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 writ
>>> "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,
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?
>
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 promo
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
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 ou
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 o
>
[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
afou
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 at
>>> "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 man
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
. . .
> 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 suppres
12 matches
Mail list logo
