Wow, I went from superficial, to head of a new world trade organization,
to wearing safety goggles. Or at least agitating for them. It is a bumpy
ride in the globalized world.
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> No. "This," meaning PNTR, is just a battle in an extended war.
The question is which war is being fought. Is the goal to
reform the WTO? Build a militant working class movement? Restructure
class relations in the U.S.?
> in any important way on China's communist identity. You keep
> telescoping the campaign to the parts you don't like, just as you
> mischaracterize the emphases in the Teamster quote I posted and
> in your allusions to positions in EPI publications.
Quite the contrary, I am highlighting critical elements of the campaign
against the PNTR. And people like Scott who works with EPI has directly
deemed China an unfair trader because of its state interventionism,
industrial policy, etc.
>
> Since you don't want to endorse the WTO, you counterpose an
> abolitionist position, nix rather than fix. This is very
> superficial. With no WTO, U.S./China trade would be subject
> to some alternative web of laws, regulations, and institutions.
> "No WTO" leaves to the imagination what these should be.
> What should they be? What would an MTO -- Marty's Trade
> Organization -- do in the face of capital migrating from
> the U.S. to a union-free environment?
>
I am precisely for developing new means of regulating economic activity in
the US and supporting workers who seek to do the same in progressive ways
in other countries.
The world did exist without the WTO. There are other ways of seeking to
transform international economic relations. China in or out of the WTO
does not put those other possibilities on the table. Your article about
Mexico makes that clear. Even a reformed NAFTA with side agreements does
little to help.
>
> It is almost fair to say your position is analogous to one
> that stipulated, don't attack the state, attack the corporations
> (or capital, or whatever) underlying the actions of the state.
> In this case the WTO is the surrogate for states and Capital.
> It's the new global form of business as usual. If you want
> to create some leverage by disrupting the machine, you go for
> the gears; you don't agitate for better safety goggles.
>
> mbs
I guess I was not very clear. Sorry. I want to target both state and
corporations which are workign together to create a world hostile to
working people. The PNTR debate basically lets both off the hook. That
is the problem. I prefer to push other issues that forces people to
organize directly against US state and corporate policies, not focus
primary attention on the policies of other states.
For example, the US government claims to want to support and protect U.S.
worker interests, thus Clinton advocated some kind of social pact for the
WTO. Some progressives say, that is silly given your push to bring China
into the WTO, thus we should oppose that.
But what about directly confronting the state and capital in the US adn
directing our main fire at US laws and corporate actions. For example,
pushing for higher minimum wages, living wages, ratification of ILO core
labor standards, etc. And if we want to improve the international
environment demand that the US government cuts off funding for the IMF,
WB, etc. and cancel the debt for third world countries without conditions.
These are not demands that ignore the state. They are demands that
highlight the ways in which our state and corporations operate. They are
demands that can promote international solidarity. I think building such
campaigns would pay far more and better returns then the fight over China.
To be clear, I am not saying that all who oppose China are doing so on the
basis of anti-communism, or support for neoliberalism. But the campaign
is difficult to control, and at its heart promotes a general sense that
our problems here are the result of the actions of other governments who
do not measure up to our standards.
In short, China in or out of the WTO has little to do with the gears of
anything.
But I do pledge that as head of the MTO, the headquarters will be moved
from Geneva to Portland, and you can all come to the first session as my
honored guests. Even Max.
Marty
