You linked a trotskyist “China watching” org, of course they are going to portray China as though it’s in crisis when it’s steadily doing better and better. This is why China’s approval rates are so high:
Secondly, the link I provided talks about worker interests, in China the interests of the state are aligned with the interests of the workers, hence the worker backlash against Lenovo.
You’ve shared this picture twice, but i cant find the study related to it.
Do you have better sources on tracking strikes in mainland China? The only other places i found info were US finance reporting on as a mattet of investment concern.
Overall, it’s difficult to find accurate data on strikes in China in english that’s not intentionally massaged or outright fabricated. There’s a ton of money in distorting it. However, it’s important to recognize that China’s system is broadly supported, and strikes are not as necessary to enact systemic changes.
You do see why the argument that strikes are rarely allowed but conveintly thats ok because they are needed or wanted isnt very convicing right?
I can seem to find numbers supporting that are a rise in strikes which line up with the global trend of economic unrest, I can not find numbers suggesting what you are saying though, and instead you seem to be suggesting that yes there is an increase of illegal strikes but no body actually or needs them because the states interests are the peoples interests. That seems inconcruent to the data showing that people are in fact striking. Which is why i was asking about different data sources. Id take non-english data sources as well to be honest. Translatinh the label and methods may take some effort but i can Arabic Numerals in almost any context.
Even by western sources, strikes are falling. You keep framing them as “illegal strikes,” and in general seem content on just parroting anti-China viewpoints. If they are striking, it’s because China is bad, if they aren’t, it’s because they aren’t allowed to, etc etc. It’s as Michael Parenti puts it, a “non-falsifiable orthodoxy.”
My point from the beginning is that China does have some strikes, but the context of said strikes is different from capitalist countries and as such trying to use “number of strikes” as a state of worker well-being is poor logic. The numbers do back broad support for China and for socialism, which is why I’ve shared them.
Im not seeing what you are saying represented in the link you provided.
Groups like CLB are saying that the strikes they are tracking are illegal strikes because the official unions are not acts on the demands of their members. Basically the sole source ive found and that you have shared. We seem to have no data to point that says otherwise.
The steelman version of what you present to me is that China has no need for strikes and that all reporting on strikes is false. Implying every group of workers in China are content to live and die in service to States ambitions as all interpersonal conflict between employer and employees is mediated without fail in some other system besides collective barganing and worker’s demostrations of solidarity.
Am i to believe that AND that China a safe place for foreign investment as is also claimed by the CCP? And if so, how?
My point still is that if the working class fighting for better conditions for themselves is illegal the state is not on their side. Which by the numbers it is.
This is just an example of it but is part of larger trend of extreme (worse than the US on rights is extreme) worker explotation and supression.
Strikes are not the main way workers fight for better conditions for themselves in socialism, the society as a whole is oriented in a fashion where this is achievable by reform and referendum, democratic institutions. Strikes can and have been used by western, anti-communist groups against socialist systems, and this is what’s illegal. You’re again falsely pretending the PRC and US Empire have the same economic system, and thus mechanisms like strikes have the same utility in each, but that’s not the case. Strikes are more useful in capitalist economies where the state is on the side of the capitalists.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
You linked a trotskyist “China watching” org, of course they are going to portray China as though it’s in crisis when it’s steadily doing better and better. This is why China’s approval rates are so high:
Secondly, the link I provided talks about worker interests, in China the interests of the state are aligned with the interests of the workers, hence the worker backlash against Lenovo.
You’ve shared this picture twice, but i cant find the study related to it.
Do you have better sources on tracking strikes in mainland China? The only other places i found info were US finance reporting on as a mattet of investment concern.
Wasn’t too hard to find, IMO.
Overall, it’s difficult to find accurate data on strikes in China in english that’s not intentionally massaged or outright fabricated. There’s a ton of money in distorting it. However, it’s important to recognize that China’s system is broadly supported, and strikes are not as necessary to enact systemic changes.
You do see why the argument that strikes are rarely allowed but conveintly thats ok because they are needed or wanted isnt very convicing right?
I can seem to find numbers supporting that are a rise in strikes which line up with the global trend of economic unrest, I can not find numbers suggesting what you are saying though, and instead you seem to be suggesting that yes there is an increase of illegal strikes but no body actually or needs them because the states interests are the peoples interests. That seems inconcruent to the data showing that people are in fact striking. Which is why i was asking about different data sources. Id take non-english data sources as well to be honest. Translatinh the label and methods may take some effort but i can Arabic Numerals in almost any context.
Even by western sources, strikes are falling. You keep framing them as “illegal strikes,” and in general seem content on just parroting anti-China viewpoints. If they are striking, it’s because China is bad, if they aren’t, it’s because they aren’t allowed to, etc etc. It’s as Michael Parenti puts it, a “non-falsifiable orthodoxy.”
My point from the beginning is that China does have some strikes, but the context of said strikes is different from capitalist countries and as such trying to use “number of strikes” as a state of worker well-being is poor logic. The numbers do back broad support for China and for socialism, which is why I’ve shared them.
Im not seeing what you are saying represented in the link you provided.
Groups like CLB are saying that the strikes they are tracking are illegal strikes because the official unions are not acts on the demands of their members. Basically the sole source ive found and that you have shared. We seem to have no data to point that says otherwise.
The steelman version of what you present to me is that China has no need for strikes and that all reporting on strikes is false. Implying every group of workers in China are content to live and die in service to States ambitions as all interpersonal conflict between employer and employees is mediated without fail in some other system besides collective barganing and worker’s demostrations of solidarity.
Am i to believe that AND that China a safe place for foreign investment as is also claimed by the CCP? And if so, how?
No, you’re again mischaracterizing my point. I stated clearly my beliefs in the last comment, and now you’re sealioning.
My point still is that if the working class fighting for better conditions for themselves is illegal the state is not on their side. Which by the numbers it is.
This is just an example of it but is part of larger trend of extreme (worse than the US on rights is extreme) worker explotation and supression.
Strikes are not the main way workers fight for better conditions for themselves in socialism, the society as a whole is oriented in a fashion where this is achievable by reform and referendum, democratic institutions. Strikes can and have been used by western, anti-communist groups against socialist systems, and this is what’s illegal. You’re again falsely pretending the PRC and US Empire have the same economic system, and thus mechanisms like strikes have the same utility in each, but that’s not the case. Strikes are more useful in capitalist economies where the state is on the side of the capitalists.