The article is full of contradictory statements because it tries to simultaneously admit that the idea that 996 was common practice in China was always a myth (propagated by nefarious western propagandists to begin with), while also doing as much “China bad, communism bad” as possible. This passage is particularly egregious:
China has a long history of abusive work practices. Maoism borrowed from Soviet Stakhanovism
So much nonsense to unpack in so few words.
Firstly, if 996 is the “abusive work practice” which they are referring to, then by their own admission it is not true that this has “a long history” in China, seeing how this is a modern phenomenon that specifically emerged after Reform and Opening Up and the liberalization of certain aspects of the economy.
Secondly, it is a very misleading (and likely deliberate) misrepresentation of what “Stakhanovism” actually means. Stakhanovism has nothing to do with “abusive work practices”. I would argue it is the opposite of exploitative 996 corporate culture which pushes employees to overwork for the benefit of private corporations.
Stakhanovism can only exist in a socialist context because it is rooted in the idea of devoting yourself to the improvement of productivity, not for profit but for the benefit of the country and the revolution. It only makes sense to use the term in the context of communist cadres, military members, or workers in collective or state enterprises in a planned economy.
Private tech firms and start-ups do not fulfil the same social role. Moreover, Stakhanovism is a voluntarist, bottom-up initiative. Whereas in those places where 996 culture (which as the article admits is illegal in China) was adopted, it was pushed, often in an effectively obligatory form, from the top down and motivated by the firm’s maximization of profit extraction.
The article is full of contradictory statements because it tries to simultaneously admit that the idea that 996 was common practice in China was always a myth (propagated by nefarious western propagandists to begin with), while also doing as much “China bad, communism bad” as possible. This passage is particularly egregious:
So much nonsense to unpack in so few words.
Firstly, if 996 is the “abusive work practice” which they are referring to, then by their own admission it is not true that this has “a long history” in China, seeing how this is a modern phenomenon that specifically emerged after Reform and Opening Up and the liberalization of certain aspects of the economy.
Secondly, it is a very misleading (and likely deliberate) misrepresentation of what “Stakhanovism” actually means. Stakhanovism has nothing to do with “abusive work practices”. I would argue it is the opposite of exploitative 996 corporate culture which pushes employees to overwork for the benefit of private corporations.
Stakhanovism can only exist in a socialist context because it is rooted in the idea of devoting yourself to the improvement of productivity, not for profit but for the benefit of the country and the revolution. It only makes sense to use the term in the context of communist cadres, military members, or workers in collective or state enterprises in a planned economy.
Private tech firms and start-ups do not fulfil the same social role. Moreover, Stakhanovism is a voluntarist, bottom-up initiative. Whereas in those places where 996 culture (which as the article admits is illegal in China) was adopted, it was pushed, often in an effectively obligatory form, from the top down and motivated by the firm’s maximization of profit extraction.