Migrant Workers in China Take Bosses Hostage

[Thirsty Crow]

http://www.libcom.org/blog/angry-workers-hold-bosses-hostage-22012013


More than 1,000 migrant workers in Shanghai have gone on strike and held 18 managers hostage following a dispute over the introduction of a draconian new disciplinary policy. Four hundred riot police officers attended to the factory in a bid to free the bosses. There are reports of many workers being injured in the subsequent clashes, including several with broken limbs. Following the incident the bosses have withdrawn the new policy, issued an apology for its introduction, and have promised the workers a pay rise..

It has become clear as day that the situation of migrant workers in China is desperate, and that the ruling class are left with a totally free hand to do as they please with the workforce available.

How else to explain the disciplinary measures such as fines for being late from the toilet and layoffs due to one work error? But it seems that this same ruling class is not yet accustomed with the chances for militant action - and this is what they get. One particularly amusing part was:


To give them a taste of their own medicine the bosses were prevented from using the toilet for the duration of their detention.

Makes perfect sense. And they should have been forced to clean up their own mess if they made one, bastards.

Are Chinese workers a powder keg that only waits for the right spark?

[Eleutheromaniac]

First new I woke up to this morning. A better world is possible. :)

[subcp]

Are Chinese workers a powder keg that only waits for the right spark?

I think it's possible that the classical Marxist position that communism must begin internationally in the original 'central' capitalist countries (Western Europe) due to the development of the productive forces and experience of the proletariat may be outdated since the restructuring of the '70s. So far, workers in emerging economies (Bangladesh, India, China, South Korea, Egypt, etc.) have shown highly advanced forms of struggle, class consciousness and militancy. Plus, since the classical 'industrial proletariat' has been outsourced there, it may be possible that the decay of post-Fordist capital in the West combined with the rapid proletarianization in the East will have the Chinese or Indian or Egyptian proletariat leading the way to international communist revolution.

[Questionable]

So far, workers in emerging economies (Bangladesh, India, China, South Korea, Egypt, etc.) have shown highly advanced forms of struggle, class consciousness and militancy.

Are you sure about that? Taking your boss hostage is awesome for any worker and I support them, but there's a difference between economic struggles and political struggles. Are we actually seeing mass mobilizations in the name of socialism or just isolated instances of non-political workers lashing out against the system?

Again, I'm happy and I support these workers, but we have to be realistic here.

And perhaps it's my "first-worldist" showing, but I think it's a bit unfair to characterize Western workers as completely inactive while third-world ones are a minute away from full-blown revolution. There's plenty of protests and worker action taking place in America itself, too. Ideally we'd want this kind of activity on both sides of the imperialist country, so I'm happy for it.

[subcp]

I'm not saying it's an either/or; the class is international, and in the West things have been on the rise. What I mean is the traditional (so-called 'Eurocentric') Marxist view that the development of the productive forces/experience of the proletariat in the West may no longer apply now for the future revolution that the conditions which gave rise to advanced forms of struggle in the West are now in operation in emerging countries- and examples like this (traditionally bossnappings being a French phenomenon), and other advanced forms of struggle (factory committee's, worker-delegate systems, inter-employer strike committee's, etc.) call that view into question that the revolution must start or be led by the European proletariat.


Taking your boss hostage is awesome for any worker and I support them, but there's a difference between economic struggles and political struggles. Are we actually seeing mass mobilizations in the name of socialism or just isolated instances of non-political workers lashing out against the system?

It's a minority view here, but I don't think it is necessary for there to be widespread communist ideas to turn a capitalist crisis into a revolutionary crisis- that once the working-class begins its movement to abolish the state/capitalism (widespread organs of workers power, mass strikes, occupations, rioting/looting, attacking police, etc.) communist ideas will become popular due to the class' need to find a solution to the crisis it has turned revolutionary.

"Three days previously the men had had no thought of striking. Now they formed eager audiences for such extremists as Albert Parsons." - Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America, p.26

If bossnappings, combined with all of those other forms of struggle become generalized (the way the Arab Spring spread rapidly, or the spread of the Occupy/Indignados movement, but on a deeper, more encompassing nature), we'd be in a position to offer revolutionary solutions to the crisis. I think examples like this are an escalation of the working-class response to the latest crisis, building on its experience through isolated struggles like this, informing its future struggle (which will hopefully result in a generalized, international struggle in the not so distant future).

[Questionable]

I'm not saying it's an either/or; the class is international, and in the West things have been on the rise. What I mean is the traditional (so-called 'Eurocentric') Marxist view that the development of the productive forces/experience of the proletariat in the West may no longer apply now for the future revolution that the conditions which gave rise to advanced forms of struggle in the West are now in operation in emerging countries- and examples like this (traditionally bossnappings being a French phenomenon), and other advanced forms of struggle (factory committee's, worker-delegate systems, inter-employer strike committee's, etc.) call that view into question that the revolution must start or be led by the European proletariat.

Oh, well, I'm pretty sure most Marxists have abandoned that view anyway. Leninists certainly do.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's possible that the classical Marxist position that communism must begin internationally in the original 'central' capitalist countries (Western Europe) due to the development of the productive forces and experience of the proletariat may be outdated since the restructuring of the '70s.
I don't think this needs to be elevated to the level of a "classical position" at all since it represents an assessment of the balance of forces, which can yield particular and practical decisions and tactics, but it is not, or should not, be part of the theory in the sense of proclaiming that the revolutionary wave must start in the most developed countries


So far, workers in emerging economies (Bangladesh, India, China, South Korea, Egypt, etc.) have shown highly advanced forms of struggle, class consciousness and militancy. I don't think it makes sense to claim that China, as a imperialist power in its own right (e.g. Africa), and one which will probably challenge US domination soon, is an "emerging economy". It is hugely important for global capitalism.

And the crucial difference is the structure and integrity of the state. In my opinion, the Chinese state represents a strong bulwark (compare it against the Egyptian state) against workers struggles. Plus, there is the obvious issue of communist minorities and their organizing among the rest of the class, which is a very big question precisely in this sense, of the strong state. I think a lot will depend on the way the Chinese state manages working class militancy and discontent - can we imagine a thoroughgoing Chinese welfare statism? What effects would that have on (global) capital?

And I'd like to point out an interesting analysis of migration and work by Wildcat:

http://www.libcom.org/history/chinas-migrant-workers

[subcp]

I don't think it makes sense to claim that China, as a imperialist power in its own right (e.g. Africa), and one which will probably challenge US domination soon, is an "emerging economy". It is hugely important for global capitalism.

And the crucial difference is the structure and integrity of the state. In my opinion, the Chinese state represents a strong bulwark (compare it against the Egyptian state) against workers struggles. Plus, there is the obvious issue of communist minorities and their organizing among the rest of the class, which is a very big question precisely in this sense, of the strong state. I think a lot will depend on the way the Chinese state manages working class militancy and discontent - can we imagine a thoroughgoing Chinese welfare statism? What effects would that have on (global) capital?

I don't agree on the point of the strength of the Chinese state; the sheer number and magnitude of the 'events' that happen every year, whether violent strikes, riots, near insurrections in rural China, etc. makes the edifice of the Chinese state look just as shaky as the other BRICs; some argue that the rate of growth experienced by China must remain absurdly high for it to maintain this outward appearance of control (I think Insurgent Notes has a long article on that topic) with some signs indicating that this growth is slowing back down.

I don't think a welfare state is possible given the seeming precarity of China's need for huge growth every year, and because worker's struggles since the crisis do not appear to be going in the Solidarnosc-esque direction at reforming the state. When the Honda workers engaged in the mass strike in 2010, the state was forced to placate the demands that the worker-delegates be given time off from work to meet in the factory committee's outside the state trade unions (didn't the Foxconn factory riots turn out similarly?)