nettime China's New Left

2004-01-25 Thread McKenzie Wark
Any consideration of the state of the worldwide anticapitalist movement
necessarily faces, at some point, the question of China, which is rapidly
becoming the workhouse of the world. George Bush may be right when he says
his policies are creating jobs -- jobs in China.

This story makes mention of Wang Hui's book, China's New Order, which is
available in English from Harvard University Press, and is an excellent
account of the fallout from the student/democracy movement of 1987 and
Chinese political/intellectual life today.

McKenzie Wark


New York Times
Week in Review
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/weekinreview/25kahn.html?pagewanted=printposit=

January 25, 2004
LOSING GROUND

China's Leaders Manage Class Conflict
Carefully
By JOSEPH KAHN

BEIJING — If Karl Marx were alive today, Guangdong might be his
Manchester.

Like England's 19th century industrial center, 21st century Guangdong,
China's southern commercial hub, is the world's factory.

And like Manchester, Guangdong is also creating a stark divide between
labor and capital, a split that once became the ideological basis for
revolutions around the world, including China's own.

Tens of millions of industrial workers are struggling toward basic rights,
to earn enough to send their children to school, for laws that would allow
them to bargain collectively. And they are losing.

If Marx could see Guangdong today he would die of anger, says Dai
Jianzhong, a labor relations expert at the Beijing Academy of Social
Science. From that perspective, China is speeding in reverse.

Even more than England or the United States in their industrializing
heydays, China's growth relies on cheap labor. The foreign-invested
factories here, including production centers for most multinational
companies, depend on a flexible work force that actually grows cheaper by
the year.

Guangdong has grown by more than 10 percent annually for the past decade.
But its factory workers, mostly migrants from the interior, earn no more
today than they did in 1993, several Chinese studies have found. The
average wage of $50 to $70 a month also buys less today than it did in the
early 1990's, meaning workers are losing ground even as China enjoys one
of the longest and most robust expansions in modern history.

This is partly a paradox of globalization. China has attracted more
foreign investment by far than any other developing country, nearly $500
billion since it began internationalizing its economy. But it continues to
draw capital essentially because it is willing to rent workers for falling
returns.

The free-market economic policies have not left China worse off on the
whole. They have lifted it out of the ranks of the world's poorest
countries, created a nascent middle class of service industry workers in
the big cities, and made China the largest Asian exporter to the United
States.

But China is living through a Gilded Age of inequality, whose benefits are
not trickling down to the 700 million or 800 million rural residents who
live off the land or flock to the cities for factory or construction jobs.

The situation has given rise to a new group of Marxist critics who call
themselves China's new left. Wang Hui, a new left thinker, published a
book late last year, titled China's New Order, attacking China's leaders
for using state interference and even violence to enforce its vision of
international capitalism. He says the leaders have colonized their own
citizens.

Not surprisingly, Chinese officials do not put it that way, and few here
believe that China needs another Marxist revolution. Nor would Communist
Party officials say that democracy, rather than an authoritarian political
system, is needed to bring greater social justice to China.

Still, Communist leaders increasingly seem convinced that neither economic
growth nor China's tattered legacy of socialist laws will prevent social
unrest, even violent upheaval of the kind that helped bring the party to
power in 1949.

President Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, have vowed to
raise peasant incomes and stop the most egregious abuse of workers.
Executives of multinational corporations say they have a harder time
getting appointments with Mr. Wen and Mr. Hu than they did in the past.

Inequality these days is too stark to be ignored, says Kang Xiaoguang, a
leading political analyst in Beijing. The party has begun to recognize
that its legitimacy cannot come from economic reform as such. It needs to
stress fairness and justice.

Doubts remain, though, whether Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen have the power, or
desire, to do much about it. The capitalist road China has traveled since
the latter years of Deng Xiaoping's rule in the early 1990's is Darwinian
by the historical standards of the United States, England - even East
Asia.

The British working class first got the right to vote in the 1880's, amid
England's industrialization. American industrial unions trace their roots
to the early 20th century, when hazardous work 

Re: nettime China's New Left

2004-01-25 Thread Soenke Zehle
Worker organization may not be the only social-movement dynamic to look at,
nor will class most necessarily be the primary vector along which such
self-organization is likely to articulate itself. Consumer activism,
much-despised by authentic leftists for its lack of a radically
transformative vision, might just as well serve as an initial lever of a
newly-found political assertiveness. Anyway, a story that's been all over
the mainstream press is the one below, widely interpreted as an indicator of
an awakening Chinese 'civil society'. Who knows, maybe No Logo will come in
a distinctly Chinese format and take it from where these court cases leave
off? [2]

Greenpeace Int'l supports the anti-GM/Nestlé case by Eileen Zhu Yanling, and
in this context, maybe also see the recent (and somewhat suprising, only
makes sense to me in terms of the precedent this process will most
definitely create) US attack on Greenpeace. [1] It's all civil society to
me..., sz

[1] http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9525

  [2] access via Greenpeace International,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/]

  Zhu Yanling's Long March for consumer rights
  Chinese consumer challenges Nestle

Wed 07 January 2004
CHINA/Shanghai


What motivated a mother from Shanghai to travel half way around
the world to global food giant Nestlé´s HQ in Switzerland? In March 2003
Eileen Zhu Yanling was shocked to discover from the internet that Nestlé´s
Nesquik milk powder, a product she had been buying regularly for her
three-year-old son, contained GE ingredients without this being indicated on
the label.


Zhu's shock turned to anger as the thought of unknowingly
feeding her son GE food preyed on her mind and she decided to sue the
company for violation of her consumer rights. Zhu wrote to Nestlé
headquarters in September last year about inconsistencies in their labelling
policy but was not satisfied with their reply.

Zhu's anger was compounded by her previous trust in Nestlé's
products. Nestlé was one of the first foreign food companies to become
established in China and Zhu grew up with Nestlé products. She had also
studied in Switzerland and was even taken on a tour of Nestlé's Vevey
headquarters by a friend. Zhu is aware of the strict GE labelling
regulations in Europe and feels very strongly that large global companies
like Nestlé, irrespective of national variances in these regulations, should
give the same information about ingredients to consumers whether they're in
Europe or China.

I am angry because Nestlé has not been truthful. This is
disrespectful to Chinese consumers. I believe Chinese consumers have the
right to know and to choose what they are buying for their families, said
Zhu in a letter she delivered personally on her visit to Nestlé's Swiss
headquarters on 16th December last year.

In June 2003, Shanghai 2 People's Intermediate court accepted
Zhu's case and in August, with Nestlé China's agreement, the court
commissioned a laboratory to test Nesquik for the presence of GE
ingredients. The test was positive and was accepted as evidence by the
court. Nestlé subsequently commissioned another laboratory independently
without notifying the court. The results this time were predictably
negative. The court has refused to accept the results of the second test as
evidence. The date for the court hearing has yet to be set. Zhu is demanding
compensation of 13.6 yuan (about US$ 1.6) - twice the price of the product.

Greenpeace has been campaigning globally to eradicate GE
ingredients from food products for many years. Many food products already
contain GE ingredients, so until these can be phased out and replaced by
natural ingredients we have been pushing for those products containing GE to
be labelled so that consumers can make an informed choice.

We heard about Eileen Zhu Yanling's case in September and
committed to helping her take her concerns directly to Nestlé´s top
management on December 16th last year. At the meeting a Nestlé
representative told Zhu that they would continue to sell GE products
worldwide with the exception of Europe where consumer rejection is strong.
Nestlé's response has only strengthened her resolve to continue her fight.
I am very disappointed by Nestlé's response. I have travelled to
Switzerland to tell them the concerns of Chinese consumers, but Nestlé does
not seem to care. Zhu said after the meeting.

The meeting was conducted after Zhu gave a press conference in
Lausanne. She demanded that Nestlé adopt the same policy in China as in
European countries and eliminate GE ingredients from its products. She is
also calling on the company to respect consumers' rights to an informed
choice by properly labelling its GE products during the process of phasing
out GMOs. Nestlé rejected both demands during her meeting.

My demands were met with outright rejection.