RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-15 Thread Max Sawicky

Have no objection in principle.  Things like that
are in process in various ways.

It's not so hard to imagine a maximum program.
The tough thing to settle on is the minimum
program -- the one with immediate relevance
to what people are talking about, voting on,
& legislating.  It's easier to write a model
bill than decide among alternatives of
varying and qualitatively disparate rottenness.

I would concede, for instance, that an anti-PNTR
vote this week does not liberate us from a rotten WTO.
It does, however, mark a statement that the social
content of trade relations (or lack thereof) cannot
be a matter of indifference.

mbs


CB: Howabout proposing a comprehensive anti-NAFTA/GATT, etc., in U.S. law
and treaties which puts strict curbs and controls on the rights and powers
of U.S. based corporations to move capital ? Just as a maximum program,
ultimate target. Build current demands working toward that. Declare a break
with all previous approaches which have, overall, failed.

And then start lobbying for it, electing candidates based on it.

It might require an Amendment to the Constitution. But I already have one
drafted that is almost on point. It pretty much comes under the Labor Party
proposal for an amendment for right to jobworkliivng decently.

CB




RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-15 Thread Charles Brown


>>> "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/13/00 06:58PM >>>
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.

-))

CB: Howabout proposing a comprehensive anti-NAFTA/GATT, etc., in U.S. law and treaties 
which puts strict curbs and controls on the rights and powers of U.S. based 
corporations to move capital ? Just as a maximum program, ultimate target. Build 
current demands working toward that. Declare a break with all previous approaches 
which have, overall, failed.

And then start lobbying for it, electing candidates based on it.

It might require an Amendment to the Constitution. But I already have one drafted that 
is almost on point. It pretty much comes under the Labor Party proposal for an 
amendment for right to jobworkliivng decently. 

CB




Re: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-14 Thread Martin Hart-Landsberg

Nathan said:

> 
> 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?
> 

I just do not think that all politics revolves around particular bills or
votes in the Congress.  For example, it was good political organizing that
led to the Seattle and Washington DC actions.  These actions have
political impact, or at least, potential impact (if we can successfully
continue to build on them).  Similarly the Jubilee 2000 actions are not
organized around a particular bill but a demand.  This demand may well
force bills or votes, but we are likely to get better bills or votes if we
mobilize militant actions that pressure the system.  

As for the China issue, I really see this as an elite struggle between and
among leaders in China and in the US and the sides are complex.  What I do
not see it as is a key issue for labor activists.  Not every issue is our
issue. I would rather demand ratification of all seven core ILO labor
standards (the US has only ratified one).  That demand takes up the issue
of labor standards and demands actions by the US government and forces
attention on U.S. capitalism.  


Our job as left activists is to create a climate which shifte teh
political terrain.  If we succeed no doubt liberals will shift to the left
in their legislative agenda as well.  If we try and be liberals then we
can expect them to move to the right.  So, the issue is how to promote
demands that really matter.  At the risk of repeating myself way to often,
the China question is largely a distraction from the kind of work that
radicals should be doing.  We are allowing ourselves to be sucked into a
debate that at its best does little to radicalize people.

The problem is not that liberals are getting excited about the China
question; they like US capitalism.  But rather that those who claim to
want to transform it are making this THEIR issue and thus shaping the
political debate in ways that dampens political radicalization.

So, if you want a legislative actions: demand ratification of the ILO core
labor standards.  Beyond that, we must enter every arena and push the
demadns as far to the left as is possible.

Marty




RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-14 Thread Lisa & Ian Murray

[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.
===

I'm thinking more along lines of having pretty fine-grained info on the
"sinners" so that activists working along the direct action spectrum have
the goods to engage in public theatre/education; the necessary grassroots
prelude to mobilizing citizen support for legislative change.  So yes.
Thats where AFL-CIO etc. policywonks can help continue growing alliances.  I
don't know what kind of barriers to exit any legislative package could
design at this stage of the game.

[mbs]So the anti-relocation focus is on
nations with lousy labor standards etc.

Given that at this stage of the game we don't have said exit cost function
available,  the focus would still be on the firm taking advantage of lousy
labor standards.  Firms usually need some Bank capital to finance the up
front move costs, and as an AFL-CIO organizer told me at the Meany Center
off New Hampshire Ave[I think that was the Beltway exit] "nothing is more
fun during a corporate campaign than scaring the shit out of bankers by
putting a whole bunch of activists outside their doors when they're doin'
something stupid."  At said organizing rally one would have lots of handouts
on how to strengthen the ILO so it has some FANGS and TALONS. Again, to
build grassroots momentum.

[mbs][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?
==
It "should" be in int'l law.  Dismantling the WTO takes away Capital's trump
card because it is the only agency that hits States where they live; their
pocket book.  Take away that power while simultaneously giving said
enforcement authority to the ILO.  Capital could then do all the regional
trade agreements it wants as long as their labor provisions are consistent
with ILO.  I realize proving God's existence is easier, but hell, I'm
definitely open to far wiser ideas.

[mbs]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.
===
It's precisely because the young 'unz don't see States as "protecting" them
any more [vacuous labor and enviro. laws "here at home"] that they got in
the streets.

Ian




RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-14 Thread Max B. Sawicky

MHL:
> I guess we have a difference of opinion on what politics is about.  The
> issue is not short-run "victories" which are really non-victories. Keeping
> China out of the WTO will only ensure the status quo.  At issue is first
> determining what kind of political understanding we want to promote and
> then figuring out how to effectively promote it.

In re: the last sentence, some people have already figured
out what political understanding we want to promote.  We
want to defend living standards of the working class by
strengthening trade unions and by extending the capacity
of the State to provide a greater social wage.  We think
gains of this sort are feasible because we do not see
the State as a monolithic, alien instrument, but as
something susceptible to political mobilization.

Regulating markets is an elementary resort.  A market
overlapping national borders is no less worthy of
regulation than any other.  Pushing international
trade regimes in this direction is one dimension
of this project.  Keeping China out of the WTO
under present circumstances is a logical step.

I would say that short-run victories are the
mother's milk of longer-term campaigns.  Symbolic
victories have real political implications, witness
the campaign to get the confederate flag off the
S.C. statehouse.

MHL:
> I think that in this period ideological struggle is very important.  Real
> politics is finding a way to help people understand the nature of the
> system that they live in and move as quickly as possible to embrace
> actions to transform that system in appropriate ways.  If the problem is
> capitalism and the role of the US state and US MNCs, then we need to think
> creatively about how to promote that understanding.

MBS:
I suspect that 'nature of the system' really means portraying
the system as implacable and immune to reforms.  If not, so
much the better.  People do not choose social systems by comparing
models on a shelf.  They grapple with day to day problems and reach
conclusions about politics, reforms, and systems.

MHL:
> Saying that the issue is china and its lack of human rights for workers is
> not some how any more or less a lecture than saying that the issue is
> capitalism and the actions of US MNCs.  The difference is that the first
> is just a bad lecture, from which confused politics is bound to come.  And
> the second   well you can guess.   Marty

The China issue is not a lecture in the sense that it
is part of a larger political project.  You can find
things to criticize in it, but there is a there there.

What's the political project underlying "the issue is
capitalism and the actions of US MNC's"?

One of the inconsistencies in your argument goes to
your idea that labor is targeting China, rather than
either the US Gov or MNC's.  But our trade relations
with CHina (the actual target) clearly derive from
the policy of the U.S. state, and in other contexts,
it is asserted w/o qualification that the policies
of the State are dictated by MNC's.

cheers,
mbs




RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Nathan Newman


> -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




Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread 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. 

Max adds: 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
I guess we have a difference of opinion on what politics is about.  The
issue is not short-run "victories" which are really non-victories. Keeping
China out of the WTO will only ensure the status quo.  At issue is first
determining what kind of political understanding we want to promote and
then figuring out how to effectively promote it.  

I think that in this period ideological struggle is very important.  Real
politics is finding a way to help people understand the nature of the
system that they live in and move as quickly as possible to embrace
actions to transform that system in appropriate ways.  If the problem is
capitalism and the role of the US state and US MNCs, then we need to think
creatively about how to promote that understanding.

Saying that the issue is china and its lack of human rights for workers is
not some how any more or less a lecture than saying that the issue is
capitalism and the actions of US MNCs.  The difference is that the first
is just a bad lecture, from which confused politics is bound to come.  And
the second   well you can guess.

Marty




RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Max B. Sawicky

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
feudalismWhat 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




Re: Re: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Stephen E Philion

I think that what Martin argues below is similar to the arguments that
Bill Tabb made a few months ago in MR, right on the money. 

Steve
> 
> Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 




RE: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Lisa & Ian Murray

>
 [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.
 ===
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.
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.
 >>>
 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.


Mere rhetorical difference...

 >>>
 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 Westphalian 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
 millennium.

 mbs

==
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
feudalismWhat could be more cosmopolitan than "Workers of the World
Unite!"

Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a 1/2 century




Re: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Michael Perelman

Excellent!  By the way, is the China vote a straight up and down vote or are other
things attached as in the WTO and NAFTA votes?

Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote:

> 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.
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Martin Hart-Landsberg

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
> 




RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Charles Brown



>>> "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/12/00 08:51PM >>>
. . .
> 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.



CB: You all are getting to some nitty gritty. 

This might sound typically Marxist, but don't we have to think a little deeper to see 
how this can really be taken of advantage of by or for the working class ?  Doesn't a 
real solution have to involve some kind of new level of solidarity between the U.S. 
working class and those in other countries ? Won't the nationalist aspect of the above 
undermine that ?

__

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.



CB: This is no doubt true. But are trade barriers a long term solution for the U.S. 
working class ? Doesn't it have to be something more like direct legal curbs and 
controls on the perogatives of the corporations to move plants whenever and whereever 
they want ? 


>>>
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.

__

CB: If the corporations are transcending the nation in this millenium, isn't it 
plausible that the working class can do it a little sooner than a thousand years from 
now ?




Re: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-13 Thread Dennis R Redmond

On Fri, 12 May 2000, Lisa & Ian Murray 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.

Well, it does mean something in the comparative sense that Japan and the
EU run big trade surpluses in their good sectors vis-a-vis the US, and
they're just as globalized as we are. This suggests, in turn, that the
mighty US economy is far less mighty than Wall Street would like us to
believe, that deep structural problems are being papered over by a
financial bubble. Usually, peripheries run huge deficits with metropoles,
not the other way around.

-- Dennis




RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-12 Thread Max B. Sawicky

. . .
> 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




RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China

2000-05-12 Thread Lisa & Ian Murray


 New from EPI:


 U.S. INVESTMENT IN CHINA
 WORSENS TRADE DEFICIT
 U.S. firms build export-oriented
 production base in China’s low-wage,
 low labor-protection economy
 by James Burke

 . . .

 " . . . Although in 1989 only 30% of imports from China
 competed against goods produced in the high-wage
 sector of the U.S. market, by 1999 that percentage
 had risen to 50%. . . . "
=
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.  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]?  And wouldn't that
whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade
becomes triumphant?

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