Chinese Market Regulator Strengthens Protection for Food Delivery Workers (reuters.com) 30
Food delivery platforms in China will be required to guarantee riders' income above minimum pay, insurance and a relaxation in deadlines for deliveries, under reforms announced on Monday by China's market regulator. From a report: The guidelines were issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation along with six other administrative departments, including the National Development and Reform Commission, the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Public Security. Food delivery platforms in China, including Meituan and Alibaba's Ele.me, have drawn severe criticism on social media for their treatment of delivery riders, most of whom are not covered by basic social and medical insurance.
Both, Meituan and Alibaba's Ele.me did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. Meituan has been working with the government to purchase employment injury insurance for its delivery drivers, the company's chief executive, Wang Xing, said on a conference call in May.
Both, Meituan and Alibaba's Ele.me did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. Meituan has been working with the government to purchase employment injury insurance for its delivery drivers, the company's chief executive, Wang Xing, said on a conference call in May.
So Soviet China⦠(Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
In theory yes, however in practice workers protection becomes a hit and miss.
Communism works in groups under about 1000 people. The small group everyone knows everyone else, they know what each person can and cannot do well. It is easy to assign jobs and equally share the rewards of the output. Also the small group means there is a much larger area outside that group, so you can feel ethically inclined to kick out any member who isn't willing to follow the agreed rules to the community, as they will have
Re: (Score:1)
Well they are nominally socialist, so it's not *that* surprising.
This is the kind of stuff gig workers in Europe have, and China seems to be moving towards emulation of that model. See recent stories about personal data protections, for example.
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
China has many capitalistic aspects. Mao himself said the transition follows global capitalism towards socialism and finally communism. He acknowledged that no country can rise to dominance without capitalism. That once globally a dominant economy, socialism is best for the people and from that the communist if ideal can be achieved. Personally I don't even know if the last step is needed but arguing that capitalism has no role in the current form of China seems a miss. These food services in China flourish
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you that's not right. I'm a socialist and I don't want communism. I want the European model, especially the Nordic model, of socialism.
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You final points here are spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I misunderstand Maoism but it's also an area I perhaps need to study in more detail. I think my point was rather that during these transitions, there is not a clear divide. If we look at UKs modern capitalism there are still remnants of Feudalism and the crown still holds significant lands.
I also think Sodalists can desire an intermediate ground between the two more stark positions of pure free-market capitalism and full state control of communism. They think parts of the system should be soci
What is socialism? [Re: So Soviet China...] (Score:3)
What makes you say they're "nominally" socialist? They're full socialist with Chinese characteristics.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to talk about whether a society is socialist or not unless the people discussing agree what they mean by the word "socialist".
Strictly according to the definition in economics, "socialism" means "worker ownership and control of the means of production" (*). If China has private ownership of companies, no, it's not socialist.
(And, yes, by that strict economics definition, most of those northern European economies that are often put forth as models of how socialism works are no
Re: (Score:2)
It's not though. If Chinese companies were under the control of and in the interests of the state then there would be no need to regulate them.
Re: (Score:2)
By that very narrow definition no country is socialist anymore, they all have privately owned industry.
If you go back to Marx he was basically saying that instead of people with capital owning the means of production it should be the people who do the actual labour. That can take many forms. The government, as an instrument of the workers, owning industry. Or more commonly that the workers have a greater say in the companies that they work for, they have greater labour rights and some democratic control ove
Re: (Score:2)
By that very narrow definition no country is socialist anymore, they all have privately owned industry.
Cuba, Venezuela and Vietnam.
Cuba and Vietnam are formally communist, not socialist, but in this respect they don't differ. Vietnam (which nationalized all businesses, no matter how small (even street vendors), back in 1975) is sliding back toward capitalism, though.
A lot of countries have nationalized various industries, primarily either infrastructure or banks, but since I don't think that they were nationalized in order for them to be worker managed, I personally wouldn't count these as socialism. https:/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
"Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is a term with the same descriptive accuracy as "National Socialism of the German Workers", that is, none whatsoever.
a) Sure, it's Chinese by effect of happening in China through the hands of Chinese vanguardists (aka "the Aristocracy of the Proletariat", as satirists very properly call vanguards in general), but there's nothing culturally or historically "Chinese" about it, as it's entirely based on Western ideologies. The actual Chinese political traditions, such a
Re: (Score:2)
They were communist. They aren't really socialist now, for example they don't have high levels of trade union membership or particularly great workers rights overall. Democracy is an inherent part of socialism too.
As your link notes it's a development of Leninism, i.e. it didn't start from the same place as European socialism which was capitalism. China is trying to build a non-democratic capitalist economy, but delivering some of the benefits of European socialism so that it doesn't so exploitative, in the
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
Right. China is totally trying to gain from understanding the effective incorporation of socialistic ideals in European nations. China is truly playing the long game and unlike other countries, it seems to have no qualms with incorporating policy that it sees as effective in another country.
It's funny we would call this industrial esponiage if it was a manufacturing process but we would use no such language about copying governance. Yet government produces people, the citizen... so this the general conclusi
Re: (Score:2)
LOL the anti-socialist trolls are always very quick to jump on these stories. The very notion that anything good might be a socialist idea is offensive to them. Better rights for gig workers are pure capitalism, the invisible hand of the market delivered government regulations mandating better conditions.
Or maybe it's the idea that Europe is socialist. Last week one of them modded me troll for pointing out that Sweden is governed by the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden and has been for most of the
Re: So Soviet China⦠(Score:2)
Uh yes. This is essentially a basic tenant of socialism where it should be clear China is more socialist than communistic. Then again capitalism has a dominant place too but understanding the long term role of these three economic systems requires a more in depth discussion of how Maoism is not Leninism...Then again after a person dies, who knows how badly their philosophy will be butchered... just look at Christianity. And with this final note, I hope I have pushed everyones' button.
I wouldn't call China socialist (Score:2)
Re: I wouldn't call China socialist (Score:2)
All your points seem fair except that you are describing Socialism as a perfectly realized ideal. This has literally never been achieved except for the early Christian communities. So while I agree, it's a correct explanation of the ideal, it doesn't seem to reflect how any large scale, modern economy achieved the outcome. Likewise I think it's why we mix the terms and describe some countries as socialized democracies.
It makes sense (Score:2)
Doesn't it make sense for a government to protect its own property from abuse?
unsafe deadlines for deliveries need to be unsafe (Score:2)
unsafe deadlines for deliveries need to be stopped good job there.
. . . about the gig workers . . . (Score:2)
Political philosophy doesn't seem to answer why the gig workers are being protected by the Chinese authorities. It may be a simple matter of practicality.
What motivates the leadership? Certainly one of the most important things is to have a happy populace which is not inclined toward rebellion. Such a large number of people could easily overwhelm the leadership.
If we must make comparisons to the US treatment of gig workers, again it is a practical matter. US authorities have little to worry about from low-w
Re: (Score:2)
No More Super Cheap Deliveries (Score:1)
This may mean the end of 50-cent deliveries in China. I know people there who make a home meal of deliveries from three different places because these are so cheap, but the delivery workers are making so little they are living in poverty.