China: A Look at the Future of Capitalism

[Azarkon]

Everybody complains about human rights in China, and one of the top complaints has always been the presence of sweatshops and working conditions that would, in the West, be considered illegal and inhumane. When it comes down to it, it's always the fault of the Communist government. After all, if Western democracy and capitalism were in charge, things would be alot better in China.

 

Right?

 

http://atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/ID05Cb01.html

 

"In March 2006, the Chinese government, with considerable popular backing, proposed a new labor law with limited but significant increases in workers' rights. But the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Shanghai, the United States-China Business Council, and US-based global corporations are lobbying to gut the proposed law. They have even threatened to leave China for such countries as Pakistan and Thailand if the law is passed.

 

Their aggressive tactics appear to have had an impact. Last December, the Chinese government released a revised draft of the Labor Contract Law with significant changes in contract, collective bargaining, severance, and other rights guaranteed for Chinese workers that would favor corporate interests. "

 

Marxists may be wrong about many things, but perhaps they were right about one thing - big businesses are not our friends. While labor rights have made significant gains in the US, all that means is that the men in suits will look elsewhere for people to exploit. And if not China? Then, as the corps indicate, they'll just move to Pakistan, or Thailand. So long as money is involved, there will always be some poor third world country to exploit - and just you wait, once the big businesses leave and China's economy collapses, they'll be begging them to come back. Maybe they'll even work for free, and become slaves.

 

Is the future of capitalism corporate-sponsored dictatorship? Well, maybe the Democrats will put a stop to this non-sense.

 

Or maybe the Chinese were better off with socialism, after all...

Edited April 5, 2007 by Azarkon

[Sand]

Yay for corporate interests. I just like to know how some of these corporate arseholes can actually live with themselves with the misery they are so eager to perpetuate. Democracy is good, but capitalism is not.

Edited April 5, 2007 by Sand

[roshan]

Unfortunately there simply arent any alternatives to capitalism for creating economic growth.

[Sand]

What we need is a balance of capitalism and socialism. Taken to the extremes of both can lead to turmoil and unrest.

[roshan]

Not when it comes to building up an economy. More capitalism and less socialism always guarantees faster growth, and therefore the quicker reduction of poverty. Just look at economic growth in China vs India, for example. China simply has no alternatives except to embrace capitalism.

 

For building up economies, authoritarian one party governments are also better than democratic systems, as the examples of China and Singapore have shown, which is another reason why India lags far behind China.

[Sand]

Yet, human rights are being squashed on a daily basis.

 

Which is more important, Roshan. Freedom or profit? I choose freedom.

[roshan]

Freedom? Freedom to do what? Rot in poverty? Die of starvation? Poor people in socialist countries havent got any job opportunities, they have no choice except to do whatever below poverty level job they are born to do. They is no capitalist system to create a job market and therefore no better jobs that they can get that will provide them with more money and thus the freedom to do nice things such as travelling or actually filling up their stomach.

 

Since capitalism brings jobs, that means that people can get a better job if their current job cant put food on their plate. When there are lots of jobs competing for the same pool of people, wages go up, and people are lifted out of poverty. Thats the only way to do it.

[Sand]

Capitalism also increases waste and pollution. In fact if you chart the growth of capitalism and the industrial revolution, and compare it to the level of pollution and waste produced you will see it go up hand and hand. Of course you counter my proposal for balance with capitalism and socialism with extreme socialism. I am not advocating that at all.

 

Balance, Roshan. Balance.

 

Think on this... As wages go up so does the cost of living and thusly the poverty line increases. So the wages increases again, the cost of living then also increases, and the poverty line gets even higher. All the while the environment is getting worse and worse as waste and pollution is accumulated, till the point which the entire area becomes unfit for human living, but since the cost of living is so high by this point no one has the funds and resources to move. That is the extreme capitalism that you are advocating, Roshan.

 

I rather be poor, free, and living in a clean evironment than making just enough over the poverty line to live, while wallowing in filth under a yellow sky.

Edited April 5, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

What we need is a balance of capitalism and socialism. Taken to the extremes of both can lead to turmoil and unrest.

nonsense.

 

what everyone fails to realize is that china is in the same, actually worse, situation than the US was 100 years ago. we had sweatshops then. we had poor conditions. but we also had a legal right to form unions (which are now unnecessary, btw), and did. guess what, no more sweatshops. poor conditions are relegated to very infrequent circumstances (and often uncovered and dealt with).

 

the notion of any form of socialism will provide any benefit to human quality of life has been shown repeatedly to be a pipe dream. it cannot happen.

 

taks

[taks]

Capitalism also increases waste and pollution.

so does socialism... duh.

 

I rather be poor, free, and living in a clean evironment than making just enough over the poverty line to live, while wallowing in filth under a yellow sky.

slippery slope argument, based on a false premise.

 

your logic... it amazes.

 

taks

[metadigital]

Everybody complains about human rights in China, and one of the top complaints has always been the presence of sweatshops and working conditions that would, in the West, be considered illegal and inhumane. When it comes down to it, it's always the fault of the Communist government. After all, if Western democracy and capitalism were in charge, things would be alot better in China.

 

Right?

Where did you get that idea?

[Azarkon]

what everyone fails to realize is that china is in the same, actually worse, situation than the US was 100 years ago. we had sweatshops then. we had poor conditions. but we also had a legal right to form unions (which are now unnecessary, btw), and did. guess what, no more sweatshops. poor conditions are relegated to very infrequent circumstances (and often uncovered and dealt with).

 

There is a difference between exploiting one's own voting country men and the faceless, huddled masses of third world countries. The trend that I find problematic is the corporations' ability to use its clout to influence political decisions in poorer countries, and to pit said nations' workers against each other in a drive to keep prices down. Say, for instance, that Chinese workers "rise up" against unfair practices - all a transnational corporation would have to do is reinvest elsewhere, where conditions are more favorable. If developing economies are based upon investment, then presumably this threat is serious enough for most developing nations to submit to corporate demands. And if they don't? Well, someone else probably will, and then they'd be left in the dust (and no politician could allow that to happen and still keep power).

 

The only plausible form of resistance is for the workers of the entire world to unite (sound like Communism?) and set standards by which corporations can operate. Yet, I don't see this happening, at least not as it did when the only relevant people were from the same country. A bit of nationalism ("who cares about the Chinese? They're our rivals anyhow!") can go a long way in realizing the dream of a permanent underclass.

 

Intellectuals call this form of capitalism neo-colonialism, and while they often exaggerate its effects, I don't think it's a good idea to ignore their arguments. The idealistic view of capitalism is that it can do nothing but elevate a society in terms of wealth and development. If you adopt this view, then China is merely going through "growing pains" that would inevitably subside as it becomes just as advanced and developed as the US. Yet I see an alternative route, which is that *parts* of China would become exceedingly rich - as rich as any in the West - while the rest would remain poor, forming the foundations of a underclass that would, in turn, facilitate the development of such a underclass elsewhere in the world - even in developed nations.

 

The evidence for such a route is not exactly scarce, given the widening wealth gap. I think that if you asked people in the US who worked 40-50 years ago, many of them would express the view that back then work was alot easier to find, jobs were alot less competitive, and livelihoods more secure. So what happened? Is globalization really making the whole world rich, or is it just redistributing wealth in such a way as to validate Marx's view of history as a class struggle?

[Azarkon]

Everybody complains about human rights in China, and one of the top complaints has always been the presence of sweatshops and working conditions that would, in the West, be considered illegal and inhumane. When it comes down to it, it's always the fault of the Communist government. After all, if Western democracy and capitalism were in charge, things would be alot better in China.

 

Right?

Where did you get that idea?

 

Did you read the article I linked?

[roshan]

Capitalism also increases waste and pollution. In fact if you chart the growth of capitalism and the industrial revolution, and compare it to the level of pollution and waste produced you will see it go up hand and hand.

 

Waste has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Consider India VS China. India is socialist, and you will find garbage strewn all over the place, major cities are like sewers. Why? India is a democracy, and democracy means giving into the demands of the mob, and the mob wants to throw their trash wherever it feels like it. This is also true, but to a MUCH lesser extent with Philippines, a capitalist country. But look at China and Singapore - cities are very clean due to strict laws. Indias major cities are filled with slums, while China doesnt have any due to strict laws regarding where you can and cant live. In some parts of the Philippines, the local governments have been able to clean up the city by imposing harsh fines on those who litter, or on those who do not segregate their garbage. Singapore, in order to prevent chewing gum stains on sidewalks banned it completely. India is now trying to make its cities clean and sanitary by demolishing illegal slum areas. So cleanliness and proper waste disposal depends on governments taking an authoritarian stance - but you are against authoritarianism!

 

Air pollution(if thats what you are referring to by pollution) has to do with industrialization. But development can also provide countries with the money needed to clean up the environment, or to afford more environmentally friendly technology. For example, 10 years ago in the Philippines, you could see cars in the city spouting out black smoke. Today driving a car that belches out smoke is illegal. Thanks due to capitalist technology/money + authoritarianism. On the other hand, without industrialization, unskilled/poor people havent got any job alternatives so the economy of the country focuses instead on exploiting resources. The result? Irreplacable Brazilian rainforests being chopped down, which is basically environmental destruction on a global scale, as that means less oxygen for all of us.

 

Of course you counter my proposal for balance with capitalism and socialism with extreme socialism. I am not advocating that at all.

 

But the point is, in a globalized world, the more capitalist system will always have the edge over ones which are less capitalist. Thats why China currently has the edge over India, and thats why China will lose this edge to countries like Pakistan and Thailand if it adopts socialist measures.

 

Think on this... As wages go up so does the cost of living and thusly the poverty line increases. So the wages increases again, the cost of living then also increases, and the poverty line gets even higher. All the while the environment is getting worse and worse as waste and pollution is accumulated, till the point which the entire area becomes unfit for human living, but since the cost of living is so high by this point no one has the funds and resources to move. That is the extreme capitalism that you are advocating, Roshan.

 

I rather be poor, free, and living in a clean evironment than making just enough over the poverty line to live, while wallowing in filth under a yellow sky.

 

Cost of living will go up, but not at the same rate as the increase in wages. If you got a significant increase in wages, would you still consume the exact same things you do now and in the same quantities? Obviously not, as your demand patterns will change. If demand for a product increases, then price will increase. But as price increases, then supply will also increase as people will recognize that there is money to be made in that area(again, more jobs/opportunities being created). As supply increases, price decreases because the suppliers then have to compete with each other, and those offering the lowest prices will sell the most and thus make the most profit. When price decreases, demand increases as people can afford more. And this continues on. In the end, demand, supply and price will reach an equilibrium where they are all balanced against each other. The idea that capitalism is going to lead to a point where everyone is screwed is silly - it is nothing more than paranoia, it is as absurd as believing in UFOs and alien abductions. In reality, capitalism is based on the natural ability of the market to REGULATE ITSELF and come up with the ideal supply and price of products on its own.

 

On the other hand, socialism leads to higher costs of living, as businesses react to socialist labour laws and taxation by charging the consumers more. Not only that, higher taxes created by socialism discourages entrepreneurship and investment, which means decreased supply and increased prices, as well as less competition for labour - and thus lower wages and higher unemployment. Basically, socialism just screws up everything.

[Pop]

I love it when advocates of plutarchy and advocates of communism come together and circle jerk like this. It's the battle of the ****ty ideas.

 

but we also had a legal right to form unions (which are now unnecessary, btw), and did. guess what, no more sweatshops. poor conditions are relegated to very infrequent circumstances (and often uncovered and dealt with).

I love this ****, too. It's as if the market, not labor law, eradicates poor working conditions! I heard that coming out of Wal-Mart management, too, and it was just as suspect coming from them. People were coming to work the day after surgery so they could make a dent in their medical bills.

 

I look no further than Enron for a perfect example of the Invisible Hand doing what it does best. If you look at the schemes they employed, that was art. They earned every penny they fleeced from their employees. If what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't have made the money that they did. That's the genius of unfettered capitalism. What was unfair was the government taking it all away from them once they beat the market and their investors.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Pop

[roshan]

What is ****ty about capitalism? Do you simply hate it because you do not understand it?

[Rosbjerg]

^ Well, people just like taking about stuff they have no knowledge of.

 

Which is why I'm gonna add my 2 cents - fight the fire with fire I say!

 

Neither of you (Sand or Roshan) seems to have any grasp of what you are actually talking about - or maybe you just choose to be narrowminded to force an argument through?

 

Both Socialism and Capitalism have the same goal - to make life better for as many people as possible. They just disagree (to a point) on where to start and how to proceed from there.

 

Socialism regards property as a common right, while Capitalism views it as a private right. S argues that humans need to agree and come together to make decisions to further the common good, while traditional Capitalism (like Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) sought to end mercantalism and trade restrictions by removing the responsiblity from the state (to a degree the people) and put it in the hands of private merchants, which would make sure prices were fair and equal due to natural competition. And this is of course where the trouble starts.

 

and now I'm tired.. which just proves that I'm quite useless to this debate.. heh..

[roshan]

Neither of you (Sand or Roshan) seems to have any grasp of what you are actually talking about - or maybe you just choose to be narrowminded to force an argument through?

 

Maybe you would like to point out where I have gone wrong instead of making pointless blanket statements.

 

Both Socialism and Capitalism have the same goal - to make life better for as many people as possible. They just disagree (to a point) on where to start and how to proceed from there.

 

Socialism tries to make people equal while on the other hand capitalism attempts to make people wealthy. Socialism starts off with the wrong goal in mind and thats why it doesnt work.

 

Socialism regards property as a common right, while Capitalism views it as a private right.

 

Thats a gross oversimplification. There is a wide range of issues on which socialism and capitalism differ and property is not one of them - at least not anymore. The right to property is now almost universally acknowledged among both capitalists and socialists.

 

S argues that humans need to agree and come together to make decisions to further the common good, while traditional Capitalism (like Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) sought to end mercantalism and trade restrictions by removing the responsiblity from the state (to a degree the people) and put it in the hands of private merchants, which would make sure prices were fair and equal due to natural competition. And this is of course where the trouble starts.

 

Capitalism doesnt put responsibility on merchants but on the market because it is the demand of the market that regulates the prices the suppliers can charge and how much they produce. On the other hand socialism is based on the government(not "people coming together") making decisions regarding supply and pricing.

[Azarkon]

Thats why China currently has the edge over India, and thats why China will lose this edge to countries like Pakistan and Thailand if it adopts socialist measures.

 

But what is the cost of having that edge? China's edge comes from making itself attractive to foreign investment, but the investors are there to exploit the cheap labor. Laws that attempt to rectify labor exploitation are lobbied against by the corporations, who threaten to de-invest should workers get their say. So we have a situation in which the average Chinese worker is faced with the prospect of permanent poverty, since the moment they attempt to rise above it, the investors in question pick up and leave for the next third world ghetto.

 

Does it seem right to you what the corporations are doing (creating permanent sweatshops in the third world) in the name of profit?

[Atreides]

If China goes ahead with worker min standards which it should, companies that already have significant investments there can't get out immediately. In the long term sure, and those who haven't went in. But planning, closing, relocating, retraining and securing new places for business will take time. Plus China's still cheap.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Atreides

[Sand]

Personally I like to see a hybrid.

 

Aspects of our social system, such as Utilities, Medicine, and vitals that people need to live are socialized while non-essentials like like restaurants, movies, department stores and the like remain capitalistic.

[Sand]

the notion of any form of socialism will provide any benefit to human quality of life has been shown repeatedly to be a pipe dream. it cannot happen.

 

That is not the fault of socialism. The fault lies in human weakness, greed, and our overall malignant nature.

[Xard]

Personally I like to see a hybrid.

 

Aspects of our social system, such as Utilities, Medicine, and vitals that people need to live are socialized while non-essentials like like restaurants, movies, department stores and the like remain capitalistic.

 

Welcome to Nordic countries

[Calax]

[stereotyping] But where will all the rice come from?[/stereotypeing]

[metadigital]

Everybody complains about human rights in China, and one of the top complaints has always been the presence of sweatshops and working conditions that would, in the West, be considered illegal and inhumane. When it comes down to it, it's always the fault of the Communist government. After all, if Western democracy and capitalism were in charge, things would be alot better in China.

 

Right?

Where did you get that idea?

 

Did you read the article I linked?

So you are just parroting their opinion? Is this your opinion, or not?