When people talk about “bearing a cross,” they usually mean being oppressed, going to jail and suffering physical torment, so it’s surprising to hear a Taiwanese tycoon who lives in luxury and flies in a private plane saying he is “bearing a cross” because some employees at his factories in China have killed themselves. Even if he is as upset as he claims, the phrase is poorly chosen. If those workers could enjoy even 1 percent of the tycoon’s daily comforts, they probably wouldn’t want to jump off roofs.
Living in luxury and bearing crosses — this strange combination highlights how businesses investing in China are entangled in a heartless and contradictory world. On the one hand, these employers provide impoverished Chinese with employment opportunities, while on the other they rely on the Chinese government’s repressive policies to help them exploit the workers and amass great wealth for themselves.
For government and business to connive in bullying workers in a country that continues to call itself “socialist” and “communist” is the scandal of the century. While China’s so-called reforms under the successive leaderships of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) have been carried out in the name of “socialism,” they have created a gap between rich and poor that is wider than that of the US. Whatever social safety net China once had has been stripped away, leaving no relief from exploitation.
While the path taken under Jiang and Hu is essentially capitalist, China lacks the freedom, democracy, legal system and other checks and balances needed to keep an otherwise ruthless capitalist system in check. China lacks independent labor unions, free and fair media and a social welfare system. China’s reforms have deregulated the economy, allowing unbridled exploitation of labor, while the political system remains as rigid as ever. Independent unions are not allowed and there is no right to strike.
When a free market operates under a developed legal framework, the rules of the game are set, ideally, through a democratic process. The path to wealth depends on an individual’s ability, so it is not a sin to be rich. US software tycoon Bill Gates is wealthier than many nations alone, but he uses his wealth for philanthropy. There hasn’t been news of any Microsoft employees being abused to the point that they jump off buildings.
It is different in China, where the law counts for much less. There, you may only get rich if you have special privileges and the right connections. This is as true for overseas investors as it is for those Chinese who have made fortunes through the restructuring of state-owned enterprises.
While the rich get richer, workers live in internment camp-like conditions. Toiling day and night and selling their labor for low pay, there is no way out for them. These are the very conditions that Karl Marx predicted would lead to a workers’ revolution.
The suicides at Foxconn and strikes against low wages at Honda and elsewhere in China show that Chinese workers have had enough. The Chinese government, for its part, does not publicly dare to go on suppressing the workers and protecting employers’ interests. Rather, it is quite happy to shift the blame for exploiting workers onto overseas investors.
By conceding big wage hikes, Foxconn and Honda may be writing a new page in the history of China’s reforms. They are bringing to an end the stage in which China offered ultra-low wages. As these events unfold, Chinese workers are waking up and are now ready to break out of a contradictory system that thrives, at its core, at the expense of their rights.
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS