Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
After the current anti-China strategy fails, hopefully when the labor movement is thinking about which way to go next, it will consider views such as this more seriously. I think Doug reported recently that there is considerable tension within the AFL-CIO about the 'yellow peril' strategy, so there is hope. Hopefully that will be kept in mind before all out attacks on the AFL-CIO membership as falling in line with this policy also. This month's Monthly Review has an article by Bill Tabb that makes solid arguments for why this strategy is likely to fail, as has David Bacon recently. Steve Subject: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY IS THE ONLY ROAD By Barry Sheppard, San Francisco Bay Area The demonstrations in Seattle against the World Trade Organization have rightly inspired activists in the labor movement. Many have commented on the coming together of youth and students concerned about the destruction of the environment and U.S. corporations imposing sweatshop conditions in their factories in what used to be called the Third World, with tens of thousands of trade unionists concerned with the loss of better paying jobs, the reduction of real wages, and increasing economic insecurity. The consciousness of most of these forces at this stage could be summed up as "anti-corporatism." The big corporations and banks are seen as dominating the world for their own greedy self-interests at the expense of the majority of humanity and the world in which we live. But which way forward for this movement, if indeed it becomes a movement as we all hope it will, has become a burning question in practice. Key will be the struggle between two opposite political strategies. One is the road of American Firstism and U.S. protectionism, advocated by the AFL-CIO top bureaucracy, and by some ultra-right politicians such as Pat Buchanan. The counterposed strategy is international working class solidarity, which must include solidarity with the world¹s peasant masses and with the nations that are exploited by the imperialist countries. At first sight, the answer would appear to be obvious for labor activists on the left: we are internationalists, opposed to U.S. nationalism. But it is not so simple. Disagreements have arisen over just what internationalism means in the context of this movement. The sharpest expression of these differences has been whether or not to join what has become the axis of the AFL-CIO¹s protectionist campaign, the drive to keep China out of the WTO and to prevent Washington from granting China normal trade status with the U.S. Some left labor activists say "yes" to this campaign. Others, like myself, say an emphatic "No." Before discussing the particular case of China, let¹s recall some basic facts about the world. Fact number one is that the nations of the world are not equal. There are a handful of advanced capitalist countries, with a minority of the world¹s population, which not only exploit their own workers and small farmers, but suck super-profits out of the so-called "developing" countries as well. Since the early 20th century this system of national oppression and exploitation has been referred to as modern "imperialism," and the advanced capitalist countries as "imperialist." The "Third World" doesn¹t consist of "developing" or "underdeveloped" countries, terms which imply that they will catch up with the imperialist countries sooner or later. A better term would be "super-exploited" countries, for the truth is that the gap between these countries and the imperialist ones is growing, not diminishing, as I am sure we all know from many sources. Within all countries, imperialist as well as super-exploited, the gap between the rich and the workers and peasants is growing. The neoliberal policies being promulgated domestically and internationally have exacerbated the situation. After over a century of imperialism, the world has now 800 million hungry people, one billion illiterates, four billion in poverty, 250 million children who work regularly and 130 million people who have no access to education. There are 100 million homeless and 11 million children under five years of age dying every year of malnutrition, poverty and preventable or curable diseases. Even Clinton admitted in a speech he made in September of last year that while the rich countries have been long burdened with overcapacity, including in the production of food, 40 million people die every year from hunger. The WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the governments of the imperialist countries are imposing ever worse conditions on the super-exploited countries. Due to imperialist policies, the Third World debt to the banks of the First World has ballooned to over two trillion dollars, from $567 billion in 1980 and $1.4 trillion in 1992. The
Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
>What's wrong w/Harry Wu screaming about lack of >basic freedoms in China? >From the PEN-L archives: The Houston Chronicle, February 4, 1996 Harry Wu just won't back off; Crusader dismisses criticism of his stance against China LYDIA LUM; Staff MILPITAS, Calif. - As soon as human rights crusader Harry Wu accused the World Bank of financing an agriculture project in China that used prison labor, the bank investigated his claim. But after a six-week, $ 200,000 probe of that project, as well as 159 other World Bank-financed efforts in China, bank officials announced they found no ties between any of their projects and prison labor. The incident perhaps best illustrates Wu's reputation as an apostle in human-rights issues. It also shows growing doubts about his accuracy. "Harry Wu is a major player, and we took his words seriously,'' said bank spokesman Graham Barrett. "We abhor forced labor, and we wouldn't want our money supporting it. But there is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Wu's claims.'' Wu, 59, drew headlines worldwide during a 66-day detention in China last summer. Immediately after returning to the United States, he resumed criticizing agencies and companies that he says support forced-labor camps in China. Targets of Wu's verbal assault have ranged from the World Bank to a wholesale tool shop in Houston. Imprisoned for 19 years in forced-labor camps, Wu has built a career trying to dismantle the laogai - a network of Chinese prison camps modeled after the Soviet gulag that tries to "reform'' minds of criminals and political undesirables through forced labor under dangerous conditions. Some prisoners languish for decades. Wu insists his accusations are well-researched, based on records and photos retrieved by him and a chain of Chinese informants. He says the World Bank could not have investigated thoroughly in only six weeks and is covering up. Wu - who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize during last summer's house arrest - speaks brashly about his legal troubles in China. He was convicted of stealing state secrets and impersonating a police officer stemming from undercover trips to China to document human rights abuses. During a stop at the University of St. Thomas last fall, he told his audience that owners of a southwest Houston shop knowingly import hammers, wrenches and other tools from forced-labor camps. U.S. law bans importing forced-labor goods. But U.S.Customs officials - who have issued import bans on 26 Chinese products since 1991 and credit Wu as one of their resources - say they found no proof of wrongdoing during several investigations of Houston companies with purported ties to Chinese prison labor. Employees at the tool shop declined comment when contacted by the Chronicle, but appeared surprised when told of Wu's accusation. Wu said he never spoke to the store's owner, basing his claim on records from a Chinese informant. "Like many other zealots, he is so convinced of the rightness of his own position,'' said James Feinerman, a Georgetown University professor of Chinese law who has testified at congressional hearings with Wu. "But things aren't always black and white. '' Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Steve Philion: >I agree with this text, of course. Note that the source is the same kind >of source that Henry has so passionately attacked Doug for using when >making criticisms of the labor regime in China. It's nice to see that it >is alright to quote from the beast after all when discussing China But Henry is correct. There is an enormous propaganda offensive that is attempting to demonize the Chinese government. Although it comes from rightwing sources, it is used as a club by the liberal wing of the ruling class to extract concessions. Nobody in the west, from Clinton to Jesse Helms, gives a shit about human rights. We are much worse on prison labor than China. When Harry Wu goes around spreading lies, it allows Clinton to put pressure on China to accept trading terms less favorable than other countries who have much worse blemishes. You might think that the criticisms of Wu that I posted here and on the SR mailing list were easy to come by. They were not. I had to spend my entire lunch hour the other day finding material against him on Lexis-Nexis. (I had forgotten about the PEN-L post.) I kept doing searches on "Wu" and "exaggerations" or "Wu" and "inaccurate" until I found the 3 items that have found their way into email discussions. Keep in mind, however, that if you do a plain search on "Harry Wu", you will get back 904 hits. This means that for every 1 article telling the truth about this rightwing provocateur, you get 300 describing him as some kind of saint. No wonder there is so much Sinophobia going around on and off the Internet. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
>I will add that when Henry chooses to be informative, he is one >of the most informative and useful posters on the internet. But >mostly he chooses to spout the obvious or spout nonsense. > >Carrol Yes, but without his intervention we'd be much worse off. It would be better, I suppose, if we had somebody like Marty Hart-Landsberg taking on the topic of China, but he is too busy with North Korea, another state that every high-minded leftist in the west loves to hate. You have to read Henry with a critical eye, which is the case for every other human being. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Steve Philion wrote: >I agree with Henry about Harry Wu. I think his attacks on Doug are based >on much less valid reasoning. I believe there are some personal matters beneath the surface that explain this. Henry was Doug's broker 2 years ago involving a Hong Kong pork belly derivatives deal that went sour. Since it was based on a butterfly spread type margin call, Doug was short the broker and long the dealer. Doug pulled a fast one and converted his contract to a preferred stock/Ginnie Mae payable in Mexican pesos. After the Zapatistas began their offensive, the pesos lost most of their value against the Hong Kong yen. Henry has never forgiven him. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Stephen, The Monthly Review article is right in principle. however, from a world systemic perspective, I am much more interested in why the US steel workers cooperate with the big US steel companies to keep their wages high in the core. if you remember that in anti-WTO protests, AFL-CIO head John Sweeny, the leaders of auto-workers and steel workers were demanding that the WTO and US government protect their jobs by restricting the importation of products made in low wage wage countries, and limiting off shore production. The main target by the unions was the protection of their jobs, not humanistic aid to third world workers at all. I don't know how this differs from a typical nationalist view that US people are loosing their jobs because of foreigners. The steel workers union has already allied with US steel companies to protest the dumping of low priced steel from Russia and Brazil . Furthermore, the Machinists Union has joined with Boeing management (Seattle) in the huge reduction of jobs, while criticizing European government subsidies, and european capitalists for not imitating US capitalism. (US is the land of market economy rhetoric). In history too, chartists allied with liberals against corn laws, for free trade ideology this time.. This US nationalist capitalist strategy puts workers in an alliance with US capitalists and their political representatives like Bush, Clinton, and others. While the US capitalists want to protect their own interests from European and Asian capitalists, the labor movement is paying the price by taking a side on national interest to protect their own jobs. Doesn't the world capitalism create a reserved army of labor in the periphery, and pit workers against each other? International solidarity of workers is in danger if one group relatively benefits from the system, and the other suffers. thanks, Mine Stephen E Philion wrote: > After the current anti-China strategy fails, hopefully when the labor > movement is thinking about which way to go next, it will consider views > such as this more seriously. I think Doug reported recently that there is > considerable tension within the AFL-CIO about the 'yellow peril' strategy, > so there is hope. Hopefully that will be kept in mind before all out > attacks on the AFL-CIO membership as falling in line with this policy > also. This month's Monthly Review has an article by Bill Tabb that makes > solid arguments for why this strategy is likely to fail, as has David > Bacon recently. > > Steve > > Subject: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View > > INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY IS THE ONLY ROAD > > By Barry Sheppard, San Francisco Bay Area > > The demonstrations in Seattle against the World Trade Organization have > rightly inspired activists in the labor movement. Many have commented on > the coming together of youth and students concerned about the destruction of > the environment and U.S. corporations imposing sweatshop conditions in their > factories in what used to be called the Third World, with tens of thousands > of trade unionists concerned with the loss of better paying jobs, the > reduction of real wages, and increasing economic insecurity. The > consciousness of most of these forces at this stage could be summed up as > "anti-corporatism." The big corporations and banks are seen as dominating > the world for their own greedy self-interests at the expense of the majority > of humanity and the world in which we live. > But which way forward for this movement, if indeed it becomes a movement as > we all hope it will, has become a burning question in practice. Key will be > the struggle between two opposite political strategies. One is the road of > American Firstism and U.S. protectionism, advocated by the AFL-CIO top > bureaucracy, and by some ultra-right politicians such as Pat Buchanan. The > counterposed strategy is international working class solidarity, which must > include solidarity with the world¹s peasant masses and with the nations > that are exploited by the imperialist countries. > At first sight, the answer would appear to be obvious for labor activists > on the left: we are internationalists, opposed to U.S. nationalism. But it > is not so simple. Disagreements have arisen over just what internationalism > means in the context of this movement. The sharpest expression of these > differences has been whether or not to join what has become the axis of the > AFL-CIO¹s protectionist campaign, the drive to keep China out of the WTO and > to prevent Washington from granting China normal trade status with the U.S. > Some left labor activists say "yes" to this campaign. Others, like myself, > say an emphatic "No." > Before discussing the particular case of China, let¹s recall some
RE: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
After the current anti-China strategy fails, hopefully when the labor movement is thinking about which way to go next, it will consider views such as this more seriously. I think Doug reported recently that there is considerable tension within the AFL-CIO about the 'yellow peril' strategy, so there is hope. . . . >>> The only fair response to the 'yellow peril' characterization would be that the other side, our partisans of free trade, you apparently, are pursuing the puerile imperialist stooge strategy, or PISS for short. Can't you criticize a policy w/o imputing racism/nativism/ isolationism to its advocates? mbs
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
At 10:39 PM 3/28/00 -1000, you wrote: >I'm convinced it'll fail because of the well laid out arguments of people >like Bacon and Tabb (see March issue of Monthly Review). The strategy is >short sighted and will not jive with the American populace, who don't >blame China or trade with China for their problems. I'm not going to comment on any of the details of this thread (especially the unnecessary rudeness), but it seems to me that there's a false dichotomy hovering right below the surface of the discussion: it seems to be assumed that _either_ one wants to target China as part of a campaign of vilification _or_ one is tailing the neo-liberal free trade uber alles campaign. Supposing that one is critical of the neo-liberal juggernaut, that doesn't mean that one has to target China _per se_. One could argue in more general terms about the downside of "free trade." Perhaps this could be illustrated with examples from China, but I can't see any principled reason to single out China: after all, the US of A uses prison labor too. An argument against the juggernaut in terms of the "race to the bottom" and the like -- general principles rather than lambasting China -- helps us make the needed link between trade issues and the capitalist system. Suppose one is in favor of "free trade." This is a venerable leftist and internationalist position, against economistic unions whose leaders and/or members think they can prosper by allying with employers to lobby for legislation that works only at the expense of foreign or foreign-born workers. (The worst of this did not concern trade issues but migration into the US, as with union support for Chinese exclusion laws.) But that doesn't mean that one can't look at the downside of "free trade" and such issues as the free flow of capital (both financial and real), which has been historically linked to the expansion of free trade. To me, no matter what one's position of "free trade," the key thing is to increase solidarity and organization amongst workers, both within and between countries. (That's the only way to fight and counteract the power of capital, which seems to have a tendency toward a "natural" unity, not as some kind of elite conspiracy but as part of the "laws of motion" of the system.) So both those who favor, and those who oppose, "free trade" have to restate their arguments in this light. Bill Tabb's argument is pretty good, by the way. I haven't read David Bacon's yet. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
I agree with this text, of course. Note that the source is the same kind of source that Henry has so passionately attacked Doug for using when making criticisms of the labor regime in China. It's nice to see that it is alright to quote from the beast after all when discussing China Steve On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: > > The Houston Chronicle, February 4, 1996 > "Harry Wu is a major player, and we took his words seriously,'' said World bank > spokesman Graham Barrett. "We abhor forced labor, and we wouldn't want our > money supporting it. But there is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Wu's > claims.'' > > Wu, 59, drew headlines worldwide during a 66-day detention in China last > summer. Immediately after returning to the United States, he resumed > criticizing agencies and companies that he says support forced-labor camps > in China. Targets of Wu's verbal assault have ranged from the World Bank to > a wholesale tool shop in Houston. > > Imprisoned for 19 years in forced-labor camps, Wu has built a career trying > to dismantle the laogai - a network of Chinese prison camps modeled after > the Soviet gulag that tries to "reform'' minds of criminals and political > undesirables through forced labor under dangerous conditions. Some > prisoners languish for decades. > > Wu insists his accusations are well-researched, based on records and photos > retrieved by him and a chain of Chinese informants. He says the World Bank > could not have investigated thoroughly in only six weeks and is covering > up. > > Wu - who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize during last summer's house > arrest - speaks brashly about his legal troubles in China. He was convicted > of stealing state secrets and impersonating a police officer stemming from > undercover trips to China to document human rights abuses. > > During a stop at the University of St. Thomas last fall, he told his > audience that owners of a southwest Houston shop knowingly import hammers, > wrenches and other tools from forced-labor camps. U.S. law bans importing > forced-labor goods. > > But U.S.Customs officials - who have issued import bans on 26 Chinese > products since 1991 and credit Wu as one of their resources - say they > found no proof of wrongdoing during several investigations of Houston > companies with purported ties to Chinese prison labor. > > Employees at the tool shop declined comment when contacted by the > Chronicle, but appeared surprised when told of Wu's accusation. Wu said he > never spoke to the store's owner, basing his claim on records from a > Chinese informant. > > "Like many other zealots, he is so convinced of the rightness of his own > position,'' said James Feinerman, a Georgetown University professor of > Chinese law who has testified at congressional hearings with Wu. "But > things aren't always black and white. '' > > Louis Proyect > > (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) > >
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Louis Proyect wrote: > But Henry is correct. There is an enormous propaganda offensive that is > attempting to demonize the Chinese government. Damn it. All sorts of leftists are attacking the Anti-China crusade. Being against the AFL-CIO on this is no more praiseworthy than being against child murder. It is a negative for you if you defend the China bashers. But it is minimal leftist virtue to oppose china-bashing. No credit given for minimal virtue. It's expected. One of the things about Henry that gives me a pain in the neck is his preening himself for being able to recite the ABCs as though that were something special. I will add that when Henry chooses to be informative, he is one of the most informative and useful posters on the internet. But mostly he chooses to spout the obvious or spout nonsense. Carrol
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
I agree with Henry about Harry Wu. I think his attacks on Doug are based on much less valid reasoning. Henry might not like Doug's critical comments on aspects of China's labor regime, but Henry can't even bring himself to acknowledge that Doug also is critical of the AFL-CIO's positin on China...Fact is someone like Doug will listen to David Bacon or Bill Tabb's arguments on China trade policy, but not think much of Henry's arguments. Something about Bacon and Tabb's arguments are much more persuasive, which counts for something when trying to convince people about importan issues such as US-China trade policy... Steve On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: > Steve Philion: > >I agree with this text, of course. Note that the source is the same kind > >of source that Henry has so passionately attacked Doug for using when > >making criticisms of the labor regime in China. It's nice to see that it > >is alright to quote from the beast after all when discussing China > > But Henry is correct. There is an enormous propaganda offensive that is > attempting to demonize the Chinese government. Although it comes from > rightwing sources, it is used as a club by the liberal wing of the ruling > class to extract concessions. Nobody in the west, from Clinton to Jesse > Helms, gives a shit about human rights. We are much worse on prison labor > than China. When Harry Wu goes around spreading lies, it allows Clinton to > put pressure on China to accept trading terms less favorable than other > countries who have much worse blemishes. You might think that the > criticisms of Wu that I posted here and on the SR mailing list were easy to > come by. They were not. I had to spend my entire lunch hour the other day > finding material against him on Lexis-Nexis. (I had forgotten about the > PEN-L post.) I kept doing searches on "Wu" and "exaggerations" or "Wu" and > "inaccurate" until I found the 3 items that have found their way into email > discussions. Keep in mind, however, that if you do a plain search on "Harry > Wu", you will get back 904 hits. This means that for every 1 article > telling the truth about this rightwing provocateur, you get 300 describing > him as some kind of saint. No wonder there is so much Sinophobia going > around on and off the Internet. > > Louis Proyect > > (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) > >
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Henry Liu is a very contentious subject here. I think that we could do well to not try to characterize him here. Louis Proyect wrote: > Steve Philion: > >I agree with this text, of course. Note that the source is the same kind > >of source that Henry has so passionately attacked Doug for using when > >making criticisms of the labor regime in China. It's nice to see that it > >is alright to quote from the beast after all when discussing China > > But Henry is correct. There is an enormous propaganda offensive that is > attempting to demonize the Chinese government. Although it comes from > rightwing sources, it is used as a club by the liberal wing of the ruling > class to extract concessions. Nobody in the west, from Clinton to Jesse > Helms, gives a shit about human rights. We are much worse on prison labor > than China. When Harry Wu goes around spreading lies, it allows Clinton to > put pressure on China to accept trading terms less favorable than other > countries who have much worse blemishes. You might think that the > criticisms of Wu that I posted here and on the SR mailing list were easy to > come by. They were not. I had to spend my entire lunch hour the other day > finding material against him on Lexis-Nexis. (I had forgotten about the > PEN-L post.) I kept doing searches on "Wu" and "exaggerations" or "Wu" and > "inaccurate" until I found the 3 items that have found their way into email > discussions. Keep in mind, however, that if you do a plain search on "Harry > Wu", you will get back 904 hits. This means that for every 1 article > telling the truth about this rightwing provocateur, you get 300 describing > him as some kind of saint. No wonder there is so much Sinophobia going > around on and off the Internet. > > Louis Proyect > > (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Louis Proyect wrote: >I believe there are some personal matters beneath the surface that explain >this. Henry was Doug's broker 2 years ago involving a Hong Kong pork belly >derivatives deal that went sour. Since it was based on a butterfly spread >type margin call, Doug was short the broker and long the dealer. Doug >pulled a fast one and converted his contract to a preferred stock/Ginnie >Mae payable in Mexican pesos. After the Zapatistas began their offensive, >the pesos lost most of their value against the Hong Kong yen. Henry has >never forgiven him. And I thought I'd hedged myself with Harare temperature futures, but because of some global-warming-induced anomaly, I was desperate. Doug
Re: RE: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Max, Noone is calling anyone racist. But relying on Harry Wu to justify an attack on China? Tibetan nuns? What does this have to do with the issue of labor rights in China? Maybe in ads against China trade they can also include pictures of Wen Ho Lee, my sense is the strategy is 'whatever it takes'. I don't think you're a racist for supporting the AFL-CIO strategy, I am certain your reasons for supporting it are the same as mine for opposing it. You think it will accomplish the stated purpose, namely the advancement of workers rights in China and the US. Obviously I don't support a Fortune 500 stance on free trade. But I am convinced by people like David Bacon and Bill Tabb that this strategy will not only not work, but will make it even more difficult to accomplish the intended goal. BTW, my position on this particular issue is, admittledly, similar to HCKL's, but I am far much more convinced by the logic of David Bacon and Bill Tabb in their recent articles on this issue than I am of HCKL. That said, I think it is to the advantage of the labor movement to not embrace nativist/isolationist/racist elements involved in the anti-China entry to WTO activism, since those elements have no sincere interest in workers' rights in CHina or the US. Steve On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > After the current anti-China strategy fails, hopefully when the labor > movement is thinking about which way to go next, it will consider views > such as this more seriously. I think Doug reported recently that there is > considerable tension within the AFL-CIO about the 'yellow peril' strategy, > so there is hope. . . . > > >>> > > The only fair response to the 'yellow peril' characterization > would be that the other side, our partisans of free trade, > you apparently, are pursuing the puerile imperialist stooge > strategy, or PISS for short. > > Can't you criticize a policy w/o imputing racism/nativism/ > isolationism to its advocates? > > mbs > >
Re: Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Jim Devine wrote: I'm not going to comment on any of the details of this thread (especially the unnecessary rudeness), Steve writes: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to respond to this above comment however. I've tried to not be rude toward Max, I respect his work at EPI and him even when I disagree with him strongly on issues. And we do disagree quite a bit on this issue. If you believe I have said anything rude to him, I'd be glad to be have it pointed out where and retract such statements. Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822 On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Jim Devine wrote: > At 10:39 PM 3/28/00 -1000, you wrote: > >I'm convinced it'll fail because of the well laid out arguments of people > >like Bacon and Tabb (see March issue of Monthly Review). The strategy is > >short sighted and will not jive with the American populace, who don't > >blame China or trade with China for their problems. > > I'm not going to comment on any of the details of this thread (especially > the unnecessary rudeness), but it seems to me that there's a false > dichotomy hovering right below the surface of the discussion: it seems to > be assumed that _either_ one wants to target China as part of a campaign of > vilification _or_ one is tailing the neo-liberal free trade uber alles > campaign. > > Supposing that one is critical of the neo-liberal juggernaut, that doesn't > mean that one has to target China _per se_. One could argue in more general > terms about the downside of "free trade." Perhaps this could be illustrated > with examples from China, but I can't see any principled reason to single > out China: after all, the US of A uses prison labor too. An argument > against the juggernaut in terms of the "race to the bottom" and the like -- > general principles rather than lambasting China -- helps us make the needed > link between trade issues and the capitalist system. > > Suppose one is in favor of "free trade." This is a venerable leftist and > internationalist position, against economistic unions whose leaders and/or > members think they can prosper by allying with employers to lobby for > legislation that works only at the expense of foreign or foreign-born > workers. (The worst of this did not concern trade issues but migration into > the US, as with union support for Chinese exclusion laws.) But that > doesn't mean that one can't look at the downside of "free trade" and such > issues as the free flow of capital (both financial and real), which has > been historically linked to the expansion of free trade. > > To me, no matter what one's position of "free trade," the key thing is to > increase solidarity and organization amongst workers, both within and > between countries. (That's the only way to fight and counteract the power > of capital, which seems to have a tendency toward a "natural" unity, not as > some kind of elite conspiracy but as part of the "laws of motion" of the > system.) So both those who favor, and those who oppose, "free trade" have > to restate their arguments in this light. > > Bill Tabb's argument is pretty good, by the way. I haven't read David > Bacon's yet. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: >Suppose one is in favor of "free trade." This is a venerable leftist and >internationalist position, Respectfully, I don't think so. Not every leftist would agree on this definition. The idea that we should be in favor of free trade for the sake of internalization and free movement of capital misses the point that free trade is the mirror image of capitalism and imperialism. This free trade reminds me of the Orthodox Marxist position of Kautsky: fatalistic beleif in markets and the pure mechanical necessity for the collapse of capitalism. The argument goes something like this: Socialism will automatically come if we wait for the economic process to work itself out. Let the free market operate without any conscious interference on the part of the working classes, including *revolution* (since revolution is automatically assumed to happen). I find this orthodoxy (natural laws of capitalism rhetoric)quite passifying Marx's dialectical unity of theory and "praxis". It robs Marxism off its political charecter, and turns it into a passive image of free trade ideology. It fails to inform and guide its historical agency--that is the working class. To reiterate Gramsci, Marxism needs a theory of praxis to understand why it is that pure economism is not alone sufficient to have socialism. One needs to question the limits of economic determinism so reminiscent of free trade economism and spontaneous bourgeois unionism (of US type). Simple fact is that many countries had socialism and anti-systemic movements without *necessarily* having those prerequisites of socialism (fully developed capitalism). then why should we insist on "natural laws of capitalism to figure out when we are gonna have socialism...? >against economistic unions whose leaders >and/or >members think they can prosper by allying with employers to lobby for >legislation that works only at the expense of foreign or foreign-born >workers. that is very true. I would only add that capitalism creates this false dichotomy between free trade and protectionism. Workers do not always ally with employers for "national interest". History proves that they had also lobbied for free trade with liberals aganist protectionist measures in the case of corn laws. Capitalism from the begining needed the state to establish itself, as MArx's discussion on "primitive accumulation" in Capital shows us. Even at the moment now, in France, for example, there is a serious tension between agricultural laborers and urban based industrial unions about whether there should be a united, free European economy or not. They lobby with the state for their own agendas. >To me, no matter what one's position of "free trade," the key thing is to >increase solidarity and organization amongst workers, both within and >between countries. (That's the only way to fight and counteract the power >of capital, which seems to have a tendency toward a "natural" unity, not >as >some kind of elite conspiracy but as part of the "laws of motion" of the >system.) As i said before, elites are part of the capitalist class. They are functional for capitalism to maintain itself, not only economically but also culturally, politically and socially. They form an "organic block" in relation to various levels of competing forces in civil society (organic media, associations, universities, unions, think tanks, etc..) and the state. This is their ideological function in the reproduction of the system. You may call this conspiracy theory, but this is what capitalism is.. peace, Mine Aysen Doyran Phd student Political Science SUNY/Albany Albany/NY.
RE: Re: RE: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
Max, Noone is calling anyone racist. >> Oh come on. What is 'yellow peril' supposed to connote? >> But relying on Harry Wu to justify an attack on China? Tibetan nuns? > Why not? I got nothing against Tibetan nuns. I just hope they stay away from Al Gore. What's wrong w/Harry Wu screaming about lack of basic freedoms in China? And how is citing Asian voices in criticism of China racist? >>> What does this have to do with the issue of labor rights in China? >> China's got problems with human rights, not just labor rights. >> . . . That said, I think it is to the advantage of the labor movement to not embrace nativist/isolationist/racist elements involved in the anti-China entry to WTO activism, since those elements have no sincere interest in workers' rights in CHina or the US. Steve >> There is no such embrace. That's a myth, on a par with me saying you and Bacon and Tabb have embraced the IMF's philosophy of structural adjustment because I don't like your position on China/WTO. There is some tactical coordination on Congressional votes, and Nader and his people have done some babbling about Pat Buchanan. That's all I've seen. If something more is going on I'd like to know about it. Finally, I don't know why you're so sure the strategy (really a tactic in a strategy) will fail. As things stand the odds are against Congressional approval of china in the WTO. How the labor movement exploits this reflection of its influence has yet to unfold. mbs
Re: Re: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View (fwd)
I wrote: > >Suppose one is in favor of "free trade." This is a venerable leftist and > internationalist position,< Mine Aysen Doyran writes: >Respectfully, I don't think so. Not every leftist would agree on this >definition. I didn't say _the_ venerable leftist and international position but _a_ venerable leftist and internationalist tradition. >The idea that we should be in favor of free trade for the sake of >internalization and free movement of capital misses the point that free >trade is the mirror image of capitalism and imperialism. I didn't say that. Instead I contrasted free trade vs. labor alliances with employers against foreign workers. >This free trade reminds me of the Orthodox Marxist position of Kautsky: >fatalistic beleif in markets and the pure mechanical necessity for the >collapse of capitalism. The argument goes something like this: Socialism >will automatically come if we wait for the economic process to work itself >out. Let the free market operate without any conscious interference on the >part >of the working classes, including *revolution* (since revolution is >automatically assumed to happen). I find this orthodoxy (natural laws of >capitalism rhetoric)quite passifying Marx's dialectical unity of theory >and "praxis". It robs Marxism off its political charecter, and turns it >into a passive image of free trade ideology. It fails to inform and guide >its historical agency--that is the working class. To reiterate Gramsci, >Marxism needs a theory of praxis to understand why it is that pure >economism is not alone sufficient to have socialism. .. BTW, Marx himself gave a speech in favor of free trade in which he suggested that it would speed up the movement to socialism. Even though he was wrong, that indicates that it wasn't Kautsky who started this tradition. > >against economistic unions whose leaders and/or members think they can > prosper by allying with employers to lobby for legislation that works > only at the expense of foreign or foreign-born workers.< >that is very true. I would only add that capitalism creates this false >dichotomy between free trade and protectionism Right! In fact, I'd add that nowadays, most of capital is mobile or not threatened drastically by free trade. So labor's efforts to find allies against free trade often ends up empty. > >To me, no matter what one's position of "free trade," the key thing is > to increase solidarity and organization amongst workers, both within > and between countries. (That's the only way to fight and counteract the > power of capital, which seems to have a tendency toward a "natural" > unity, not as some kind of elite conspiracy but as part of the "laws of > motion" of the system.) >As i said before, elites are part of the capitalist class. They are >functional for capitalism to maintain itself, not only economically but >also culturally, politically and socially. They form an "organic block" in >relation to various levels of competing forces in civil society (organic >media, associations, universities, unions, think tanks, etc..) and the >state. This is their ideological function in the reproduction of the >system. You may call this conspiracy theory, but this is what capitalism is.. There is a competition of elites -- what Schumpeter called "democracy" -- which prevents the capitalists from approaching being a conspiracy. On top of that, their control of us isn't simply through bureaucratic hierarchies (as in corporations) but also through markets. Their control of the means of production, technology, and accumulation, plus the persistent reserve army of the unemployed (which nowadays shows up in greater worker insecurity of tenure) give them the power to run society as long as workers aren't well organized. The conspiracies (the FBI, CIA, etc.) and the direct application of force come into fore when workers are well organized and capitalist elites unite to undermine that organization. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View
I must say, I have some sympathy with Max on this point. First of all, I would argue that WTO type 'free trade' is bad for workers in both the developed and underdeveloped countries. Quite apart from the human rights issue, extending WTO to China would tilt the balance of power within China even further toward an emerging capitalist class and thereby increase the exploitation of Chinese workers. (Where is Henry when we need him?) So, for the benefit of Chinese workers, it is the best interest to oppose their entry into WTO since the WTO rules reinforce the power of capital against that of labour. Secondly, labour has traditionally opposed competition from prison labour and from workers forced on to 'workfare', because this is 'unfair' competition from 'unfree' labour. Why is that any different from being forced to compete with labour that is not free to form unions or to bargain for their wages? Do you think that American workers should compete with prison labour making less than minimum wage? Do you think that American workers should have to compete with child labour being paid less than subsistence wages? The only form of 'free-er trade' that makes sense in developed countries or developing countries -- at least as far as labour is concerned -- is managed trade that takes into account past and present investment in workers in their jobs and communities and compensates them for expropriation of their skills and social investment. The kind of defense of neo-liberal trade theory that is trotted out to criticize Max's labour based position, I find difficult to reconcile with any understanding of the real world of international trade regulation and labour exploitation under global capital. It kind of reminds me of New Zealand's and Tony Blair's conversion to WTO-ism. Ugh! Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:17471] RE: Re: RE: Left Approach to China Trade: A Critical View Date sent: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:13:19 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > What does this have to do with the issue of > labor rights in China? > >>>>>>>>>> > > China's got problems with human rights, not > just labor rights. > > There is no such embrace. That's a myth, on a par > with me saying you and Bacon and Tabb have embraced > the IMF's philosophy of structural adjustment because > I don't like your position on China/WTO. > There is some tactical coordination on Congressional > votes, and Nader and his people have done some babbling > about Pat Buchanan. That's all I've seen. If something > more is going on I'd like to know about it. > > Finally, I don't know why you're so sure the strategy > (really a tactic in a strategy) will fail. As things > stand the odds are against Congressional approval of > china in the WTO. How the labor movement exploits > this reflection of its influence has yet to unfold. > > mbs >
