High Tech Capitalism

In chapter 5 of Cutting Edge: Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution Guglielmo Carchedi examines the impacts that technological advancements, specifically those related to the increased productivity of labor, on labor workers themselves.  While Carchedi acknowledges the “tone of cheerful confidence and even enthusiasm” (Davis 73), that typically accompanies new technologies in a capitalist society, he ultimately asserts that, “[T]heir capitalist use necessarily implies crisis, exploitation, poverty, unemployment, the destruction of the natural environment and more generally all those evils which high tech is supposed to eradicate” (73).  What follows is a thorough but accessible synopsis of the effects of technological innovations on production and labor in an orthodox Marxist capitalist model.  Being that I am far from well versed in Marxism/capitalism/economics, I found Carchedi’s explanations to be extremely helpful in contextualizing the concerns regarding technological effects on the labor market, as well as some of the broader strokes of these schools of theory/fields. 

 A primary issue that Carchedi addresses in his chapter is the generally adverse effects that technological advancements have on the laboring class; he is not hesitant to conjure up images of human misery, crisis, exploitation, poverty, and starvation in his description of “High-Tech Capitalism.”  For better or worse, the model of high tech capitalism that Carchedi outlines in his chapter is very much present in our current economy, a reality Joel Johnson illustrates in his article “1 Million Workers. 90 Million iPhones. 17 Suicides. Who’s to Blame?” for Wired magazine.  The article spotlights a manufacturing plant in Shenzhen, China that is owned by Foxconn Industries, and employs nearly a million individuals.  During the time that the article was written (about a year or so ago), Foxconn had come under significant scrutiny regarding their labor practices, which came under suspicion after 17 of the plants’ employees committed suicide in a five year period.  This behavior, while alarming, may not be surprising, as Carchedi points, “With each jump in the productivity of the imperialist countries’ capital, the laborers in the dominated countries must be subjected to a corresponding jump in the rate of exploitation” (Davis, 82).

Is this what happened at the plant in Shenzhen, and if so, can similar behavioral trends be expected as we move towards a more high tech capitalist model?  Johnson, who admits that his personal interest in the Foxconn suicide scandal is linked to ethical questions regarding his role (however small) in causing these individuals to take their own lives, seems to think so.  But even he is quick to point out the claims that, “While other companies’ workers fended for themselves or slept under the tables they worked at, [Foxconn’s] employees were well fed, safe from the petty crime of a growing metropolis, and surrounded by peers and advocates” (Johnson, 2011).  Indeed, the Shenzhen plant structure is unique in that in encompasses roughly a one square mile radius, houses nearly 500,000 employees in company owned dormitories, and offers resources such as hospitals, internet cafes, markets, restaurants, and even counseling services to its employees/tenants.  Comparatively speaking, the suicide rate in Shenzhen is low.  Production workers in the “first world” and even college students have a yearly suicide rate that is nearly four times those exhibited by the Shenzhen factory workers.  Maybe they are ahead of the curve—for now.

But my suspicion is that these “comparative lows” won’t last for long.  Even within Foxconn, who manufactures parts for both Apple and Nokia, dissention and intense capitalist competition exists.  A prime example of this can be seen in Nokia’s ad campaign for their new Lumia 920, the self-proclaimed “iPhone killer.” 

But what’s capitalism without a little healthy competition?  It seems that the burgeoning desire for competitive, technologically advanced products could/should/would create an exponential number of new jobs for “eager” (according to the clip below) employees looking to escape their cursed agricultural heritages and work for a seemingly utopian corporation like Foxconn.  However..

Of course, we are not surprised that these conditions are not nearly as ideal as they purport themselves to be, that’s hardly the surprise here.  What I wondered after reading the Wired article is if it was even possible for employees of Foxconn to escape these labor conditions.  If Carchedi is correct in his summation of the impacts of technology on labor, then these individuals risk being displaced, if not replaced, by the very products that they are creating.  Even when the labor market recovers from a technological innovation, the labor pool becomes smaller and smaller.  However, this can be convenient for capitalists who mitigate every aspect of their employees’ lives, from when/where/and in what quantities they work, rest, eat, and even interact.  Liberal slavery?  They can, after all, always leave—but what will they be leaving to?  As usual, I am left with more questions than answers, but I think that Carchedi’s theory, paralleled with Foxconn’s labor practices, points to a high tech capitalist epoch, during which the way that we conceive of production, value, and labor, will be altered tremendously.