Yes, Robert, the apathy toward the WTO is astounding. Very few of my students have even heard of it. Robert Naiman wrote: > Last weekend I was reading Public Citizen's new book on the WTO at 5 years (which >you can get from them directly off their web site for $15.) I was struck again, >reading the WTO rulings in the tuna/dolphin and sea turtle cases, how the WTO really >makes commodity fetishism absolute. That is, in Marx you have a description of how a >worker is alienated from her labor in capitalist production, the commodity embodies >her labor but having produced it become alienated from it due to ownership of the >means of production by the capitalist -- then in the process of exchange the >alienation becomes complete because the commodity becomes equated to any other >commodity with the same exchange value, in particular, another x, whatever the >commodity is. (Those of you more familiar with the canon may quibble with the >summary, but as I remember it this is the basic idea.) Now in democratic society as >we know it, say in the United States, this is actually contested terrain: a good deal >of socia! l ! > struggle actually revolves around this question, of distinguishing between >commodities based on the conditions of their production, even if the end result is >the "same." So that, say, we think of goods produced in sweatshops as different from >goods not so produced and try to avoid/sanction the former. > > The WTO makes any law or regulation that tries to do this illegal if it can be >claimed that the effect of such rule is discriminatory towards goods that are >produced outside the country promulgating the rule. A can of tuna is a can of tuna, a >soccer ball is a soccer ball, regardless of how its produced. That cuts quite deeply >in the capacity of the state to regulate, and therefore of the ability of people to >democratically impose any humane values whatsoever in the economy. When you combine >this with competive pressures (domestic firms are going to vigorously resist any >regulation which is not applied to foreign concerns), you wind up with a regime where >regulation is severely constrained in any economic sector where there is an import >presence. Which in a country integrated into the global economy turns out to be quite >a significant chunk. > > In this light, the idea of "reforming" the WTO seems rather absurd. The basic >assumptions of the WTO contradict any humane value. > > Comments? Rebuttal? > ------------------------------- > Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Preamble Center > 1737 21st NW > Washington, DC 20009 > phone: 202-265-3263 x277 > fax: 202-265-3647 > http://www.preamble.org/ > ------------------------------- -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
