"Social justice" is the catchword name for a late 20th Century and early 21st Century movement which opposes "capitalism" and the corporate abuse of Third World labour. Much neo-proto-neo-marxist rhetoric (from those who endorse "social justice" and despise "capitalism" and "globalization") clashes against proto-neo-proto-libertarian rhetoric (from those who endorse the "free market" and disparage "statism") in any discussion of "social justice;" here's my attempt to sort out some of the issues and look at what's really being discussed.
Is free trade at fault for contributing to the oppression of Third World workers?
No.
Are established business interests?
Yes!
Globalization, that is the emergence of a division of labor in which people in all parts of the world can participate? Hooray. Big firms that operate in dozens of countries? Hooray. The rich getting richer? The world getting smaller? These are the benchmarks of our civilization. It is thanks to financiers having huge amounts of money to throw into research and prospecting that has advanced our technology and civil society in leaps and bounds. But: Today, there's a problem.
So many modern "radicals" toe the party line, inarticulately decrying the "excesses" of "capitalism." In fact, the problem isn't capitalism per se – the problem is plutocracy and protectionism hiding behind a veneer of consumerism-cum-propaganda.
The real problem with globalization lies in the way the means of production are contracted. Few modern multinational mega-corporations actually manufacture their products; for the most part, they only "brand" them – ie., turn them into a "brand name" product as opposed to a generic one, a process perceived to have little to do with the actual quality of the product. Instead, the corporations subcontract to manufacturers overseas, mostly in Asia and Africa. Usually there will be a further division between manufacturing the parts of a product and then the assembly, with different companies doing either. Usually there are several companies who are on the same project.
Now, when these multinational corporations are hunting for manufacturers, they have only one overriding consideration: price. Quality of product or company ethos are considered largely irrelevant, unless they help sell enough units to raise revenues sufficiently to justify the added cost. The company with the lowest price wins, with no questions asked about just how the prices got so low or what, exactly, was being cut out of the bill. This shirking of responsibility to the consumer on the part of the corporation is horrible in itself (considering that the end-consumers aren't alerted to how these decisions are made), but the problem is worse.
So what is being cut out of the bill? Pesky things like freedom and accountability. These manufacturers are often in bed with dictatorship; they are permitted to set up shop in export processing zones or comparable territory, where labor is extracted by force, and workers aren't permitted to unionize (and if they try they may be imprisoned or even executed mob-style). Workers also aren't permitted to learn the actual value of their labor, or its revenue product; any clue as to how much the product is selling in North America (sometimes with a 2,000% markup, with one product, of dozens made by one worker every day, selling for five weeks' wages) is ruthlessly squashed and prevented from reaching the worker.
Who is establishing these epz's? In some cases, it's countries whose governing philosophy is explicitly and specifically (and obviously, hypocritically) based on improving the lot of the worker, like China. In other cases, it's a democratic nation like the Phillipines or Mexico (who has set up many epz's near the US border, where they are known as maquilladoras). The US territory of the North Marianas has a few sweatshops of its own – which are particularly hard to avoid, since even products made here are permitted to label their products, "Made in America." In all cases, it's a desperate state hoping and praying for the magic of trickledown without realizing that the economic theory in question hinges critically on the employee's ability to negotiate wages freely with the employer, just as the employer negotiates with the shareholders and the consumers.
To reiterate: The problem isn't capitalism. There are solutions to the problem of globalization that are completely consistent with continuing to divorce governments from the market. Specifically, we need to see what's being denied these workers: The right to freely associate, form negotiating organizations, and get information about the market. They're being coerced and defrauded. Their governments and the corporations are in complicity. When a state uses force to prevent members of an industry – any industry – from learning the value of their product or service and from negotiating on that basis, it's an affront to the idea of free market. In this case, the industry in question is labor. The problem is state interference!
So what are we supposed to do about it? There are a few things. First, our local governments can start approaching corporations as consumers. For example, a given town, county, state, or nation might decide, "Our police aren't going to wear uniforms made by this corporation," or, "Our playgrounds aren't going to use equipment from that corporation." Also, put the word out on the street to the average consumer (usually kids) that branded goods are made by people who aren't getting a living wage, and this means that the company won't open a factory that will employ your parents so that your family isn't poor anymore. In other words, mass boycott.
Another requirement is some way to hold corporations accountable for their ethical claims. Two of the most important requirements here is third party evaluation and an increase of worker information and freedom. For example, if Nike issued a manifesto tomorrow declaring its commitment to human rights, it's not enough simply to distribute it in the US in English — it would also need to be distributed in Thailand in Thai, Indonesia in Bahasa (at least), China in various languages, etc. Then, workers in those countries must have the freedom to act on this information, bartering for better wages.
Furthermore, while companies compete in terms of price and ethos, they must also compete once again in terms of quality. $100-shoes are materially only worth, maybe, $30. The extra $70 goes to marketing, because companies compete to "brand" their articles, to make them cooler without actually having to make them better. Corporations must be pressured into playing the commodity market once again, rather than the prestige market. That can't happen by legislation, though; that's entirely a consumer-end initiative.
We can't afford to pretend that big business represents free trade or pursues it as an agenda. Radicals can't afford to complain about capitalism and take up Marxist slogans in the name of social justice. That gives big business the upper hand of moral superiority. In actual fact, the problem is plutocracy and protectionism – corporations using their money to directly or indirectly bribe foreign governments into suspending the rights of their subjects and citizens. This is undemocratic. It is anti-capitalistic.