On Sun, 14 May 2000, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> In re: the last sentence, some people have already figured
> out what political understanding we want to promote. We
> want to defend living standards of the working class by
> strengthening trade unions and by extending the capacity
> of the State to provide a greater social wage. We think
> gains of this sort are feasible because we do not see
> the State as a monolithic, alien instrument, but as
> something susceptible to political mobilization.
>
Keeping China out of the WTO will not defend living standards or the trade
unions or the capacity of the state to provide a greater social wage. It
is a distraction relative to all of those. It will however lead many
workers to think that the main cause of problems in the US is the behavior
of OTHER GOVERNMENTS which pursue economic strategies DIFFERENT FROM THAT
OF THE US. We cannot stop the China issue from being debated; it is
important to elites in China and the US but we can make our own decision,
as progressives, whether this is a debate important to give high priority.
> I would say that short-run victories are the
> mother's milk of longer-term campaigns. Symbolic
> victories have real political implications, witness
> the campaign to get the confederate flag off the
> S.C. statehouse.
Short run victories can lead in any direction. It depends on the nature
of the victory and the movement that powers it. And by extension the next
demands that arise from the struggle. As for the latter, what new demands
will likely arise from a "victory" here; new initiates to defend the now
pure WTO?
>
> MBS:
> I suspect that 'nature of the system' really means portraying
> the system as implacable and immune to reforms. If not, so
> much the better. People do not choose social systems by comparing
> models on a shelf. They grapple with day to day problems and reach
> conclusions about politics, reforms, and systems.
Highlighting the nature of the system means making clear that the system
itself is a major cause of problems. It has nothing to do with strategic
struggles around work day length, labor reform, living wages, debt
cancellation, etc. The point is that the demands need to illuminate the
structural nature of problems. Making China the problem, and keeping it
out of the WTO the solution, is of little help.
>
> One of the inconsistencies in your argument goes to
> your idea that labor is targeting China, rather than
> either the US Gov or MNC's. But our trade relations
> with CHina (the actual target) clearly derive from
> the policy of the U.S. state, and in other contexts,
> it is asserted w/o qualification that the policies
> of the State are dictated by MNC's.
>
> cheers,
> mbs
>
I do not get the statement above. If the target is the US Govenment and
MNCs, and not china, then demand the withdrawal of all governments from
the WTO that are subservient to US MNCs and the US governemnt. Demand an
end to the WTO, demand better labor laws in the US, a higher minimum wage,
demand greater capital controls. Make those your main demands.
Marty
