January 03, 2012
steve jobs and the joseph stalin charm school
It takes confidence to sit in front of an audience, armed with a few pages of notes and one glass of water, wearing clothes you may have slept in, using your rubbery face as your primary prop, to discuss warmly but ultimately damningly, for nearly two hours, a man you never met. A man thought of as a rare contemporary hero. A man who died five weeks earlier. What gives Mike Daisey, a veteran monologist, the confidence and endurance to perform The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs daily is, I suspect, justice. The jumpy, chilling, riotous monologue has the expected: scenes from the life of Steve Jobs and Apple; hilarious set pieces about Daisey’s technology geekishness. But its heart lies in Daisey’s disillusionment from his “religion” of Apple after years researching how Apple products are made, most upsettingly by interviewing workers outside the Shenzhen, China factory of Foxconn, a major manufacturer of Apple products. Daisey witnessed the company that produced his objects of identity be ruthlessly indifferent to the lives of the workers making them. His indictment is personal, directed at Jobs, but it leaves no one innocent. After the performance, I needed to run an errand, to buy a toaster. But the stores—buying and selling—sickened me. Toast would have to wait.more from 3QD friend Gary Sernovitz at n+1 here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:28 AM | Permalink




















Comments
Thanks for posting the link.
I thought that the N+1 article was very good when it comes to Jobs and Apple, but somewhat dishonest when it comes to outsourcing to China. Oddly, the author seemed to understand this and wrestled with it.
The United States has no industrial policy and has almost completely hollowed out manufacturing. We have reached a point where it is very difficult to buy anything that is not made in China or another low wage country. When it comes to electronics, it is probably impossible to buy anything that is not made in Asia.
The great irony of China is that they supposedly have "socialist" roots and are a state that was founded in the name of workers. They have developed into a country with some of the worst treatment of workers in the world. Any attempt to unionize is met with the force of police repression. The state has very few workplace protections and those are rarely enforced.
So we can buy cheap products and have corporate profits we all support working conditions like those in China. The idea, stated in the article, that a multi-national corporation like Apple should give up some of their massive profits to benefit foreign workers, when China itself does not help them, is naive at best. Apple is no better or worse than any other corporation. If China allowed or encouraged unions and workplace safety laws these issues would not exist. Apple is simply taking advantage of this situation. Like many other US corporations.
The N+1 author knows that Apple is not unique and is not even the worst offender. As bad as Foxpro may be, there are worse companies that make the products we buy.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Jan 3, 2012 3:10:35 PM
While the issue is important, as Ian suggests, the actors that are blamed are completely misplaced.
The actors that should bear responsibility (in no particular order) are:
1) The Chinese government, for allowing exploitation of their workers.
2) The US government for encouraging exploitation of workers, and not actively preventing it.
3) The US public for voting in people who would never take steps to actively even the playing field between corporations who exploit and those who dont.
Blaming the consumer or the corporations is stupid. The game theory concepts here are pretty simple. Consumers and corporations acting rationally with their own self interest in mind would be expected to take advantage of exploited workers. However, this negatively impacts everybody. Expecting a substantial majority of the public or corporate world to act irrationally to fix issues with the world is doomed to fail. The only entity with the power to fix this issue is the government, which can level the playing field by imposing taxes on companies which produce goods by exploiting dirt cheap labor.
Posted by: addicted | Jan 4, 2012 4:57:21 AM
addicted,
Blaming the consumer or the corporations is stupid. The game theory concepts here are pretty simple. Consumers and corporations acting rationally with their own self interest in mind would be expected to take advantage of exploited workers. However, this negatively impacts everybody.
I'm interested to know: in what ways does this game-theoretic situation differ from ordinary ethical life, wherein we are constantly provided with opportunities to "act rationally in our self interest"? In ordinary life, we do not normally take these dark paths, because we feel them to be basically wrong: I pay for my taxi instead of leaping out of the cab and dashing off. Most agree that this tendency is good for everyone in the long run, even if it results in short-term losses for individuals.
Why does the same logic not apply to corporations and consumers? This is an important question, because one thing we most certainly do not want to do is allow an economic mythology to carve out a de-ethicized zone where anything goes. We need reasons for granting corporations and consumers this Get Out Of Jail Free Card. What are they?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jan 4, 2012 8:15:22 AM
This topic may have faded, but I'll make one more comment...
There's a great scene in the movie "Margin Call" where the head of the investment bank that has just screwed their customers by unloading toxic bonds comments that they will do it again. "We just can't help ourselves".
I believe in free markets. But I also know that successful actors will act to make those markets less free and less competitive for their own benefit. That's what we have today.
Similar issues exist with foreign manufacturing. The Chinese have recently destroyed the US solar panel industry. Every country in Asia has industrial policy where they protect critical industries.
Not screwing a taxi driver on the fare is one thing. But when there are millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, where acting immorally, but not clearly illegally, will result in a huge payoff, most people will take the money. I've worked in the financial industry and may work there again. This is an industry that tends to be populated by some of the most dysfunctional people you will ever encounter. Their one yardstick is how much money they can pull in. If there is not regulation these people will take money from anyone they legally can (and in some cases illegally).
Government regulation can make sure that people act properly. That they don't ruin the health of people who work for them. That they don't act in ways that cause systemic economic damage. We are now seeing the result of the lack of industrial policy and meaningful financial regulation. All the result of a political system corrupted by campaign donations.
The United States voters have been sold an Ayn Rand fantasy about the virtues of unbridled and unregulated capitalism. The regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression have been dismantled. The result is the worst kind of socialism: the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses.
At the same time we have destroyed our manufacturing infrastructure without providing much to replace it.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Jan 4, 2012 1:38:55 PM
I agree. Capitalists have to be watched like a hawk. They are high on money. Unregulated capitalism is the equivalent of organized crime. That's where the U.S. is right now. In the grip of a criminal oligarchy.
Posted by: reader | Jan 4, 2012 1:58:25 PM
Post a comment