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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry