> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Martin Hart-Landsberg
>
> Max says:
>
> > Capital will go wherever the State permits it to go.
> > Hence the laws of and among States are the logical
> > target. Trade agreements & the workings of the WTO
> > are part and parcel of these laws.
>
> Somehow that is translated into a politics that says we need to focus on
> the actions of the Chinese state or China and not the actions of the U.S.
> state. The problems facing US workers from highly mobile capital go
> beyond China, but focusing on China and the actions of the Chinese state
> narrow the politics in a way that is self-defeating if our aim is to
> illuminate what is happening and build a radical movement for change.
And your statement would make sense if unions did not spend most of their
lobbying time fighting against bad budget policies and fighting for
pro-worker legislation. The China deal is getting prominent play because it
is actually coming to a vote, unlike pro-labor or anti-capitalist
legislation which never comes to a vote. Because of the debacle of the 1995
government shutdown, the GOP Congress has been relatively reluctant to bring
up large-scale antilabor legislation, preferring a series of small bills and
riders on other legislation. So while labor spends a lot of time fighting
those individual bills, there is rarely a single up-down vote with the
consequences of the China trade deal.
Back in 1993 and 1994, the unions put a similiar scale of effort (especially
relative to the anemic energy of the Kirkland regime) into passing striker
replacement legislation that fits MHL's definition of "actions of the US
state", but such legislation does not even get to the floor for a vote now.
So given that the China deal is coming to a vote, does MHL say that in
protest of the fact that the GOP Congress won't let pro-labor legislation
come to a vote, US labor should abstain from lobbying on the China deal in
order to maintain a balanced ideological profile?
If the China deal should not be a top priority of labor, what legislation
THAT ACTUALLY CAME TO A VOTE would MHL suggest should have taken its place
over the last year?
-- Nathan Newman
