Foxconn

[Bud Struggle]

The perfect storm between Capitalism and Communism:

http://gizmodo.com/search/%23foxconn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn

And:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_24/b4182035750226.htm


The Chinese maker of iPhones and iPads has seen a rash of suicides—which may be a price of turning out low-price, high-quality goods

Terry Gou says he has no idea why so many of his employees are killing themselves. Gou is the founder and chairman of Foxconn, the world's largest electronics contract manufacturer—the maker of iPhones and iPads for Apple, computers for Dell, and countless other devices for well-known high-tech customers around the world. So far this year, 10 Foxconn workers have committed suicide. "From a logical, scientific standpoint, I don't have a grasp on that," Gou told reporters on May 27 at a press conference at the company's vast production facility in Shenzhen, China. "No matter how you force me, I don't know."

Ask around among the more than 250,000 workers at the Shenzhen complex, and you'll find explanations. One 21-year-old assembly-line worker, who asked that his name not be used, says conditions at Foxconn make his life seem meaningless. He says conversation on the production line is forbidden, bathroom breaks are kept to 10 minutes every two hours, and workers get yelled at frequently.

No one disputes that Taipei-based Foxconn, also known as Hon Hai, has cultivated a tough culture. The company generates more revenue in a year than Apple, Dell, or Microsoft. It has grown in profitable obscurity to become an industry juggernaut for a simple reason, says Pamela Gordon of Technology Forecasters, a supply-chain research firm: "It's the prices. Their prices are lower for high-quality work." Foxconn won Apple's order to make the iPhone after Gou directed the business units that make components to sell parts at zero profit, according to two people familiar with the chairman's actions. Net income jumped 37 percent in 2009 to $2.3 billion, Foxconn's second-best year on record.

[Dean]

The perfect storm between Capitalism and Communism:

Repeating from another thread because this ridiculous obfuscation must be countered:

The fact is that democracy, socialism, communism and capitalism are terms with meanings:

-We live in a capitalist society because
the system of economic management is defined by profiteering

-We don't live in a communist society because
society is not organized along managerial worker collectives

-We don't live in a socialist society because
society is not managed by the workers or the working class

-We don't live in any kind of democracy because
society is not managed, directed or organizationally beholden to the majority.

The thing is, these aren't complicated terms. Any kid ought to be able to define them, and any critical analysis of social organization will quickly indicate what I did above.

Foxconn is a capitalist enterprise, and it is profit that has been the primary drive for this managerial totalitarianism.

[Bud Struggle]

Foxconn is a capitalist enterprise, and it is profit that has been the primary drive for this managerial totalitarianism.

I didn't know you guys had a thread about this in the "Free World."

Oh I know it's a Capitalist enterprise, but it exists in what many here on RevLeft still believe is a Communist country. As a matter of fact it's the residue of that Communist country that lets companies like Foxconn exist in the first place.

Foxconn could never operate in such a manner in the present day United States. As I said: Foxconn is the perfect storm of Capitalism and Communism.

[Skooma Addict]

-We live in a capitalist society because
the system of economic management is defined by profiteering


I am not going to argue definitions, but if "economic management defined by profiteering" is sufficient grounds to call a society capitalist, then you need to be very careful who you label as a supporter of capitalism. Most people who label themselves as supporters of capitalism would not support many societies where economic management is defined by profiteering (i.e. the USSR)

[Sasha]

intresting to note that because chinese companys that produce for the western market are more easy to target/come under scruteny they are now (after an constant drizzle of bad publicty and even a few strikes) slightly bettering the working conditions.
foxconn for example recently doubled their salary's for all their workfloor employees to avert unrest.
other also domestic producing chinese factorys are now following.
maybe the gap between what an i phone cost to produce and what it costs in an western store will finaly become a bit more reasonble (or they just jack up the prices)

[Invincible Summer]

I didn't know you guys had a thread about this in the "Free World."

Oh I know it's a Capitalist enterprise, but it exists in what many here on RevLeft still believe is a Communist country. As a matter of fact it's the residue of that Communist country that lets companies like Foxconn exist in the first place.

Foxconn could never operate in such a manner in the present day United States. As I said: Foxconn is the perfect storm of Capitalism and Communism.


Um... no. The only user I know that considers China to still be "communist" (which it obviously isn't) is Demerzel.

And the reason why sweatshops exist is because countries like the US and corporations like Apple exist. Where do you think all those iphones and ipads are going? Don't you think Apple would want to make a killer profit and manufacture them as cheaply as possible?

There are sweatshops in the US too, no one talks about them though because it's "impossible for a democratic country like the US to have people working as basically slaves!"

[Dean]

I am not going to argue definitions, but if "economic management defined by profiteering" is sufficient grounds to call a society capitalist, then you need to be very careful who you label as a supporter of capitalism. Most people who label themselves as supporters of capitalism would not support many societies where economic management is defined by profiteering (i.e. the USSR)
That's unfortunate for them, because their "support for capitalism" is rather hollow if they don't support regimes which host privately-held capitalist enterprises.


Oh I know it's a Capitalist enterprise, but it exists in what many here on RevLeft still believe is a Communist country.
Point taken. China is a nation of oppressed people, but the Chinese government is primarily facilitating - not managing this oppression. It's not a communist regime by any reasonable standards.


As a matter of fact it's the residue of that Communist country that lets companies like Foxconn exist in the first place.
Oh, really? For one thing, that "Communist country" is not residual; it still exists.

If it is "residual communism" you are referring to (and I think it was), what particular communist policies are responsible for the management by Foxconn on their private property of their facilities?


Foxconn could never operate in such a manner in the present day United States.
This in no way indicates a communist - or "residually communist" - method of organization or exploitation at Foxconn.

As I said: Foxconn is the perfect storm of Capitalism and Communism.
As I said: there is no evidence linking the communist mode of workplace management to the problems at Foxconn.

In fact, the article describes a state of things very un-communist. The workers' simply don't have as much control over their factory as we see in social democratic regimes, let alone proto-socialist ones. The bottom line is that there is nothing communist about the factory or its management.

[RGacky3]

I didn't know you guys had a thread about this in the "Free World."

Actually it does happen in the "free world" but mostly in the "third world" (the major exploited section of capitalism).


Oh I know it's a Capitalist enterprise, but it exists in what many here on RevLeft still believe is a Communist country. As a matter of fact it's the residue of that Communist country that lets companies like Foxconn exist in the first place.

Words have meanings, moron. The United States is a Capitalist country, and it has residues of protestantism, in the United States a lot of school shootings happen, school shootings are the perfect storm of Capitalism and protestansim.

Its not the residue of any sort of communism conditiosn are like this in all the third world that have sweat shops.

and again, WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.

[Bud Struggle]

Point taken. China is a nation of oppressed people, but the Chinese government is primarily facilitating - not managing this oppression. It's not a communist regime by any reasonable standards. That actually was the point I was making--about China NOT being Communist any more.


If it is "residual communism" you are referring to (and I think it was), what particular communist policies are responsible for the management by Foxconn on their private property of their facilities? What is residual is the authoritarian nature of China.


As I said: there is no evidence linking the communist mode of workplace management to the problems at Foxconn. Nothing theoretical to be sure--but in many instances it is the way former Communist countries operated businesses.


In fact, the article describes a state of things very un-communist. The workers' simply don't have as much control over their factory as we see in social democratic regimes, let alone proto-socialist ones. The bottom line is that there is nothing communist about the factory or its management. Completely true--in theory. But how many "workers" got to vote for "Five Year Plans?"

[RGacky3]

What is residual is the authoritarian nature of China.


Whats the connection to communism?


Nothing theoretical to be sure--but in many instances it is the way former Communist countries operated businesses.


ALL THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.


Completely true--in theory. But how many "workers" got to vote for "Five Year Plans?"

Which is exactly proof that the USSR was'nt socialist.

[Raúl Duke]

many here on RevLeft still believe is a Communist country. As a matter of fact it's the residue of that Communist country that lets companies like Foxconn exist in the first place.

Foxconn could never operate in such a manner in the present day United States.

Only the craziest and dumb posters with their minds in the past think China is a socialist country "heading towards communism".

True, Foxconn wouldn't be able to operate in the present-day U.S. but this is because of labor laws which were achieved through labor struggle. The kind of conditions in Foxconn existed in the past among all capitalist nations. China may develop such labor laws in the future only if they develop a strong and independent labor movement.

[Bud Struggle]

Only the craziest and dumb posters with their minds in the past think China is a socialist country "heading towards communism".

True, Foxconn wouldn't be able to operate in the present-day U.S. but this is because of labor laws which were achieved through labor struggle. The kind of conditions in Foxconn existed in the past among all capitalist nations. China may develop such labor laws in the future only if they develop a strong and independent labor movement.

So are we all for unions in China?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm not as anti-union as some anarchists and the left communists, but unions as they stand now in China are nothing but stooges for the Party.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not as anti-union as some anarchists and the left communists, but unions as they stand now in China are nothing but stooges for the Party.

So brothers--LET'S ORGANIZE!

Let's form unions in China!

[Os Cangaceiros]

So brothers--LET'S ORGANIZE!

Let's form unions in China!

Don't you own a factory or something?

I sand drywall for 8 dollars an hour. I'm not your brother.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't you own a factory or something?

I sand drywall for 8 dollars an hour. I'm not your brother.

So what?

I work in my business day to day. Sholder to sholder with workers--I work a bit (a lot) harder than most. I invested the business and I just happen to own the place. I thought it all up and started it in my garage. I borrowed money from my credit card to start it up. I would have to pay that money off--if it succeeded or if it failed. The business pays all of our wages. Me a tad more, to be sure.

Nobody gave me anything, I earned every cent I got. And I'm not pretending some rich guy owes me more than I make. And my guess is that you haven't earned an honest day's pay yet--so yea, you aren't my brother.

Anyway--time to organize China!

[Os Cangaceiros]

So what?

I work in my business day to day. Sholder to sholder with workers--I work a bit (a lot) harder than most. I invested the business and I just happen to own the place. I thought it all up and started it in my garage. I borrowed money from my credit card to start it up. I would have to pay that money off--if it succeeded or if it failed. The business pays all of our wages. Me a tad more, to be sure.

All of that sentimental piffle about you as the heroic entrepreneur doesn't change your social role.


And my guess is that haven't earned an honest day's pay yet--so yea, you aren't my brother.

I haven't earned an "honest day's pay" yet? Considering the fact that I've been working since I was 14 years old, I doubt it. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

All of that sentimental piffle about you as the heroic entrepreneur doesn't change your social role.

I haven't earned an "honest day's pay" yet? Considering the fact that I've been working since I was 14 years old, I doubt it. :rolleyes:

14? Me too. So? Except I did what I had to get ahead--if you really care what a Proletarian does and what a Bourgeoise does--you never were a Proletarian to begin with.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What the ruling class does involves exploitation, usury and oppression, so yeah, of course I care.

[Bud Struggle]

What the ruling class does involves exploitation, usury and oppression, so yeah, of course I care.

Ruling class. :rolleyes:

I may own a bit--but I'm a worker and a son of workers.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Ruling class. :rolleyes:

I know, it's a kerrraaaazzzzyyy notion. I'm sure that the 1% of the U.S. population that controls about 40% of national financial wealth/assets really have no control over the daily affairs of governance or administration.


I may own a bit--but I'm a worker and a son of workers.

1) No, at least not in the sense that people on this site use the term, and 2) who you're parents are doesn't determine who you are.

[28350]

The manner in which you gained your socioeconomic status doesn't matter. Your socioeconomic status alone does.
Work ethic is nothing. Class is everything.


Nobody gave me anything, I earned every cent I got.
Oh, that makes you different from most capitalists - they get charity loans. But the rest of their money they earned rightfully, to be sure.

[Dean]

Nobody gave me anything, I earned every cent I got. And I'm not pretending some rich guy owes me more than I make.
The wealth and capital you accrue as an individual are defined by a system which exploits labor, and ultimately productive industry and capital in the furtherance of profit and economic empowerment of an elite minority.

Your particular income compensation may be fair. But the services and finance industry is completely at odds with low-echelon consumers (an echelon you exist in). Primarily, services like health care, banking and government, and goods like prescription drugs, housing and appliances are all specifically engineered to accrue more profit at lower costs. This is achieved by proving poor services and failing products to maintain high demand.

US health care may very well be the most dramatic example of this. The fact is that competition in the industry has gone beyond consumer satisfaction, and is merely represented in competition for the business of firms which manage health care, i.e. insurance firms.

The bottom line is that your particular income may be alright, it might be excessive. But your buying power, or real living standards are almost certainly far below adequate, simply because you live in an atrocious;y mismanaged economy. Even millionaires have said that they wouldn't leave states like Sweden precisely because their health care is designed for service, not profit.


And my guess is that you haven't earned an honest day's pay yet--so yea, you aren't my brother.
It's my opinion that he certainly has. In any case, it is fairer for him to decry your possession of capital than for you to reject someone who clearly has no stake in your exploitation. I disagree with his assessment of you because I think you're middle class at best and your possession of capital seems small-scale and mundane.

[RGacky3]

So what?

I work in my business day to day. Sholder to sholder with workers--I work a bit (a lot) harder than most. I invested the business and I just happen to own the place. I thought it all up and started it in my garage. I borrowed money from my credit card to start it up. I would have to pay that money off--if it succeeded or if it failed. The business pays all of our wages. Me a tad more, to be sure.

Nobody gave me anything, I earned every cent I got. And I'm not pretending some rich guy owes me more than I make. And my guess is that you haven't earned an honest day's pay yet--so yea, you aren't my brother.

Anyway--time to organize China!

No one is saying you don't work hard, or that you did'nt take a risk, thats not the issue, in the middle ages if you want to become a king its a big risk and its hard work, but that does'nt make the institution of kingship ok. But your not part of the working class, that does'nt make you lazy or a bad person, its just a fact.

But this asshole notion that you have that people are not buisiness owners because they are just not hard working enough or they don't want to take a risk, or perhaps they arn't smart enough, but you deserve to have what you have and other people do not.

As far as China, yeah, organize China, wait? Why are you so pro-union now? Or are you only pro-union when its not America?