Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

silverport t1_ixj93q6 wrote

‘They also say that China and Foxconn's "closed-loop production" health measures — where staff live and work on-site — do not work’

Except the salary you get, pays for the things you “rent”from the same company. FoxConn literally recycles MONEY through people!

283

Anton_Cermak t1_ixjgp7a wrote

China is doing Robber Baron capitalism for real... They should change their name to Chinese Capitalist Party 😂

67

DenaBee3333 t1_ixjkvxp wrote

So does that mean my new 14 pro max that was supposed to be here on 11/22 will be delayed?

−1

DazzleMeAlready t1_ixjnxub wrote

Reading this story on my iPhone feels eerily dystopian.

43

ImProblyPoopin t1_ixjs8o3 wrote

Somebody should do something

Sent from my iPhone

149

Zech_Judy t1_ixjx493 wrote

I hope they start a Union. I find the image of the Communist Party crushing a Union funny.

38

dangil t1_ixk2493 wrote

People should stop buying iPhones until Tim Apple addresses this

27

Digital_Simian t1_ixke178 wrote

Replying to Zech_Judy (#641,189)

They probably do. It's just run by the party and the workforce is represented by the party with voting conducted by a board of high level party members that probably are also major industry leaders.

26

blindly t1_ixko5bb wrote

Feel bad. I sense these folks just want a shred of dignity and freedom.

4

[deleted] t1_ixkobv4 wrote

What’s even more absurd are the majority of news reports are focusing on the “impact to apples bottom line”.

Really. That’s what we should be worried about DW/BBC/CNBC 😐

17

not_creative1 t1_ixkw3ka wrote

Replying to dangil (#641,716)

Looks like you did not read the article.

The workers have been suddenly locked down inside the factory as the area went into covid lockdown. These workers have been stuck inside the factory for days and are running out of food.

7

Eponymous-Username t1_ixkwvqn wrote

Isn't this the company that put the nets up? Some people are never satisfied.

0

All-I-Do-Is-Fap t1_ixkyk0a wrote

Social credit score doing their work. I hope everyone is taking notice

−3

multisubcultural1 t1_ixl3otw wrote

Checking in from Wisconsin, nothing going on with the Foxconn campus here…

−1

macmonet t1_ixlirek wrote

Replying to GetOutOfTheWhey (#642,537)

No. They would need a lot more for it. Retail Stores incl. tech support, build quality, software and services and most importantly: trust.

Google dumped too many projects in the past and seems, frankly, uncertain.

2

Gasser1313 t1_ixlpfrt wrote

The beatings will continue until morale improves

5

alt4614 t1_ixlzry0 wrote

Replying to macmonet (#647,139)

From where I’m looking it really only needs apple to fuck off with this green/blue-text nonsense on iMessage to turn back the tide. Android would come storming back.

That’s the cord holding this entire apple-crazy mindset together. If shit was seamless between apps and devices, there wouldn’t be any concrete reason to think of a rectangular screen hidden behind a case as superior or inferior to any other. But being in club blue-text is how folks identify the “cool kids” from the masses and apply the pressure to conform.

0

SheepRliars t1_ixlztpi wrote

Shut it down and bring it to Nevada

1

PoopnEvryDay t1_ixm4v2g wrote

Replying to dangil (#647,569)

This is a result of the Chinese governments COVID lockdowns.

Apple is merely a contract holder. These people are foxconn workers and Chinese citizens. Apple can't tell foxconn how to treat their workers, and they certainly cant dictate how the Chinese government behaves.

Apple is making an effort to move manufacturing outside of China, but it's expected to take years.

0

alan01010101 t1_ixm6yk0 wrote

Boycott Apple, if not we are part of the hypocrisy.

1

official_jgf t1_ixm7ina wrote

Replying to gwicksted (#648,710)

Because there's nothing stopping US politicians from accepting bribes from big corporations for policy favors. It may as well actually be communism when you end up with the same level of absolute power for the corporate leaders as you would have amongst the government leaders in communism.

5

geekygay t1_ixmcs3w wrote

Replying to blkbny (#645,450)

Oh, you try to bring it up to Liberals about how rural areas have been screwed by capitalism and they go "Well, but they vote really shitty right now, don't they know any better? Therefore, I hate them." And then turn around and go "Generational wealth and resources has been denied to black people and should be fixed." And they just... have these two thoughts in their mind at the same time.

−5

the_grungydan t1_ixmdyzs wrote

Replying to official_jgf (#649,883)

We have in essence the exact same problem that existed in the USSR, just with a much more effective propaganda machine.

Some "Murca!" dipshit is going to come along and deliberately misunderstand my point in 3.... 2.....

5

gwicksted t1_ixme0ix wrote

Replying to official_jgf (#649,883)

Precisely. In Canada too. Lobbying and political donations as well as shady deals shouldn’t be allowed.

Ideally, there would be no political parties nor votes. Political candidates should be chosen at random with considerations for a broad selection of socioeconomic statuses and job titles. It should be done using a variety of random information sources such that it would be very difficult to tamper with all of them.

You should apply to become one in your census and only being appointed for a one to two year term. An ethics board should also be appointed similarly and would audit the “politicians” with legal guidance. Your pay would remain the same as your average income over the past 2 years with a maximum of $200,000 to eliminate any strong financial incentive. There would be an additional $10,000 personal care budget to assist with presentable clothing and grooming as well as additional considerations for those with disabilities. A minimum IQ should be required such that you are at least in the median to prove a reasonable level of reading/writing/comprehension required to perform your duties.

During their term, their powers would be limited to controlling capitalism, distribution of foreign aid, funding federal initiatives such as military and infrastructure investment.

Eliminate provincial governments here in Canada and instead rely more heavily on elected town council which will have powers limited to their area and money collected from it to provide necessary infrastructure.

I don’t know if this would actually work. Just a thought experiment

0

not_creative1 t1_ixmhzzk wrote

Replying to dangil (#650,030)

That is happening. It is a massive operation and it cannot happen overnight.

By 2025, 25% of all apple products will be made in india. This year for the first time in their history, apple’s flagship phone (14) was made outside of China in India

All of apple’s wearables (watch, AirPods) will be made in Vietnam

1

ba-NANI t1_ixmi5sw wrote

Replying to PoopnEvryDay (#649,564)

Apple can 100% dictate how the workers are treated, and has accepted the price package of, "wow that's cheap labor, and all it cost us was looking the other way!"

1

geekygay t1_ixmnkf6 wrote

Replying to ffwiffo (#651,721)

I'm not saying they said that. I'm saying they have zero empathy for people suffering the generational trauma of having a populace who was treated that way, or close to it.

Also, just because I'm calling out Liberals doesn't mean I'm therefore a Conservative.

0

johndoe30x1 t1_ixmobsu wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#644,200)

The odds of the government admitting fault are about zero, but the odds that the government moves to improve conditions at least somewhat are almost certain. Riots get results in some places like China and France even though they fail today in places like the U.S. and Iran.

2

junkboxraider t1_ixmp1s6 wrote

Replying to geekygay (#650,495)

What you’re leaving out (I suspect intentionally) is that the rural voters who consistently vote against their own interests — as long as those votes also work against other people — are overwhelmingly white. It’s the same mindset, and sometimes the same people, that has historically fought against people of color in America.

It’s not two conflicting thoughts, it’s two facets of the same problem.

1

geekygay t1_ixmq3qh wrote

Replying to junkboxraider (#652,054)

> What you’re leaving out (I suspect intentionally) is that the rural voters who consistently vote against their own interests — as long as those votes also work against other people — are overwhelmingly white.

I don't really even know what this has to do with this except you're trying to say "It's ok that they were the victims of capitalism, they're white!" Which is a brave stance.

I keep wanting to make fun of you for thinking that I intentionally left out one of the most well-known facts ever, but I'm torn on that due to the fact I have no idea what their being white has to do with what I said. And, yeah, they have fought against people of color. But that was due to manipulations by the wealthy and preying upon biases present in every person, white or black. Don't pretend that black people are unable to have racial biases. I think Kanye and Irving have made that quite clear.

1

geekygay t1_ixmsj46 wrote

Replying to ffwiffo (#651,914)

What take zero empathy? My calling out one set of victims for not empathizing with other victims? There's too much infighting between the victims of capitalism. And blaming rural voters for doing what they've been conditioned into doing due to their environment is getting really old. It's just Liberals trying to make their selves feel holier-than-thou towards Conservatives because that's all they have going for them in their lives.

0

hateitorleaveit t1_ixmtqjk wrote

They are rioting for being locked in the business by the governments “covid” rules

1

junkboxraider t1_ixmufd2 wrote

Replying to geekygay (#652,165)

You seem really intent on protecting white voters who voted to discriminate against and harm non-whites from the consequences of their votes.

I never said or implied that white voters were not also harmed by predatory capitalism. But there’s a real big difference between fighting against predatory practices and trying to harness them to hurt people you don’t like.

1

at0mheart t1_ixmxm62 wrote

Apple CEO claiming it’s just supply chain issues

3

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixn2zai wrote

Replying to Arndt3002 (#644,738)

it’s possible to have a market economy where all business is owned by the workers. Socialism is worker ownership of business (not the state!!, that’s one type) As opposed to planned central state socialism
where the state plans everything.

China is a weird mix, it’s doublethink in a way for the ccp, but not oxymoronic for socialism in general because there are numerous types of socialism

0

Arndt3002 t1_ixn6e7i wrote

Replying to TheRealTP2016 (#653,544)

Edit: TLDR that's not really what socialism means. That's a watered down definition that ignores the key component of socialism: community control of the market (the only means to ensure nonworkers cannot own means of production).

As per the definition of socialism. It is not merely worker ownership, but rather communitarian control. There is a distinction here. The actual definition of community control is directly at odds with a market economy, as it limits individual control or the freedom of the market.

Whereas certain socialist critiques of capitalism (in the sense of an ownership class) are definitely as you describe (as being about worker ownership of business), that is not the sole defining feature of socialism. In that case, you could just have workers own the dominant share in a company and it would be socialist. This is not the case as the word term is generally used. Rather, the primary orientation of socialism is based on community determination and control of the means of production.

This is what makes it fundamentally opposed to the concept or ideology of free markets, wherein individuals have complete autonomy from community control and market forces provide incentives which optimize productivity while maintaining individual freedom from external control.

Here are some common definitions to support how this idea of community control is central to socialism. I do not mean these as a be all end all, but more of as an illustrative point. Socialism is centrally defined by communitarian control, in opposition to a free market.

Oxford English: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Webster: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Brittanica: "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."

Stanford encyclopedia: "In the classical, Marxist definition (G.A. Cohen 2000a: ch.3; Fraser 2014: 57–9), capitalism involves certain relations of production. These comprise certain forms of control over the productive forces—the labor power that workers deploy in production and the means of production such as natural resources, tools, and spaces they employ to yield goods and services—and certain social patterns of economic interaction that typically correlate with that control."

2

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixn7nyo wrote

Replying to Arndt3002 (#653,869)

That all makes sense, but I’m missing how that fits in with an ideology like anarchist market socialism. Are you saying the existence of a market, even if fully owned by workers, isn’t truly socialist?

2

AbeLincolns_Ghost t1_ixneo51 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#651,975)

I think the problem is that in an autocratic system, you cannot vote for change, so you must get change through other means. In the small scale, riots (as peaceful protest is often not allowed) will be cracked down on, but smart regimes often quietly make some of the changes motivating the rioters to prevent riots from happening again. Almost like voting.

Similarly, if people want regime change, they can’t just vote out their leaders, but have to start revolutions or coups. So autocrats rarely leave office alive

2

Arndt3002 t1_ixni4sx wrote

Replying to TheRealTP2016 (#653,981)

TLDR: it is not socialist as it leaves the possibility for a capitalist system to exist in the community. That is, unless every single person refuses to enter into a contract where they work without the means of production (an untenable assumption unless you assume everyone will inherently and always make altruistic choices).

An anarchist market socialism is inherently impossible, due to the fact that it requires every single individual from making a very natural type of agreement, and such complete individual consent without community control is impossible.

In an anarchist market system, one is free to own whatever one is able without an overarching community or government to override an individual's decision. This may be "socialist" insofar as people collaborate to determine how they act in the market.

However, in order to be truly an anarchist market economy, one must be able to own what one wants. Under that type of system, it is an immediate and natural consequence that someone would, say, pay for someone to help them with a tool they own or manage something they own. Unless the community forces them to stop (which would no longer be anarchist), they have entered under an agreement where the owner of the means of production is not the worker, which is inherently not socialistic.

Further, the fact that this can occur makes the system inherently incompatible with socialism. In one instance you can choose to deny the core tenet of socialism, that the community can override an individual's market decision to work without ownership of the means of production. Alternatively, you can choose to deny a core tenet of anarchist market economies, that a collective cannot override an individual's market decisions.

The problem with your argument is that you are only considering particular individuals decisions, rather than the rules and principles which allow those conditions to be general. A system that has a company owned by workers is not in a socialist system if another company is owned by a capitalist. What makes it socialism (as I describe before) is the community overriding the ability to even have a company where the workers do not own the means of production.

The only way this is viable is if every single member of the society refuses to participate in that sort of agreement, completely without collective overruling. However, this is inherently untenable as an ideology for any large scales, as that sort of active consent needs to occur completely voluntarily for every individual. If we were capable of making such unanimous individual decisions, people wouldn't do bad things to eachother anyways.

2

NomadCF t1_ixnmd0z wrote

Looks like iPhone prices are going up again.

1

Arndt3002 t1_ixnqejf wrote

Replying to TheRealTP2016 (#655,102)

I self-describe as more of a social democrat or sometimes called "democratic capitalist" (as in the free market Michael Novak sense, not the "pro-landlord" sense which the word often signifies in socialist analysis). I used to be more of a democratic socialist, but my view has changed a bit over time.

I used to support more government ownership and control (to be clear I still think this for medicine, utilities, academic research, etc. as the community decides); however, I currently think that the best way to stop exploitative capitalism is a strong regulative framework, rather than outright government or community control of most enterprise. I think that our current problems are more the failing of the government than it is the market itself, as our system does more to advantage massive corporations than it does to regulate them. I think it's more a problem of failed community regulation rather than a fundamental problem of needing community ownership.

My view isn't too different from democratic socialism practically, but I think the framework of fundamentally free markets with thorough community regulation preserves individual rights better than a fundamentally community controlled economy.

Often, I think many self-proclaimed "democratic socialists" fall under this general train of thought. However, I think that sweeping my view under the canopy of "socialism" waters down the rich history of genuinely socialist critique, which is fundamentally founded on community control of the means of production. Sorry for the essays, lol, but I like sharing my thoughts.

Note: I disagree with the rather eurocentric view of Novak (and many will naturally disagree with him due to his religious views), but his work "the spirit of democratic capitalism" played a role in refining my stance toward capitalism. I would recommend it as a way to see why people seem to support capitalism as an idea, despite the ways in which it has been used to exploit people. It certainly has helped me argue with conservatives where I'm from in the Midwest, and convince them that leftist "communist" policies are actually the best way for them to serve their own interests.

2

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixnr7im wrote

Replying to Arndt3002 (#655,850)

That’s a very unique and in depth view. Thanks for sharing. I think overall we are more aligned than in contrast.

I’m not sure what else I can say right now besides that, but thanks for responding. if I’m less brain dead later, I’ll dig deeper into the details and reply but currently I’m unable.

You have a totally fair critique

2

geekygay t1_ixnxekl wrote

Replying to ffwiffo (#652,678)

No, I'm trying to get people to fucking care about their fellow human being instead of just going "Oh, they're a Republican? fuck them, they can rot!"

1

geekygay t1_ixnxq72 wrote

Replying to junkboxraider (#652,679)

> trying to harness them to hurt people you don’t like.

Because they're ignorant that there can be any other way of going about it! And I'm talking to a bunch of fucking liberals, so of course I'm coming at it from this angle. If I were talking to Conservatives, my comments would be different. Why would I preach to the choir.... oh no, that's what you want so you can feel good about yourself.

Fucking "Protecting white voters" Jesus christ. This isn't a zero sum endeavor, guys. You're just as black/white viewpoint as Christian nationalists are.

1

Pigasus7 t1_ixp7mg0 wrote

Why does Apple have to rely on this company to manufacture iPhones? There has to be a better way!

1

PoopnEvryDay t1_ixtq13p wrote

Replying to ba-NANI (#651,194)

I wrote what I did in the order I wrote it for a reason 'dictate' was applied to the Chinese government. No, apple cannot tell foxconn how to treat its workers. They do not work for Apple.

Apple has opted to work with other factories in other countries, but this transition requires time and proper planning. Apple DOES have a responsibility to its actual employees and its shareholders, who invest in the company and keep the business afloat and its people employed.

No. Apple floating on it's networth is not the solution. In business Cash flow (and not networth) is king. A massive loss in investors, the lawsuits that come with poor business decisions and breach of contract, and the destruction of reputation has killed massive companies before. Apple being a trillion dollar company does not make them immune and they understand this.

There is no instant gratification solution that results in everyone singing kumbaya, as is often the case with reality. This is global commerce. It's great except for when it isn't.

Perhaps you think I'm fanboying or shilling for Apple. I am not, however if they choose to send me a check I would gladly accept it.

1