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
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> . . .
> > Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to
> > sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean
> > in this circumstance? My guess is zilch.
>
> [mbs] The threat to move a manufacturing plant is central to
> the ability of Capital to suppress wage demands. That's
> hardly zilch. When this threat entails moving plants to
> other countries, it exposes business firms to a combined
> nationalist/laborist attack. In effect, Capital runs
> afoul of notions of patriotism it had previously used
> to uphold its rule. Anyone who fails to take advantage
> of this, for the sake of the working class, is being
> foolish.
>
> Clearly now the trade deficit does not mean
> an absolute shortage of jobs, but a change in their
> composition. The impact of this change on living
> standards has been well documented, and it is not
> zilch either.
>
> >>>
> Isn't the whole point of free
> > trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of
> > firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]?
>
> [mbs] No, the whole point is to screw workers by securing
> absolute rights for Capital.
>
> >>>
> And wouldn't that
> > whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade
> > becomes triumphant?
>
> ]mbs] Yes if we lose, then we would have lost.
>
> > It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was]
> > where, but
> > rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made;
> > property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take
> > precedence over Westphailian geographies. Ian
>
> [mbs] It will always be where, as long as people have
> some identification with nations. They always will
> because nations serve irreplaceable functions, both
> good and bad. You're skipping ahead to the fourth
> millenium.
>
> mbs
>
