Stressful working conditions at Foxconn’s factory in Shenzhen, China, which assembles electronic goods such as Apple’s iPhone and iPad, have been blamed for a string of recent suicides. These suicides expose the existence of an underlying structural problem with production. This problem lies within the context of capitalism and globalization, where governments and capitalists are the main players and workers the sole victims.
One hundred and fifty academics in Taiwan have signed a petition calling on Foxconn, Apple and the Chinese government to take full responsibility for the suicides at the company. It is time this aspect of the current production model is brought to light.
For every iPad that Apple sells, it makes a profit of more than 50 percent, but labor costs account for less than 3 percent of the retail price. With such tight profit margins, plants manufacturing products for companies like Apple are forced to get as much as they can from their workforce and suppress salaries, keeping them as low as possible.
The Chinese government is another key link in the chain of capitalism and globalization. Ever since the implementation of the new Labor Contract Law, China has, in theory, become a better place for workers, with certain rights guaranteed. You now read reports in newspapers of capitalists complaining about how the Chinese government is becoming more demanding about workers’ conditions, making it more difficult to operate a business in China. That being said, there is still a lack of willingness or intention to implement these regulations within the government, to the extent that the law is merely a point of reference.
The point to be emphasized here is that the Chinese government has a vested interest in the capitalist mode of production. It is inconceivable that the government is unaware of the degree to which workers’ rights are being sacrificed.
Nevertheless, it continues to propagate this unfair labor system and relations of production, as the economic and political benefits of so doing are more apparent than either the potential outcomes of the strict implementation of the Labor Contract Law or the scrapping of the household registration or class systems. The law is no more than a showpiece to give the world the impression that China cares about workers’ rights.
Put simply, the Chinese government is exploiting its cheap labor resources to attract foreign investment, which in turn enables domestic industry to absorb new technologies and gain the benefit of foreign experience, to China’s own political and economic advantage. What Foxconn represents is a corporate enterprise exploiting loopholes that the Chinese government allows to exist in the household registration and class systems, in order to propagate capitalism and squeeze out any surplus value to be had.
Apple is an example of a multinational enterprise exploiting the phenomenon of globalization to expand and consolidate their global presence and marketing of their products. The fruits of their success do not trickle down to the worker, who sees none of them in his or her pay.
Furthermore, the worker is impotent in the face of Foxconn’s decision to relocate somewhere wages are even lower, and will perhaps even face unemployment down the line.
And how about the iPhone and iPad that we can’t seem to get enough of? Well, they represent the convergence of greedy capitalists, obliging governments and exploited workers.
Lee Fa-hsien is a post-doctoral fellow in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Sun Yat-sen University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing