope in the same way that Didi and Gogo are "[t]ied to Godot". Beckett's advice to the American director Alan Schneider was: "[Pozzo] is a hypomaniac and the only way to play him is to play him mad."
"In his [English] translation … Beckett struggled to retain the French atmosphere as much as possible, so that he delegated all the English names and places to Lucky, whose own name, he thought, suggested such a correlation."
The cast list specifies only one boy.
The boy in Act I, a local lad, assures Vladimir that this is the first time he has seen him. He says he was not there the previous day. He confirms he works for Mr Godot as a goat herder. His brother, who coincidentally Godot beats, is a shepherd. Godot feeds both of them and allows them to sleep in his hayloft.
The boy in Act II also assures Vladimir that it was not he who called upon them the day before. He insists that this too is his first visit. When Vladimir asks what Godot does the boy tells him; "He does nothing, sir." We also learn he has a white beard – possibly, the boy is not certain. This boy also has a brother who it seems is sick but there is no clear evidence to suggest that his brother is the boy that came in Act I or the one who came the day before that.
As messengers from Godot, those who take a Christian interpretation of the play naturally cast the boys in the role of angels.
The identity of Godot has been the subject of much debate. "When Colin Duckworth asked Beckett point-blank whether Pozzo was Godot, the author replied: 'No. It is just implied in the text, but it's not true.'"
"When Roger Blin asked him who or what Godot stood for, Beckett replied that it suggested itself to him by the slang word for boot in French, godillot, godasse because feet play such a prominent role in the play. This is the explanation he has given most often."
"Beckett said to Peter Woodthorpe that he regretted calling the absent character 'Godot', because of all the theories involving God to which this had given rise. "I also told [Ralph] Richardson that if by Godot I had meant God I would [have] said God, and not Godot. This seemed to disappoint him greatly." That said, Beckett did once concede, "It would be fatuous of me to pretend that I am not aware of the meanings attached to the word 'Godot', and the opinion of many that it means 'God'. But you must remember – I wrote the play in French, and if I did have that meaning in my mind, it was somewhere in my unconscious and I was not overtly aware of it." "Beckett has often stressed the strong unconscious impulses that partly control his writing; he has even spoken of being 'in a trance' when he writes."
What if Godot were to arrive? The play suggests that were this to happen only one of the two tramps would benefit. Of the two thieves crucified along with Jesus only one was saved, of the two boys who work for Godot only one appears safe from beatings, "Beckett [even] said, only half-jokingly, that [only] one of Estragon's feet was saved"; it is perhaps better for the pair of them that he does not come.
The name "Godot" is pronounced in Britain and Ireland with the emphasis on the first syllable (i.e. /'gɒ.dəʊ/); in North America it is usually pronounced with an emphasis on the second syllable (i.e. /gə'doʊ/). Beckett himself said the emphasis should be on the first syllable, and that the North American pronunciation is a mistake.
There is only one scene throughout both acts. Two men are waiting on a country road by a tree. The script calls for Estragon to sit on a low mound but in practice – as in Beckett's own 1975 German production – this is usually a stone. In the first act the tree is bare. In the second, a few leaves have appeared despite the script specifying that it is the next day. The minimal description calls to mind "the idea of the 'lieu vague', a location which should not be particularised".
Alan Schneider once suggested putting the play on in a round – Pozzo has often been commented on as a ringmaster – but Beckett dissuaded him: "I don't in my ignorance agree with the round and feel Godot needs a very closed box." He once even contemplated at one point have "faint shadow of bars on stage floor" but, in the end, decided against this level of what he called "explicitation". (See Beckett in Berlin) In his 1975 Schiller-Theatre production there are times when Didi and Gogo appear to bounce off something "like birds trapped in the strands of [an invisible] net", to use James Knowlson's description. Didi and Gogo are only trapped because they still cling to the concept that freedom is possible; freedom is a state of mind, so is imprisonment.
I cannot explain my plays. Each must find out for himself what is meant.|||Samuel Beckett|
Throughout the work one can find religious, philosophical, classical, psychoanalytical and biographical – especially wartime – references, there are ritualistic aspects and elements literally lifted from vaudeville and there is a danger in making more of these than what they are, merely structural conveniences, avatars into which the writer places his fictional characters. The play "exploits several archetypal forms and situations, all of which lend themselves to both comedy and pathos." Beckett makes this point emphatically clear in the opening notes to Film: "No truth value attaches to the above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience." He made another important remark to Lawrence Harvey, saying that his "work does not depend on experience – [it is] not a record of experience. Of course you use it."
Waiting for Godot also illustrates an attitude toward man's experience on earth: the poignancy, oppression, camaraderie, hope, corruption, and bewilderment of human experience that can only be reconciled in mind and art of the absurdist. If Godot is God, then Didi and Gogo's (mankind's) faith in God is not only subject to doubt, but may also have almost entirely disappeared. Yet the illusion of faith--that deeply embedded hope that Godot might come--still flickers in the minds of Vladimir and Estragon. It is almost as if the faith of these two men has been tested to such extremes that they can perfectly well see the logic of renouncing it--but they cannot completely.
Beckett tired quickly of "the endless misunderstanding." As far back as 1955 he said "Why people have to complicate a thing so simple I can't make out." However, he has not been forthcoming with anything more than cryptic clues. "Peter Woodthrope [who played Estragon] remembered asking him one day in a taxi what the play was really about: 'It's all symbiosis, Peter; it's symbiosis,' answered Beckett."
Beckett directed the play for the Schiller-Theatre in 1975. Although he had overseen many productions this was the first time he took complete control; Walter Asmus was his conscientious, young assistant director. "The production was not naturalistic. Beckett explained:
Over the years, Beckett clearly realised that the greater part of Godot's success was down to the fact that it was open to a variety of readings and that this was not necessarily a bad thing. Beckett himself sanctioned "one of the most famous mixed-race productions of Godot to be performed at the Baxter Theatre in the University of Cape Town, directed by Donald Howarth, with … two black actors, John Kani and Winston Ntshona, playing Didi and Gogo; Pozzo, dressed in checked shirt and gumboots reminiscent of an Afrikaaner landlord, and Lucky ('a shanty town piece of white trash') were played by two white actors, Bill Flynn and Peter Piccolo … The Baxter production has often been portrayed as if it were an explicitly political production, when in fact it received very little emphasis. What such a reaction showed, however, was that, although the play can in no way be taken as a political allegory, there are elements that are relevant to any local situation in which one man is being exploited or oppressed by another."
Other interpretations abound.
Beckett was not open to every new approach to his work and he famously objected when, in the 1980s several women's acting companies began staging the play. "Women don't have prostates," said Beckett, a reference to the fact that Vladimir frequently has to leave the stage to urinate on account of his enlarged prostate. In 1988 he took a Dutch theatre company, De Haarlemse Toneelschuur to court over this issue. "Beckett … lost his case. But the issue of gender seemed to him to be so vital a distinction for a playwright to make that he reacted angrily, instituting a ban on all productions of his plays in The Netherlands." In 1991 "Judge Huguette Le Foyer de Costil ruled that the production would not cause excessive damage to Beckett's legacy" and the play was performed by the all-female cast of the Brut de Beton Theater Company at the prestigious Avignon Festival. The Italian Pontedera Theatre Foundation won a similar claim in 2006 when they replaced Vladimir and Estragon with two female actors albeit playing the roles as males. A 2001 production at Indiana University staged the play with women playing Pozzo and the Boy.
"[I]t was Beckett's escape from the increasingly despotic interiority of the fictional trilogy; in Beckett's own phrasing, 'I began to write Godot as a relaxation, to get away from the awful prose I was writing at the time.'" It was inspired, according to Beckett himself, by a painting by Caspar David Friedrich. Ruby Cohn recalls seeing the painting, Man and Woman Contemplating the Moon of 1824, along with Beckett who "announced unequivocally, 'This was the source of Waiting for Godot, you know.'" "He may well have confused two paintings since, at other times, he drew the attention of friends to Two Men Contemplating the Moon from 1819, in which two men dressed in cloaks and viewed from the rear are looking at a full moon framed by the black branches of a large, leafless tree." In either case both paintings are similar enough that what he attested to could apply equally to either. However, some sources point to conversations between Suzanne Deschevaux-Dumesnil and Beckett in Roussillon as the inspiration for the work. Beckett admitted such in a New York Post interview by Jerry Tallmer
"[O]n 17th February 1952 … an abridged version of the play was performed in the studio of the Club d'Essai de la Radio and was broadcast on [French] radio … [A]lthough he sent a polite note that Roger Blin read out, Beckett himself did not turn up." Part of his introduction reads:
The Minuit edition appeared in print on 17th October 1952 in advance of the play's first full theatrical performance. On January 4th 1953, "[t]hirty reviewers came to the générale of En attendant Godot before the public opening … Contrary to later legend, the reviewers were kind … Some dozen reviews in daily newspapers range[d] from tolerant to enthusiastic ... Reviews in the weeklies [were] longer and more fervent; moreover, they appeared in time to lure spectators to that first thirty-day run" which began on 5th January 1953 at the Théâtre de Babylone, Paris. Early public performances were not, however, without incident: during one performance "the curtain had to be brought down after Lucky's monologue as twenty, well-dressed, but disgruntled spectators whistled and hooted derisively … One of the protesters [even] wrote a vituperative letter dated 2nd February 1953 to Le Monde."
The cast comprised Pierre Latour (Estragon), Lucien Raimbourg (Vladimir), Jean Martin (Lucky) and Roger Blin (Pozzo). The actor due to play Pozzo found a more remunerative role and so the director – a shy, lean man in real life – had to step in and play the stout bombaster himself with a pillow amplifying his stomach. Both boys were played by Serge Lecointe. The entire production was done on the thinnest of shoestring budgets; the large battered valise that Martin carried "was found among the city's refuse by the husband of the theatre dresser on his rounds as he worked clearing the dustbins," for example.
A particularly significant production – from Beckett's perspective – took place in Lüttringhausen Prison near Wuppertal in Germany. An inmate obtained a copy of the French first edition, translated it himself into German and obtained permission to stage the play. The first night had been on 29th November 1953. He wrote to Beckett in October 1954: "You will be surprised to be receiving a letter about your play Waiting for Godot, from a prison where so many thieves, forgers, toughs, homos, crazy men and killers spend this bitch of a life waiting … and waiting … and waiting. Waiting for what? Godot? Perhaps." Beckett was intensely moved and intended to visit the prison to see a last performance of the play but it never happened. This marked "the beginning of Beckett's enduring links with prisons and prisoners … He took a tremendous interest in productions of his plays performed in prisons … He [even] gave [Rick Cluchey] a former prisoner from San Quentin financial and moral support over a period of many years." Cluchey played Vladimir in two productions in the former Gallows room of the San Quentin California State Prison, which had been converted into a 65-seat theatre and, like the German prisoner before him, went on to work on a variety of Beckett's plays after his release.
The English-language premiere was on 3rd August 1955 at the Arts Theatre, London, directed by the 24-year-old Peter Hall Again, the printed version preceded it (New York: Grove Press, 1954) but Faber's "mutilated" edition did not materialise until 1956. A "corrected" edition was subsequently produced in 1965. "The most accurate text is in Theatrical Notebooks I, (Ed.) Dougald McMillan and James Knowlson (Faber and Grove, 1993). It is based on Beckett's revisions for his Schiller-Theatre production (1975) and the London San Quentin Drama Workshop, based on the Schiller production but revised further at the Riverside Studios (March 1984)."
Like all of Beckett's translations, Waiting for Godot is not simply a literal translation of En attendant Godot. "Small but significant differences separate the French and English text. Some, like Vladimir's inability to remember the farmer's name (Bonnelly), show how the translation became more indefinite, attrition and loss of memory more pronounced." A number of biographical details were removed, all adding to a general "vaguening" of the text which he continued to trim for the rest of his life.
In the nineteen-fifties, theatre was strictly censored in the UK, to Beckett's amazement since he thought it a bastion of free speech. The Lord Chamberlain insisted that the word "erection" be removed, "'Fartov' became 'Popov' and Mrs Gozzo had 'warts' instead of 'clap'". Indeed, there were attempts to ban the play completely. For example, Lady Dorothy Howitt wrote to the Lord Chamberlain, saying: "One of the many themes running through the play is the desire of two old tramps continually to relieve themselves. Such a dramatisation of lavatory necessities is offensive and against all sense of British decency. "The first unexpurgated version of Godot in England … opened at the Royal Court on 30th December 1964."
The London run was not without incident. The actor Peter Bull, who played Pozzo, recalls the reaction of that first night audience:
The critics were less than unkind but "[e]verything changed on Sunday 7th August 1955 with Kenneth Tynan's and Harold Hobson's reviews in The Observer and The Sunday Times. Beckett was always grateful to the two reviewers for their support … which more or less transformed the play overnight into the rage of London." "At the end of the year, the Evening Standard Drama Awards were held for the first time ... Feelings ran high and the opposition, led by Sir Malcolm Sargent, threatened to resign if Godot won [The Best New Play category]. An English compromise was worked out by changing the title of the award. Godot became The Most Controversial Play of the Year. It is a prize that has never been given since."
Beckett resisted offers to film the play, although it was televised in his lifetime. When Keep Films made Beckett an offer to film an adaptation in which Peter O'Toole would feature, Beckett tersely told his French publisher to advise them: "I do not want a film of Godot." The BBC broadcast a production of Waiting for Godot on 26th June 1961, a version for radio having already been transmitted on 25th April 1960. Beckett watched the programme with a few close friends in Peter Woodthorpe's Chelsea flat. He was unhappy with what he saw. "My play," he said, "wasn't written for this box. My play was written for small men locked in a big space. Here you're all too big for the place."
Although not his favourite amongst his plays – perhaps because of the way it came to overshadow everything else he wrote – it was the work which brought Beckett fame and financial stability and as such it always held a special place in his affections. "When the manuscript and rare books dealer, Henry Wenning, asked him if he could sell the original French manuscript for him, Beckett replied: 'Rightly or wrongly have decided not to let Godot go yet. Neither sentimental nor financial, probably peak of market now and never such an offer. Can't explain.'"


text:
Oct-Dec 2013 New Books Catalog: 20% OFF ALL TITLES
We have put together this online catalog filled with the latest psychology books published by Psychology Press, Routledge and Guilford Press.
Use your discount code to get 20% off books in this catalog! Simply enter discount code ICAT3 upon check out.
Code expires December 31, 2013. This discount cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer and is only available on print books purchased by individuals at www.psypress.com or www.routledge.com. Sorry, this offer is not valid for customers in Australia and New Zealand.