Continuity Without Change: Four Centuries of Labor Protest in China
The long arc of Chinese labor history reveals a striking pattern: despite dramatic transformations in technology, industry, and global integration, the fundamental dynamics of worker protest have remained remarkably consistent. From the silk weavers of late‑Ming Suzhou to the factory workers of Shenzhen and Jilin, the structure, motivations, and outcomes of collective labor actions show a continuity that is difficult to ignore. This follow‑up article examines that continuity by connecting early‑modern urban craftsmen’s protests with labor movements in China over the past two decades.
Economic Pressure as the Perpetual Catalyst
Across four centuries, the most consistent trigger for labor unrest has been economic pressure. In the late Ming, inflation, tax burdens, and wage stagnation pushed silk weavers and dyers into collective resistance. Today, the pressures are different in form but similar in effect: rising living costs, wage arrears, unsafe working conditions, and the erosion of job security.
Recent Examples (2005–2025)
The 2010 Honda Foshan Strike Young migrant workers in Guangdong halted production across multiple Honda plants, demanding wage increases and democratic representation in workplace unions. Their demands echoed the Ming‑era weavers who petitioned for fair compensation under rising prices.
The Yue Yuen Shoe Factory Strike (2014) Over 40,000 workers in Dongguan protested illegal underpayment of social insurance. The scale was massive, but the core issue—employers withholding rightful compensation—was identical to the wage‑withholding disputes of Qing‑era Suzhou.
Jasic Technology Workers’ Movement (2018) Workers in Shenzhen attempted to form an independent union, only to face suppression. Their attempt to build autonomous labor organization mirrors the early Qing craftsmen whose informal alliances were tolerated only until they threatened state authority.
Delivery Drivers and Platform Workers (2020–2024) China’s gig‑economy workers have staged scattered protests over algorithmic exploitation, impossible delivery quotas, and lack of insurance. Despite new technologies, the underlying grievance—loss of control over labor conditions—remains unchanged.
Organizational Limits: From Secret Alliances to Fragmented Networks
Late‑Ming and early‑Qing craftsmen formed informal alliances, often meeting at temples, bridges, or neighborhood spaces. These groups had no legal status and were frequently suppressed. Modern Chinese workers face similar constraints: independent unions remain prohibited, and the official union structure rarely represents workers’ interests.
Continuities Across Centuries
No autonomous unions Early craftsmen were forbidden from establishing guild halls; modern workers cannot legally form independent unions.
Reliance on informal networks Ming weavers used neighborhood gatherings; today’s workers use WeChat groups.
Rapid mobilization but weak institutional memory Protests erupt quickly but dissolve just as fast, leaving little long‑term organizational development.
Rituals and Symbolism: Moral Protest Over Structural Change
Historical craftsmen emphasized moral legitimacy—vowing not to steal, harming only corrupt officials. Modern workers often frame their protests similarly, emphasizing legality, fairness, and basic rights rather than systemic transformation.
This moral framing reflects a deep cultural continuity: Chinese labor protests tend to be defensive, not revolutionary. They seek redress, not structural overhaul.
State Mediation: A Persistent Pattern
In the early Qing, officials often acted as mediators, balancing worker demands with the need for social stability. Violent uprisings were suppressed, but wage disputes were sometimes resolved through negotiation.
Modern China follows the same pattern:
Local governments intervene only when protests threaten public order.
Mediation is preferred over systemic reform.
Workers may receive short‑term concessions, but long‑term institutional change remains elusive.
Conclusion: Four Hundred Years Without Innovation
Despite enormous economic and technological change, the Chinese labor movement has evolved very little in its fundamental structure. The same patterns recur:
Economic pressure triggers unrest.
Workers organize informally but lack legal representation.
Protests emphasize moral legitimacy rather than systemic change.
The state mediates selectively, suppressing autonomy while offering temporary relief.
The result is a labor movement that, in essence, mirrors its early‑modern predecessor. Four centuries have passed, yet the core dynamics remain frozen in time—no meaningful innovation, no structural improvement, and no lasting empowerment for workers.
發表文章
