Does a sweatshop worker in Southeast Asia who has just been laid off from their job and cannot find another one because their economy has been hyperfocused on producing textiles due to globalisation and IMF loans and there is an ongoing recession and they don't have the money to move away from their country nor could they anyway because of racist border policies have the freedom to negotiate their labor for money or goods or whatever else they want in exchange? Sounds to me like the capitalist has come away from that negotiating table and said "No, actually. You can starve to death."
This isn't a hypothetical question. You owe an answer to 700,000 workers in Pakistan, a country in which 40% of the country is employed in the textile industry.
Does a sweatshop worker in Southeast Asia who has just been laid off from their job and cannot find another one because their economy has been hyperfocused on producing textiles due to globalisation and IMF loans and there is an ongoing recession and they don't have the money to move away from their country nor could they anyway because of racist border policies have the freedom to negotiate their labor for money or goods or whatever else they want in exchange? Sounds to me like the capitalist has come away from that negotiating table and said "No, actually. You can starve to death."
This isn't a hypothetical question. You owe an answer to 700,000 workers in Pakistan, a country in which 40% of the country is employed in the textile industry.
You also have the freedom to not hand over the money when the robber has a gun to your head
In that case, the only reason they wouldn't be able to find work is because of the anti-capitalist policies.
Nonsense. Capitalism has always required policies that suppress the ability of labour to find work. It literally doesn't function otherwise.