I have lived in China for the past 11 years. Middle income countries like China (average income per capita same as Thailand) often have people working more than five days a week. That’s a choice. Taking convenience stores as an example FamilyMart has six day weeks with 16 hour shifts. Lawson’s and 7-11, I think have five day work weeks with nine hour shifts. FamilyMart workers make as much as university graduates starting in decent companies.
There are similar splits in professional level work. There are jobs available where you ~never work six days a week and others where it’s routine. Trust me when I say no one at Nike or Booking in Shanghai is working 996.
My logic does not suggest the lack of unions and organized labor causes six day weeks. Six or seven day working weeks are the natural condition. Economic growth allows for different consumption leisure trade offs. Unions can only very indirectly effect economic growth. They matter much less than the ability to quit your job and find a new one easily. Firms desperate for workers are what make working conditions better, much more than unions.
On the contrary, the BBC has a major right-wing bias and regularly downplays - and even often outright chooses to not report - pieces that reflect poorly on the UK Government (which becomes striking when you read some European or American dailies that report much more freely on such stories).
The iPhone / 3G / 3GS / 4 were so far ahead of what any of their competitors were doing that it can be difficult to conceptualise it in hindsight.
HTC, Sony, Moto, RIM - there's a reason these companies barely exist in the same form anymore. Samsung were the first to consistently catch-up to Apple - largely because they're official strategy at that point was 'copy Apple'
The premise of this article is that Intel was intimidated out of mentioning Xinjiang and instead opted to list categories of practices to be excluded from its supply chain.
Why is it not appropriate to discuss the ways Intel and other US companies are already beneficiaries of some of those practices?
The fact that there's an actual genocide taking place in the country is all we need to know - all the other so-called "assumptions" pale in comparison to that reality
Well, this is a dead thread but I thought I'd help out anyway.
What Russia did in the 20th century was called a workers dictatorship, and was meant to be a transition into communism, which is defined as a stateless and classless society. So, calling what Russia did 'communism' is a bit like calling what the fascists did 'capitalism', and then saying that because it didn't work, therefore capitalism doesn't work. Anarchists have generally stood against workers dictatorships because they seem to be an ineffective way of achieving communism, but they do want communism.
Soviet rule was at best state-capitalism, with the government creating market quotas, trading with other countries, annexing other countries for their resources, and ultimately still doing everything capitalist countries do, but with more state-intervention.
> One is : a society that is not capitalist, ie, the means of production are owned by the workers.
Among living socialists and communists, I'd argue that that is actually their definition of "socialism", while their definition of "communism" is a moneyless, classless and stateless society, the idea being that the former could lead to the later if implemented. All three words have changed their meanings over the last 200 years though. To most people today, "communism" just means an authoritarian state ruled by a communist party with a centralized economy and "socialism" means widely different things to different people depending on where you live and what media you read.
On the basis of your logic that's a consequence of the lack of union and organised labour