On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Dan Epstein wrote: > First, I am no "progressive nationalist" so get off your huffy high horse. Don't worry, hon, the remark wasn't intended for you. It was a gratuituous and unsolicited bait to Jim Devine and Bill Mitchell and Paul Phillips. Jim and Paul have decided not to waste their time with it, I think sensibly since they'll get plenty of chances to bait me back when someone supports NAFTA for "progressive" reasons or something. Bill for whatever selfless reason has responded with some interesting and thoughtful comments and I hope I'll be able to reply to him in kind. > > ... workers who do decide to > > migrate can only benefit from the option of employment in the factories that > > produce these toys -- after all, no one is forcing them to work there. > > Really? How much choice do they really have? This attitude > smacks of first world arrogance to me. They have relatively little choice. That's part of my point. Take away their ability to work in export firms and they will have even fewer choices. If you want to stand proudly behind a drive to push displaced Chinese peasants into the informal sector, be my guest. > Let's say the same argument can be made for slavery a few > centuries ago. Were any authoritative organizations of African > American slaves calling for a boycott? I doubt it. They were > forbidden by law (as is the right to organize in some countries). Of course there were -- escaped slaves. Fine, I'll rephrase the question: Are there any organizations of Chinese workers in exile asking for a total boycott of Chinese products (aside from perhaps a few anti-Communist circles)? > What's your point? Let me ask Tavis a question. If > slavery were in effect in the US, would he support the purchase > of slave labor, either directly or indirectly? Would he support > purchasing, products rolling out of, say, German concentration > camps? Why (not)? Perhaps the answers will clarify the issue > since as an "internationalist" I think the question I'm dealing > with are not so different. Okay, pen-l prize giveaway: whose law of large number is it that as the number of posts goes to infinity, the probability of somebody on one side likening their oponents to Nazi apologists approaches one? And is it a strong law or a weak law? The winner gets a sub to the new Solidarity magazine that we're starting up (no name yet). But, of course, you'll have to remember before I get back home to NY and look it up in the issue of _Wired_ from some time this fall that I first saw it in.... :) > To clarify a point, I would be highly supportive of directing my > purchases towards helping labor in the third world. Given that > the only real say I have in the political economic system is > where and how to spend my money, I find it troublesome to > indirectly have children toiling under often hazardous working > conditions working under virtual slavery producing cheap products > for my consumption (and enriching the industrialists). Perhaps I > am wrong in the tactics I utilize... Damn, I was going to insist that you really _wanted_ to see third-world workers barefoot and starving. :) In all seriousness, I know that there are people on Pen-L involved in such organizations -- maybe the North/South Network, certainly there are support groups for Latin American unions whose posts crop up on here. I don't know of anything dealing with CHinese or Thai workers but maybe Kai Mander does. They need all of our help. I think you'd get further than you would with a blanket boycott. Yours for the squabble after the revolution, Tavis
