China's Silent Army essay - 1 page double spaced
nyc promo
chinas_silent_army_ib1.docxBefore answering the question, I want to address mistaken impressions about the nature of the Chinese economy and society and about the iron rice bowl that a few students express in their posts. First, China’s is neither a capitalist nor is it a state capitalist economy. China’s is a communist economy whose form of government is a communist dictatorship. A central committee, a politburo, and a secretariat lead the Chinese Communist Party (CPC). China has allowed some elements of a market economy to exist in the context of its communist dictatorship. They view this as a capitalist phase necessary for China to evolve into an evolved communist state.
Wikipedia says this:
While the CPC is still committed to communist thought, mainstream foreign opinion believes the party to be non-ideological. According to the party constitution the CPC adheres to Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, socialism with Chinese characteristics, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development.”
Wikipedia adds the following in its article on Chinese government:
Most, but not all, positions of significant power in the state structure and in the military are occupied by members of the Communist Party of China, which is controlled by the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, a group of 4 to 9 people, usually all older men, who make all decisions of national significance. As the role of the military is to enforce these decisions, the support of the PLA is important in maintaining Party rule.
I spent a week lecturing in China, and the Communist Party office of Sun Yat-sen University, where I was working, was one flight above the classroom where I taught. All cultural institutions have a CPC presence. Speech is not free; enterprise is not free; immigration and movement of people are not free because of the household registration system. There is no capitalism in the sense of free markets in which entrepreneurs can start businesses as they will. The Internet is censored, and most of the websites with which you are familiar are either unavailable or have censored availability. Although there is plenty of Western influence, and Hong Kong is capitalist under Deng’s one-country-two-systems policy, there are many restrictions and controls in South China, and I was told that there are more restrictions further north.
My lecture was translated in real time, and the translator was a member of the Communist Party. I had a guide who accompanied me everywhere I went. She introduced me to her parents (we had dessert together in a Japanese restaurant in Guangzhou), and her father was a high-ranking enterprise executive and a CP member.
As far as the iron rice bowl, it was never the case that more than a few percent of the Chinese population worked in state-owned manufacturing industries. Rather, the vast majority of Chinese were (and are) peasants. Until the time of Deng Xiaopeng (from the late 1970s to the early 1990s) the Chinese peasants worked for collectivized farms that were unproductive. The result was that they were poor. The concept of an iron rice bowl had little meaning because the peasants were earning below subsistence in American terms. Deng allowed the peasants to cultivate private land. This dismantling of state interference and privatization of agriculture led to an explosion in agricultural productivity, and by the mid-1980s The Economist declared that the productivity growth of the Chinese peasant exceeded that of the Japanese auto worker.
Although the dismantling of the iron rice bowl, the cradle-to-grave protections of industrial workers in state industries, and the closure of state industries, hurt a small minority pf workers, especially in Northern China, only a small percentage of Chinese worked in such enterprises. The majority of Chinese, who were and are peasants, have directly benefited from Deng’s reforms. Although the Chinese are still poorly paid by American standards, Western firms are beginning to leave China because the pay rates for some categories of skilled workers have escalated and now exceed pay in parts of Eastern Europe.
(1) What are the implications of the Chinese diaspora and the methods of management described in the reading for unionism around the world?
There is no right answer. Some might argue that there will be a race to the bottom as low wages are spread throughout the world. It seems to me that as workers gain skills around the world, their wages will increase.
David writes this:
On face value, it would seem that Chinese enterprises are not inclined to allow for unionization (or anything short of their hostile, “take it or we leave” approach). As Chinese enterprises continue to expand in the developing world, we can expect that such labor practices will continue to spread across Africa, South America and other developing reasons. But if history is any guide, these countries will soon turn toward more organized, scientific, and equitable methods of management (as did China itself in recent years).
Shlomo adds this:
Chinese sets the Labor regulations in all the countries which they have signed agreements .These Labour Regulations consists many unethical ways of Management through Bribes , support negative employment. Since all the government involves in corruption it also prevents any legal course of action to improve the conditions .Chinese say that the current generation must worker harder toward a better future for the grand children and this is what drives Chinese diaspora. More over all Chinese Entrepreneurs who wants to start a organization in this Globalized world very well know how to set targets and acquire them.
Amanda writes the following:
As described in the reading here are several implications of the Chinese diaspora. The Chinese methods of management would not allow for the establishment of unions, therefore human rights and the working conditions of their employees in these under-developed countries will remain poor.
May adds this:
The implications of the Chinese diaspora and the methods of management expresses that the older generation sacrifice themselves for the well-being for the future generation so they would not have to suffer as much. Unionizing the workers would make it difficult to control. China also unfairly hires the older generation working men because they are more obedient and easier to handle because they wouldn’t ask for incentive or any fairness in return.
Ying adds this:
There are no after thoughts for the worker, and are purely treated as disposables. Gratuity to the employees who contributed to the company’s large revenues, is not even an idea for the Chinese in the reading. The Chinese also exhibit their talent of cutting costs handsomely as explained in Peru, by having a majority of their workforce on a part time payroll. There also seems to be a lack of concern for the society that China inhibits. For instance, when approximately fifty-percent of the inhabitants of Peru migrated, China had no reaction and continued with their operations.
(2) Marxism is an ideology that claims to react to capitalist exploitation. Yet, China's Marxist government exploits third world workers at least as egregiously as capitalist firms did in the worst, earliest period of capitalism in the 1600s. (a) Is this kind of treatment of employees necessarily characteristic of the early stages of development?
Peter argues this way:
It is not necessarily characteristic of early stages of development to treat employees unfairly such as the way the Chinese are doing. The fact is, these are corrupt governments seeking a way to capitalize while exploiting their natural resources while holding onto power of their governments.
Nissa writes this:
It seems that this kind of treatment of employees is characteristic of an early stages of development. It is true that China’s exploitation of workers in developing countries represent the earliest period of capitalism.
Olga writes this:
This kind of treatment of employees is not necessary characteristic of the early stages of development. Though the strongest ones always take advantage of the weakest ones, I believe that the strongest ones can find more humanistic ways to develop further.
Tamika writes this:
It seems to be synonymous among all countries during the development stages that employees were treated poorly. Constant reform of laws and company policy will need to take place to see continued improvement.
(b) Over time, capitalist firms learned that approaches such as welfare capitalism, scientific management, human relations, and worker participation generate more profit than do exploitive methods. Why don't the Chinese mining companies operate in the more sophisticated manner of later capitalism rather than in the less sophisticated manner of mercantilism or early capitalism?
Stephen writes this:
Even though it would be ethical it is not worth it for China to use more sophisticated methods of management. In the developing countries they are able to get what they want using bribery because they are far better off economically.
Ying adds:
Chinese mining companies operate in the less sophisticated manner because it is the most direct way to cutting costs. There is no incentive for the Chinese to be concerned with the welfare of the country they are inhibiting. Actually the materials that are mined are actually sent back to their homeland for further processing, instead of having the processing stay at its origin, which would create a larger work force. This mentality shows that China’s agendas are for their own people, and not for the whole of the world.
Alia concludes:
