China on Monday criticised European Union plans to shield key industries from Chinese competition, warning it would take countermeasures if the measures are adopted. The EU’s proposed “Made in Europe”…
What difference does it make to a worker if they are exploited by a domestic or a foreign corporation?
The workers in Europe fought long and hard for their rights - and still do, so why should we let production of goods simply shift to those places where these ‘limitations to profits’ aka worker’s rights no longer apply? A conscious consumer should care…
why should we let production of goods simply shift
That shift has already long-since occurred. Near enough any consumer good in the west will be marked “Made in China”. The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.
That shift has already long-since occurred. Near enough any consumer good in the west will be marked “Made in China”. The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
That is actually really weird. Usually countries are on a sort of wage spectrum. The poor countries will attract relatively low skill, but high work production like clothing, which requires low wages. The high income ones tend to have either dark factories for mass production or some high skill work for specialized products.
The weird part is that China does both. Usually countries when the get richer, loose the low skill low pay jobs to other countries. That has not happened in China. Part of that is probably the size of China, but still even rather large countries with a similar GDP per capita do not tend to be large low skill work countries anymore. For example Mexico and Brazil are roughly on the same level as China, but do not really export clothing.
You really would expect stuff like clothing, cheap toys, christmas decoration and so forth to come from Vietnam, India, Bangladesh and so forth. That really is not the case.
A lot of clothes do come from Bangladesh and Vietnam - but yeah, it’s more raw and intermediate products that come from low-GDP-per-capita nations these days.
This is, I think, probably quite a deliberate choice by China. I think their goal is to fundamentally capture as much international manufacturing as possible and be the factory of the world, which functionally gives them tremendous soft power over pretty much every other nation. For example, even US-manufactured munitions are made using components and materials from China, so if the US went to war with China, they could cut off the US’s supply and significantly impede their ability to manufacture munitions.
That’s just pure speculation, though. Occam’s razor would suggest they just want to do trademaxxing, which is also their official stance - though they wouldn’t put it in quite a succinct way, I suppose.
The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
That sounds like you fundamentally oppose trade protectionism?
I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation.
How would letting heavily state-sponsored market dominance flood domestic markets and rid domestic workers of their jobs lead to abolition of profit and especially exploitation? Aren’t we already exploited by too many systemic dependencies? As became apparent during Covid, during the war against Ukraine and now, during the war against Iran?
Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.
The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
That sounds like you fundamentally oppose trade protectionism?
I don’t really care one way or the other - all I’m doing is pointing out the contradiction. I am an anti-capitalist, and one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.
With that said, as a consumer, trade protectionism does increase the costs of goods, so that’s one reason to oppose it, but it’s not really something I advocate for - I’m far interested in advocating for far more radical changes.
How would letting heavily state-sponsored market dominance flood domestic markets and rid domestic workers of their jobs lead to abolition of profit and especially exploitation?
It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness, by pointing out the contradictions, and how the ruling class is willing to betray the ideals of capitalism to protect their interests.
Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.
It’s either that or being driven out of business altogether. They’ll happily accept - and it already is reality, as can be seen by the plans of the EU. The only ones complaining here are China and you.
one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.
This here is not a case of competition, it is a case of skewed competition through fundamental Chinese state subsidies. This reaction actually re-enables competition again by levelling the playing field.
It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You claim to want the abolition of worker exploitation, but then complain that protectionist policies will raise consumer prices. Why are those Chinese goods so cheap to begin with? Because of the very labour exploitation you say you oppose. You are demanding the perks of globalised capitalism (cheap goods) while claiming to be an anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, you are misidentifying the ‘contradiction’ here. China isn’t engaging in fair free-market competition; they are using massive state subsidies to intentionally bankrupt foreign industries. The EU pushing back isn’t a betrayal of capitalist ideals; it’s a defence against state-sponsored monopolies.
Retreating to ‘I’m just trying to build class consciousness’ doesn’t work when the economic logic you are using to build it contradicts your own stated goals. You can’t claim “the moral high ground” of protecting workers while advocating for a system that relies on dumping state-subsidised, unethically sourced goods into domestic markets.
I think you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding my entire argument, and it’s apparent to me that you just want to argue to prove me wrong, rather than discuss things with an mind open to potentially changing your views - that’s okay, but I’m not going to waste my time, so at this point I’ll wish you all the best, have a great day - solidarity forever.
That’s why I kept asking questions on things you said.
And yet, there’s not a single question in your previous comment, just a lot of weak arguments and claims that I hold positions I specifically stated I do not hold.
You don’t want to actually discuss and understand my position, you want to debate a pro-China strawman. You don’t need me to win an argument in your head. Take care.
"capitalists: competition is so good, it encourages innovation and ensures the best value for consumers!
china: competes
capitalists: 😡😡😡"
Various people here explained to you why this is not “competition”, but skewing competition.
Then you said:
“My point is, if the labor prices are so low, why should western capitalists benefit from them, through outsourcing, rather than us consumers and Chinese companies splitting the difference with cheaper Chinese goods?”
…which sounds(!) like an argument for “hey consumers, why should you not simply benefit from the cheap Chinese goods built on exploitation of workers?”. On top of that: no-one made an argument for outsourcing here, as specifically, this is an article about something aimed at achieving the opposite - and Chinas sour reaction to it.
Then you moved on to:
“I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.”
What contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric are you referring to? Because the fallacy in your opening statement (concerning “competition” has already been pointed out.
Then you say:
“Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.”, to which I pointed out it is either that or being out of business completely. Somehow, I haven’t heard an answer from you on that.
If your position is more than trying to make some “gotchas” on “capitalism”, which in this case doesn’t work properly, I’d love to hear it, but looking at the journey from your initial comment to your last, it is a bit hard to follow what exactly you want your point to be. So, instead of cheap personal attacks, let’s rather exchange thoughts.
What difference does it make to a worker if they are exploited by a domestic or a foreign corporation?
The workers in Europe fought long and hard for their rights - and still do, so why should we let production of goods simply shift to those places where these ‘limitations to profits’ aka worker’s rights no longer apply? A conscious consumer should care…
That shift has already long-since occurred. Near enough any consumer good in the west will be marked “Made in China”. The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.
That is actually really weird. Usually countries are on a sort of wage spectrum. The poor countries will attract relatively low skill, but high work production like clothing, which requires low wages. The high income ones tend to have either dark factories for mass production or some high skill work for specialized products.
The weird part is that China does both. Usually countries when the get richer, loose the low skill low pay jobs to other countries. That has not happened in China. Part of that is probably the size of China, but still even rather large countries with a similar GDP per capita do not tend to be large low skill work countries anymore. For example Mexico and Brazil are roughly on the same level as China, but do not really export clothing.
You really would expect stuff like clothing, cheap toys, christmas decoration and so forth to come from Vietnam, India, Bangladesh and so forth. That really is not the case.
A lot of clothes do come from Bangladesh and Vietnam - but yeah, it’s more raw and intermediate products that come from low-GDP-per-capita nations these days.
This is, I think, probably quite a deliberate choice by China. I think their goal is to fundamentally capture as much international manufacturing as possible and be the factory of the world, which functionally gives them tremendous soft power over pretty much every other nation. For example, even US-manufactured munitions are made using components and materials from China, so if the US went to war with China, they could cut off the US’s supply and significantly impede their ability to manufacture munitions.
That’s just pure speculation, though. Occam’s razor would suggest they just want to do trademaxxing, which is also their official stance - though they wouldn’t put it in quite a succinct way, I suppose.
And it was a big mistake. Why not fix a mistake?
That sounds like you fundamentally oppose trade protectionism?
How would letting heavily state-sponsored market dominance flood domestic markets and rid domestic workers of their jobs lead to abolition of profit and especially exploitation? Aren’t we already exploited by too many systemic dependencies? As became apparent during Covid, during the war against Ukraine and now, during the war against Iran?
Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.
I don’t really care one way or the other - all I’m doing is pointing out the contradiction. I am an anti-capitalist, and one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.
With that said, as a consumer, trade protectionism does increase the costs of goods, so that’s one reason to oppose it, but it’s not really something I advocate for - I’m far interested in advocating for far more radical changes.
It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness, by pointing out the contradictions, and how the ruling class is willing to betray the ideals of capitalism to protect their interests.
It’s either that or being driven out of business altogether. They’ll happily accept - and it already is reality, as can be seen by the plans of the EU. The only ones complaining here are China and you.
This here is not a case of competition, it is a case of skewed competition through fundamental Chinese state subsidies. This reaction actually re-enables competition again by levelling the playing field.
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You claim to want the abolition of worker exploitation, but then complain that protectionist policies will raise consumer prices. Why are those Chinese goods so cheap to begin with? Because of the very labour exploitation you say you oppose. You are demanding the perks of globalised capitalism (cheap goods) while claiming to be an anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, you are misidentifying the ‘contradiction’ here. China isn’t engaging in fair free-market competition; they are using massive state subsidies to intentionally bankrupt foreign industries. The EU pushing back isn’t a betrayal of capitalist ideals; it’s a defence against state-sponsored monopolies.
Retreating to ‘I’m just trying to build class consciousness’ doesn’t work when the economic logic you are using to build it contradicts your own stated goals. You can’t claim “the moral high ground” of protecting workers while advocating for a system that relies on dumping state-subsidised, unethically sourced goods into domestic markets.
I think you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding my entire argument, and it’s apparent to me that you just want to argue to prove me wrong, rather than discuss things with an mind open to potentially changing your views - that’s okay, but I’m not going to waste my time, so at this point I’ll wish you all the best, have a great day - solidarity forever.
Indeed, I don’t understand your entire argument. That’s why I kept asking questions on things you said. If you don’t actually want that, fine by me!
And yet, there’s not a single question in your previous comment, just a lot of weak arguments and claims that I hold positions I specifically stated I do not hold.
You don’t want to actually discuss and understand my position, you want to debate a pro-China strawman. You don’t need me to win an argument in your head. Take care.
Yea… no.
This was your opening statement here:
"capitalists: competition is so good, it encourages innovation and ensures the best value for consumers!
china: competes
capitalists: 😡😡😡"
Various people here explained to you why this is not “competition”, but skewing competition.
Then you said:
“My point is, if the labor prices are so low, why should western capitalists benefit from them, through outsourcing, rather than us consumers and Chinese companies splitting the difference with cheaper Chinese goods?”
…which sounds(!) like an argument for “hey consumers, why should you not simply benefit from the cheap Chinese goods built on exploitation of workers?”. On top of that: no-one made an argument for outsourcing here, as specifically, this is an article about something aimed at achieving the opposite - and Chinas sour reaction to it.
Then you moved on to:
“I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.”
What contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric are you referring to? Because the fallacy in your opening statement (concerning “competition” has already been pointed out.
Then you say:
“Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.”, to which I pointed out it is either that or being out of business completely. Somehow, I haven’t heard an answer from you on that.
If your position is more than trying to make some “gotchas” on “capitalism”, which in this case doesn’t work properly, I’d love to hear it, but looking at the journey from your initial comment to your last, it is a bit hard to follow what exactly you want your point to be. So, instead of cheap personal attacks, let’s rather exchange thoughts.