On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Conclusion to a longer piece by David Bacon posted to PEN-L by Stephen
> Philion:
>
> The AFL-CIO left Seattle making opposition to China's membership in
> the WTO, and new administration trade agreements with China, the
> centerpiece of its trade policy. This may be a declaration of political
> independence, but it's one which lines up with the old China lobby, instead
> of with those calling for a fundamental reordering of the international
> economic system.
> COSATU's Vavi questions its hypocrisy. He notes that the Chinese
> government and labor movement supported the liberation struggle against
> apartheid in South Africa. He asks why China's record on human or labor
> rights is any worse than many other countries, whose WTO membership and
> trade agreements the AFL-CIO has not opposed. "We are disturbed by the
> obstacles to workers seeking to organize independent unions, and limits on
> the ability to demonstrate freely, and we intend to talk to Chinese unions
> about these problems," he says.
> AFL-CIO did not oppose Vietnam's WTO membership, or Cuba's. Opposing it
> for China is not going to force Chinese unions to oppose government
> economic policy. And saying that solidarity with Chinese labor is
> impossible because the All China Federation of Trade Unions is not a
> legitimate union body smacks of old coldwar, China-lobby prohibitions.
> Like the old government-affiliated unions in Mexico, the Chinese
> labor movement has been tied to the government and its political party
> since 1949. As the government has become committed to economic reforms,
> those unions clearly face a choice - between old political relationships
> and fighting for the needs of workers under the guns of privatization and
> the explosion of sweatshops in the new economic zones.
> U.S. unions would obviously like to see the Chinese rely less on
> transnational corporations as a source of capital for economic development.
> If they have cooperative relationships based on mutual respect and
> self-interest, they will have a more receptive audience that they will if
> they treat people with whom they disagree as though they had no right to
> exist.
> The AFL-CIO's campaign on China's WTO membership won't move workers
> in either country an inch closer to a common front against transnational
> corporations. Instead, U.S. workers need to better understand Chinese
> unions and develop relations with them.
> Over and over, U.S. workers and unions need to ask ourselves how we
> can achieve closer relations with workers in other countries, even if we
> don't agree with all the policies of their labor movements. The first step
> is opposing the WTO system on principle.
> The global trade structure is controlled by developed countries,
> and used to impose an unjust international economic order on developing
> ones. It is a cruel illusion to expect that same structure to ensure
> economic justice.
>
> ===
>
> My Comment: Stephen, you prefaced Bacon's article with the following words:
> "This is an outstanding article, one which takes the labor movement where
> it is and, given that, where it might be able to go." Doesn't Bacon's call
> for the need to relate to official Chinese trade unions as they *are* make
> Henry Liu's remonstrations more understandable?
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>
Certainly, yet what have I written that would diverge from such a
position ? I would argue that Bacon has made the argument in a fashion
that speaks to those who might not be very knowledgeable about China,
which is far preferable to trashing fellow comrades as dupes of the
AFL-CIO every time they say anything critical about the workers'
situation in China. Nota bene, for all the trashing of people like Doug
Henwood by Henry, I would note that many of Doug's positions on the
direction the US labor movment should take have dovetailed rather neatly
with what Bacon writes above. It is also a position that many trade union
activists in 'developing' countries would be supportive of I believe.
On the one hand if western union activists put forth such a position in
China, it would be welcomed. At the same time, there's a considerable
portion of cadres who would not be happy with such a position. It puts
aside the myth that there are only two positions, a "chinese" one and an
"american" one...That is not necesarily welcome by those who wish to brush
aside the need for serious class analysis of Chinese
political economy. Ultimately, we need to turn to people like Raymond Lau
for such work...
Steve
