Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Capital, however, is a fickle lover.
July 9, 2011 11:53 AM   Subscribe

"But it is the worry that the key source of corporate profitability — Chinese labor — may no longer be docile and cheap for much longer that mainly nags at the country's corporate guests as well as its rising capitalist class. And many fear that the very ruthlessness that Zizek talks about — the iron fist that the Chinese state has deployed over the last three decades in order to achieve the unbeatable 'China price' — has become a central part of the problem."
posted by notion (30 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
Off to Africa!
posted by Thorzdad at 12:01 PM on July 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


Has cheap labour ever remained docile once it learns that the hand that holds the tool can be a hand that becomes a fist? We are such a stupid, short-sighted species.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 12:04 PM on July 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is a good article. I have been wondering about Brazil.

There was a Mark Bittman article on food safety in China - also calling out terrible meat processing plants in the US - that was scary, lately.
posted by subdee at 12:30 PM on July 9, 2011


Love the "It sure was great when they'd crack down for our benefit but now that they're cracking down for THEIR benefit, we could sure use a more liberal regime!"
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 12:45 PM on July 9, 2011 [3 favorites]


The article lost me when it defined "disregard for ecological consequences, disdain for workers' rights, everything subordinated to the ruthless drive to develop and become the new world force" as "a new kind of capitalism". Somebody hasn't been reading their basic economic textbooks.

America's Middle Class was given the Death Sentence when Free Trade became synonymous with Globalization thirty years ago. I'm actually rather surprised it has taken this long to carry out the execution. There will never be a Middle Class of much consequence in China; its Fascist leadership is too smart to let that happen, while the USofA's Founding Fathers put too many false promises into their rhetoric and documents that subsequent generations started taking seriously. We'll probably be history's last Economic Leader to give more than lip service to human rights, because all the up-and-coming economic forces are seeing how it has weakened us.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:50 PM on July 9, 2011 [3 favorites]


"In Communism, man oppresses man. In Capitalism, it's the other way around."

Left versus right is less important than top versus bottom. Ruling classes - be they communist, fascist or capitalist - have always been more similar than they are different. They've always been quite willing to work with one another - from the importation of Taylorist methods into the early Soviet Union to the long list of American companies trading with Nazi Germany to today's infatuation with communist China. The Chinese/Sinagporean model of authoritarian capitalism is just more of the same.

But mark my words - this isn't a matter of economics, as Marxist theory says. It's a matter of the desire for power and control over other human beings. Even when the numbers start showing that the Chinese miracle isn't all it was cracked up to be, corporations will still line up, ready to pay homage to Mao, just as CEOs from around the world did in 1999 when celebrating the 50th anniversary of the People's Republic in Tiananmen Square, where 10 years earlier thousands had been slaughtered.

I remember this specifically because one of the CEOs toasting the Chinese leadership where hundreds of students had died opposing that leadership was Phil Condit, former head of Boeing, who had very recently moved Boeing's headquarters from Seattle to Chicago solely to disconnect the company's leadership from its roots and prevent the awkwardness of "bumping into people we'd just laid off at the grocery store". Boeing, of course, is recently in labor news again for being frank about its reasons for opening a factory in South Carolina - to hurt unionized plants elsewhere.

It's not about the money - it's about power. China will falter. But CEOs, and Friedmanist neoliberals everywhere (Thomas as well as Milton) will still look at China's model of authoritarian capitalism as the ideal. If you want to see the corporatist utopia, read David Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas" or Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake" (forget the genetic engineering stuff - look at the corporate state the novel is set in, and offhand lines like "in Australia, where unions were still legal").
posted by jhandey at 1:04 PM on July 9, 2011 [22 favorites]


If you'd like to read more about what's happening in Chinese labor struggles, here's a great website:
China Labour Bulletin.

Also, I think people underestimate the power of Maoist rhetoric at the grassroots level in China. The education system in China venerates Mao and the early Communist revolutionaries, as well as their rhetoric.**

Imagine working in some Dickensian factory nightmare, after having grown up watching movies and reading stories about the brave Communist freedom fighters struggling against foreign capitalists and evil landlords.

Those are powerful narratives, and it's not surprising to me that some factory workers have chosen to flip out and break things when they reach their limit.

**Yes I realize that Mao did terrible things and is not some avatar of wise humanity.
posted by wuwei at 1:28 PM on July 9, 2011 [10 favorites]


...this isn't a matter of economics, as Marxist theory says. It's a matter of the desire for power and control over other human beings.

And money is the easiest and most effective medium for having power and control. And will always be whatever "Economic" system we live under. What we need (and I have no idea how to achieve this) is some kind of Post-Economic system with minimal reliance on money.

wuwei, I thought the Chinese Government still placed a priority on being the Only True Source of Maoist rhetoric. (Insert quote about Communist nations outlawing independent Labor Unions.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:26 PM on July 9, 2011


some kind of Post-Economic system with minimal reliance on money

Like on Star Trek! I always wondered, did that mean Star Fleet, the organization, did not have a budget? How would that even work?
posted by ryanrs at 2:40 PM on July 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


China has always been controlled from atop. The sense of central control is embedded in history, culture, story, and belief. Like Russia, China has really never been communist at all, but a corrupt capitalist state that abuses its people. Like Russia, it's people appear to be willing - with small opposition at the periphery - to put up with wholesale corruption and repression. China, however, seems on almost another level from Russia, in spite of Putin's current return to not-so-subtle, centralized aggressions carried out against voices of political and cultural protest.

I don't know what's in store for the people of China; and, from what little I know (compared to real experts) I don't feel good about what it might be. How can one extract the weight of a few thousand years of tradition of complete central control, and start over? Mao was a pure, brilliant nutcase; but the Chinese tradition of letting the top rule - untrammeled - in any way it wants, led Mao's excesses to cause human suffering beyond the extreme (millions and millions starved [many, to death], millions and millions left in dire poverty, etc.). Force feeding children Mao's "revolutionary truths". I feel so sorry for the Chinese people.

The Chinese government has also built a relatively effective, one-way surveillance apparatus; it continues to grow, unabated. How does any group wanting to change thins overcome that?

Beyond this, I have hope that the Chinese people will somehow, someway, evolve new traditions that permit for decentralized governance. I can't imagine that will happen anytime soon, however. The Chinese government will use any means to put down rebellion - any means, without limit. Knowing this, there would have to be a national Chinese uprising the likes of anything the world has ever seen. Is that likely?
posted by Vibrissae at 3:45 PM on July 9, 2011


The sense of central control is embedded in history, culture, story, and belief.

Really now. This is the culture that brought us the epic quote, "The mountains are tall, and the emperor is far away."

Another name for widespread corruption is distributed power.
posted by effugas at 3:51 PM on July 9, 2011 [2 favorites]


How would that even work?

Pages 5-7 of Code of the LifeMaker, at a guess.

More, but do yourself (and everyone) a favor and skip anything written on the subject that contains the word "nano".
posted by Ryvar at 3:56 PM on July 9, 2011


Oneswellfoop,
Yes the Chinese government maintains a legal monopoly on labor unions, via the All China Federation of Trade Unions. In China, the Communist Party (CP) maintains a monopoly on civil society organizing. To explain how this works, I have to explain a little bit of history.

Way back, before 1949 when the CP took power, there were various groups that were loosely affiliated with the CP, but not necessarily controlled by it. During the Republican (1911-1949) era, China was ruled (to the extent that there was a recognized central government that issued passports etc) by the Kuomintang Party government. The CP was in opposition, and had a number of groups that were loosely affiliated with it, but not obviously in line with the CP leadership. Less charitably, one could call these groups "Communist front" organizations. Also included in this mix were other elements such as the Chinese Freemasons (Hongmen, they were anti-Manchu revolutionaries/criminals, the organization was banned by the British in HK because of perceived links to drug dealing/organized crime), and the left wing of the Kuomintang, nominally under Soong Ching-ling etc.

Once the CP took power, it wasn't going to allow any other independent basis for power in the entire country. The various front organizations were rolled into the main CP, and ceased to be independent of the central committee, for all purposes, Mao and his cronies. The AFCTU like the left wing of the Kuomintang and the Hongmen, became another branch of the CP and lost it's independence. It became another tool of surveillance of the CP at the factory level.

The structure I've described above is essentially totalitarian in its character; the CP maintains primacy over all other entities.

Now in practice, there have been illegal/non-CP directed labor unions that have emerged, and been crushed by the central government. There are also, numerous other actions taken by disgruntled factory workers, against the grossly abusive, dangerous and exploitive practices taken by their management.

Vibrissae,
China has not always been "controlled" from the top simply because before telegraphy, moving a message across the empire took days at best, weeks at worst. Local government, in the form of scholar/gentry/magistrates were the ultimate arbiters of authority, but they had maximum discretion and only remitted taxes up to the central government-- less their own take. What bound the regions to the center was the enforced ideological orthodoxy embodied in the imperial examination system, a sort of super-bar exam.

In the late 19th century, for example, the imperial court in Beijing decentralized power to the regions, allowing the growth of locally funded military units, as opposed to its previous reliance on the family armies of its retainers.* Between roughly 1911 at the end of the empire, and the final victory of the CP in 1949, while there was an internationally recognized government in Beijing under a group of warlords, and a rival national government under the control of the Kuomintang, based in the southern part of China. In practice, China was like Afghanistan. Regional warlords and clans ran the show, gaining foreign exchange via the drug trade.

*I'm analogizing, technically these were the 8 Manchu Banner Armies.
posted by wuwei at 4:29 PM on July 9, 2011 [8 favorites]


Argh, AFCTU should be ACFTU, the abbreviation for the All China Federation of Trade Unionts
posted by wuwei at 4:30 PM on July 9, 2011


Goddammit I screwed up my timeline. Just ignore the first part where I'm talking about the Kuomintang rule after 1911-- the more accurate and simplified version is that for much of the time from 1911 to 1949 there were competing national governments, one based in Beijing and one based in Nanjing.
posted by wuwei at 4:34 PM on July 9, 2011


> Really now. This is the culture that brought us the epic quote, "The mountains are tall, and the emperor is far away."

Yeah-- hasn't China's historical narrative always been systematic, rigid, overcontrol, in compensation for and reaction to organic, geographically-driven anarchy?

There's a reason the Great Wall is so emblematic.
posted by darth_tedious at 5:26 PM on July 9, 2011


come on guys why can't we all get along

let's just all work together and make me rich
posted by TwelveTwo at 5:51 PM on July 9, 2011


Very informative wuwei, thanks...
posted by jhandey at 6:03 PM on July 9, 2011


Good stuff wuwei, thanks.

I tend to agree with the middle-class not getting anywhere here in China over the next few years. The pressure on everyone to show how well they are doing and "keep up with the Jones" is immense and they are hardly getting by as it is. The migrant labour population just constantly gets screwed over, I see it daily on the construction sites here in Shenzhen. Rising food costs and inflation are affecting everyone here, I wonder how this will all pan out?
posted by arcticseal at 7:04 PM on July 9, 2011


Has cheap labour ever remained docile once it learns that the hand that holds the tool can be a hand that becomes a fist? We are such a stupid, short-sighted species.

Well, at least we beat those bastard marmosets.
posted by JHarris at 7:59 PM on July 9, 2011


I'm glad folks find the information useful. Everything I posted about is available in English, there's A LOT of documentation on the Chinese revolution. China is still a communist country despite what the ill informed idiots like Tom Friedman think. Marxist orthodoxy runs deep-- a friend of mine was surprised recently during some talks with a university educated (and very business savvy) Chinese professional. He was shocked that she viewed communism as the "natural destination" of human civilization and considered the current industrialization of China as part of an inevitable human process. I don't buy into that Marxist "scientific" teleology in the least, I recognize it for the religious faith that it is. That said, understanding where other people are coming from is an important thing to do, and this is where I see consistent fail by American policy makers who think that just because Chinese companies want to make cell phones, they must therefore buy into the American political elite's embrace of internationalist neo-liberal orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from the truth in my experience. Articseal, has that been your experience as well?

The other thing that always strikes me too, is that the Kuomintang is a Leninist party, and its leaders received technical assistance from the Soviets in the 1920s. Take a look at the Republic of China (Taiwan) flag sometime and you will see it's the blue and white Kuomintang party flag in the corner of a red flag. I think until pretty recently the Taiwanese military still had political officers, in the Soviet model. Chiang Ching-kuo, son of Chiang Kai-shek, actually had extensive military and political training in Moscow during the 1920s.

Life is strange.
posted by wuwei at 12:30 AM on July 10, 2011 [2 favorites]


AFAIK it will be some time before wage levels in China approach those of Brazil (from 2008: "Manufacturing labor costs in Mexico and Brazil are approximately 3 and 11 times higher, respectively, than China’s." - the gap should have narrowed somewhat since then.) Other parts of that same piece set out (in standard liberal economics terms) other reasons to doubt major capital flight from China in the near- to mid-term (which I see the author of the article linked in the FPP does acknowledge somewhat in passing) and that seems to fit the current patterns of FDI flow.
The part where it's claimed "The seemingly inexhaustible reserves of rural labor from China's hinterland kept wages low and worker organization minimal over the last three decades" is really over-simplistic; Hung Ho-Fung puts it well here in this (very worth reading in full) piece at the NLR:
Many argue that China’s wage competitiveness originates in its fixed exchange-rate regime, which undervalues its currency considerably. Others assert that China’s huge surplus of rural labour allowed it to develop with an ‘unlimited’ supply of labour for much longer than other Asian economies. But closer scrutiny reveals both of these explanations to be inadequate...an unlimited supply of labour is not a natural phenomenon given by China’s population structure, as is so often assumed. Rather, it is a consequence of the government’s rural-agricultural policies which, intentionally or unintentionally, bankrupt the countryside and generate a continuous rural exodus...
The PRC’s urban-biased development model, then, is the source of China’s prolonged ‘limitless’ supply of labour, and thus of the wage stagnation that has characterized its economic miracle. This pattern also accounts for China’s rising trade surplus, the source of its growing global financial power. However, the low wages and rural living standards that have resulted from this development strategy have constrained China’s domestic consumer market and deepened its dependence on the global North’s consumption demand, which increasingly relies on massive borrowing from China and other Asian exporters. As those other exporters have been integrated with China’s export engine through the regionalization of industrial production networks, the vulnerabilities of the Chinese economy have turned into weaknesses of the East Asian region as a whole...
Just as China’s ‘unlimited’ supply of labour was more a consequence of policy than a natural precondition of its development, the arrival of the Lewisian Turning Point was in fact the outcome of state attempts to reverse a previous urban bias rather than of a process driven by the market’s invisible hand. The concomitant to rising peasant income and industrial wages was unprecedented, soaring retail sales, even controlled for inflation (see Figure 9). But no sooner had the government taken its first step toward domestic consumption-driven growth than vested interests in the coastal export sector complained loudly about their worsening prospects. They asked for compensating policies to safeguard their competitiveness, and attempted to sabotage further initiatives to raise the living standards of the working classes, such as the New Labour Contract Law—which would increase workers’ remuneration and make firing them more difficult—and the managed appreciation of the yuan.
That mention of the 2008 Labour Contract Law brings up an example of one of the loci for conflicts between different factions of the Party and wider elites, something Hung also addresses in his article (touched on in part in last para quoted above) and is referred to, for example, here at the excellent CLB site that wuwei linked above.
The heightened militancy of China's factory workers is clearly a key factor in these tensions, and if sustained will I expect bolster what's usually termed the 'populist' faction in the Party-state who want to offer a bit of carrot to go with the stick. But it's also of course vastly significant in terms of the agency a younger generation of migrant workers are finding in these struggles, and I do think it's symptomatic of a generational shift - while they may have been born in the countryside, these are no longer people who have left the land for the factories as perhaps their parents did; they're not going to go back and farm if there's an urban downturn (and often couldn't even if the wanted to).
posted by Abiezer at 12:58 AM on July 10, 2011 [3 favorites]


China is still a communist country despite what the ill informed idiots like Tom Friedman think.
Even the Communist Party of China has never claimed China is a communist country! They were always "building socialism" (mostly to standards on a par with the 'tofu dregs' prestige infrastructure projects of the boom years). You're right that the Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy is deeply embedded, of course, so only quoting you to make the tofu dregs crack really.
Setting aside the various strands of cobblers this has spawned in academic and official circles, in terms of the questions under discussion here it's also highly relevant in as much as the autonomous activists also often look to the legacy of the collective era, which I think you're noting in your comment, and one of the reasons why I can't join in with the usual liberal condemnation of that tout court. Having seen the uses to which it's being put by ordinary people in a contest with authoritarian power, by no means slavish, stupid or mere historical re-enactment, it seems to me if you haven't got a perspective on how that legacy is being employed that goes beyond blanket dismissal, you haven't got much to say at all that's of relevance to the fights that are playing out in China now.
posted by Abiezer at 1:22 AM on July 10, 2011 [2 favorites]


wuwei, I agree, just because everyone is buying iPhones does not make them capitalists. The culture is still one of adherence to the cultural norms here, rather than one of burgeoning individualism. And the cultural norm is still one of Party/Country first.
I was reading an article in one of the English dailies here this week and in the sports section, Li Na's homecoming was reported after she won the French Open. It was stated that she'd received criticism because when she won she didn't mention the support of of the Party in press interviews. She had to apologize when she got back to China for failing on this point.

This was quite interesting in today's BBC news.

"A Chinese journalist wrote that when he first saw iSpeak, he was somewhat depressed because he suddenly realised that his views on life from within China were not unique, and that millions of other people were seeing it."
posted by arcticseal at 3:39 AM on July 10, 2011


Chiang Ching-kuo, son of Chiang Kai-shek, actually had extensive military and political training in Moscow during the 1920s.

Of course, part of it was too that Chiang Ching-kuo eventually rose to control Taiwan, and thus based some of the party's structure on Soviet modeling. The training of Chinese officers and the Chinese military during the inter-war years could defintiely be described as eclectic:

Chiang Kai Shek trained in the Imperial Japanese Army Academy and even served in the Japanese military.

Sun Li-jen, known as the "Rommel of the East" graduated from Virginia Military Institute in the US.

And Chiang's adopted son, Chiang Wei-kuo served as a Wehrmarcht officer in Nazi Germany, reflecting greater Sino-German cooperation that went on until 1941.
posted by FJT at 9:04 AM on July 10, 2011 [1 favorite]


*Wehrmacht, I mean.
posted by FJT at 9:05 AM on July 10, 2011


That said, understanding where other people are coming from is an important thing to do, and this is where I see consistent fail by American policy makers who think that just because Chinese companies want to make cell phones, they must therefore buy into the American political elite's embrace of internationalist neo-liberal orthodoxy.

This is kind of an open-ended question from me, but I don't seem to recall that Friedman's view, or just the more optimistic view that greater trade and economic liberalization of China would result in a democratic reforms was the ONLY reasons being said to engage with China. It was probably the dominant view, especially during the Clinton years, but there had to be other concurring viewpoints too.

Wasn't there numerous reasons involving both realpolitik and self-interest?

To begin, the Party always touts that 200+ million people have entered the Chinese middle class. And yes, their political freedoms are being stifled, but the Party has always made it a point that economic rights come first. Regardless on whether you agree or disagree with which take precedence (human rights vs. economic rights), pulling that many out of poverty is no small feat.

China is much more involved in international bodies. 40 years ago, the PRC wasn't even in the UN. Now there's even clamor for China to have greater involvement in the World Bank or the IMF. That's a viewpoint that a state tied into international norms and rules is better than an economic basketcase that's at the fringes of the world.

And of course, money. Lots of people are much richer because of China. More corporations of course, but at least early on in the economic reforms there were a lot of entrepeneurs that became millionaires.

I know history hasn't been complete yet, but in aggregate, wasn't it better to have engaged China rather then keep them shut out?
posted by FJT at 9:51 AM on July 10, 2011


I know history hasn't been complete yet, but in aggregate, wasn't it better to have engaged China rather then keep them shut out?

I'm not sure anyone disagrees that trading with another nation can be a good thing. The difference is that capitalists engage for profit regardless of the consequences to the Chinese or even to their fellow citizens. America has been overrun with MBAs and fund managers who don't give a shit about America. If it makes them 10% more profit to defund our tax base, potentially screwing the whole nation, they'll do it as long as the check clears and they can move it into Euros or Chinese bonds before the dollar collapses. Then they'll buy up American assets for pennies on the dollar, and do it all over again as many times as we allow them.

If China came out tomorrow and said that they were going to start randomly killing citizens to keep social order and production quotas on track, I'm afraid there would be many voices saying that it's none of our business as long as the price is right. In fact, we're doing that now through various markets. If a market is more profitable by hiding the violence and injustice it creates, that's where the market will go unless there is some regulatory body willing to stop it.
posted by notion at 10:41 AM on July 10, 2011 [2 favorites]


Global businesses have America has been overrun with MBAs and fund managers who don't give a shit about the non-elite America.
posted by FJT at 1:21 PM on July 10, 2011


Lots of good stuff to reply to here

Abiezer,
Yes, the point I was making in my post was that the autonomous activists do make use of the narrative of the collective era, and this is very powerful. Part of the problem is that American journalists and decision makers, in my experience, don't have enough of an education to even understand even the arguments of Marxism, so they're blind to what they're seeing in China. It's too easy for people to get caught up in a sort of kung-fu/Great Wall/Forbidden City/lion dance take on China.

The Marxist teleology (the so called inevitability of history/scientific theory of history) and stages of development are a crock of crap. So was Mao's cult of personality, or any cult of personality.

However, the idea of surplus value and concomitant attempts by employers to keep costs low by skimping on safety and labor costs does have a ring of truth. Because it IS true, and it IS what is happening on the ground. One simply cannot deny that.

articseal,
Always good to hear perspectives of people on the ground. I would be very interested in seeing the pictures from the exhibition you linked.

FJT,
Totally. The links between Japan and the revolutionaries of 1911 are deep and contradictory in many ways. You have pan-Asian idealists, greedy industrialists, messianic religious figures and itinerant martial artists all with a stake in the Chinese revolution. Here's a picture of Chiang Kai-shek with Toyama Mitsuru, the notorious ultra-right wing faction leader.

Certainly America's engagement with China is similar; a mixture of delusional globalists like Friedman along with people who were simply interested in getting paid by using cheap Chinese labor as a stick to suppress wages in the United States. Of course they never said that outright-- instead, what they talked about was "competitiveness." As if, somehow, an OSHA supervised blender factory in Louisiana providing $15/hour wages and a modicum of healthcare could compete, on a strictly cost basis, with a factory in China paying less than a dollar an hour.

I'm not arguing that China should not have undergone industrial development. What I am arguing is that the way it was done has had significant negatives for American AND Chinese workers, not to mention the environment.

We can't go back and change how that was done; what we can do is change what we do now. The United States simply should not allow the importation of goods produced under sub-par labor standards, especially when those goods could be toxic. I remember reading last year that Muscle Milk and some other supplements contained higher than safe levels of heavy metals, because the manufacturers bought the ingredients from a Chinese source. All kinds of protein powders and basic food manufacturing products are coming into the States from China now, and there is a double threat. That is, the US government has cut FDA funding so there are fewer spot checks, and the Chinese manufacturing establishment is so fundamentally compromised in quality and health standards.

I'm convinced that poverty is caused by corruption and not the other way around. A corollary to that is that product quality is directly linked to workplace safety. This is because if you can't control a process well enough to keep it from blowing up and killing people, then you can't control the process well enough to produce consistent quality levels of the product.

So a Chinese industrial regime that discounts safety and embraces corruption isn't helping Chinese people either.

Notion,
I agree, that America is full of a managerial elite who no longer have any loyalty to the welfare of their fellow Americans. Rather, their loyalty is to an international managerial elite, a neo-feudal aristocracy if you will. Just as the former European aristocracy were cosmopolitan owners of various localities, the American/European global neo-feudal aristocracy is loyal only to itself and not to any nation-state.

The one saving grace is that if we ever put those people in their place, they can't defund the United States, so long as we have a sovereign currency.

Unfortunately the contractors of American companies in China are in effect killing people to achieve their price points. And this is why Chinese workers occasionally flip out and riot.

I can't blame them in the slightest. They live in a country with a massive gap between rich and poor, where the social safety net is frayed at best, and where government corruption is so great that their ability to gain redress is drastically limited. Sure they can file petitions or hire a lawyer, but those are often ignored at best or make them targets of armed goons at worst. Faced with such circumstances, of course people return to a time tested narrative, a narrative which at its best tells them that only through solidarity and direct action can they achieve any measure of human dignity.

I just hope that this time around people are smart enough to ditch the personality cults and claims of scientific prophecy.
posted by wuwei at 5:51 PM on July 10, 2011 [5 favorites]


« Older Tennis at San Quentin...   |   Neighbor vs. neighbor as homeo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments