MHL:
> And what political implications should we draw from the fact that US
> capital is highly mobile, using China, among other places, as either off
> shore production locations or as a threat. Max notes that this mobility
> or threat of mobility has real consequences. I agree. So, should our
> movement attack China and mobilize to keep it out of the WTO or focus our
> attention on US capital and the logic of international capitalism. I
> think that the choice leads to very different kinds of campaigns and
> educational work. Marty Hart-Landsberg
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.
THERE IS NO "ATTACK ON CHINA." Rather, there is an
attack on labor standards and suppression of human
rights in China, and on China's posture regarding
international labor standards, and therefore on
China's entry into WTO and on PNTR. I'm not going
to rehash the difference between labor/human rights
in China and the U.S., which some, present company
excepted, seem to fail to appreciate.
Rather than labor's present campaign, MHL proposes
that we "focus our attention on US capital and the
logic of international capitalism." But that's not
politics; it's a seminar. Or a book. Getting up
in front of a crowd and saying, "I denounce
capitalism" is not politics. It's a potential
component of politics, but one that lacks any
referents in current events or practice.
-------------------
Ian:
1)That is different from my point that the system of national accounting we
currently use misrepresents the flows of capital. It's the who and how that
now matters, not where. Consumers owe the money to Sony, BMW, Volvo[Ford];
not Japan, Germany, Sweden. It's firms that make the investments that
catalyzes states into the destructive bidding down of wages via labor
policies to attract investment. The focus should then be placed on "outing
and shaming" the firms that leverage their market power to put states' labor
policies into competitive play against one another; a process that
ineluctably favors the continued evolution of authoritarian/oligarchic
governance structures and governments.
[mbs] If you spend money it's the company that you deal
with, but if you WORK, where the job is and where you is
matter a great deal.
The bit about 'shaming' firms is pretty funny. ("Go
you Gates, and sin no more!") But actually the point is
ingrained in the views of others as well. If you mean
anything, you mean that targeting a firm is prelude to
some legislative action that means some new sort of
regulation of said firm, and others like it. So
what is this regulation to be? I raised this before.
Do we exalt a law against a firm leaving Michigan as
somehow a different thing than a law against a firm
relocating to some other country? What is the practical
difference from the standpoint of, say, Chinese workers?
Presumably an anti-relocation law bothers people because
it sounds anti-foreign and chauvinistic.
In actuality labor must be a bit more discriminating.
We can't denounce a firm for shifting jobs from UAW-USA
to UAW/Canada. So the anti-relocation focus is on
nations with lousy labor standards etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
2)Capital is now more than happy to use cosmopolitanism in place of
partiotism as a rhetorical complement to it's fictions of comparative
advantage. Labor should expose the ersatz cosmopolitanism of Capital and
put forward a viable alternative that plays on respect for workers dignity
and respect for ecosystem integrity as two necessary conditions for any
definition of cosmopolitanism worthy of the name.
>>>>>
[mbs] What is the content of this non-ersatz cosmopolitanism?
What is the concrete form of "respect for workers dignity"?
If it isn't labor standards embodied in international law,
including trade agreements, what in the devil is it?
>>> . . .
Which is where young people in a hurry want to be; they see Capital as
ditching liberalism/nationalism and they/we-me want to do it too and beat
Capital at its own game. Nationalism is no more immortal than
feudalism....What could be more cosmopolitan than "Workers of the World
Unite!"
Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a 1/2 century
>>>>>>>>>
Really? "Young people" have all become international
socialists? Do tell.
To the contrary, all those young people, not to mention
we over-the-hill types, mean zilch without the potential
mobilization of the working class. That mobilization is
necessarily conditioned by the practical importance of
nation-states and their laws as defenders of living
standards against amoral markets.
Cheers,
mbs
