I've seen a couple of longer things Marty has done that spell out
the argument. One is a superb new book on Japan/East Asia with Paul
Burkett (St Martin's Press), whose last chapter blew me away, as it
really tackles the problematic of progressive social/labour-movement
organising against neoliberalism... when Kism has to be more firmly
in our sights. Another is a forthcoming MR article which contrasts
China-bashing with a more durable, anti-capitalist strategy: to
shorten the working day. It's a shame email is not a particularly
good medium for getting deep into these debates and interrogating a
complex line of argument. Maybe Marty wouldn't mind, anyhow, sending
whatever relevants bits of these pieces he can. They really convinced
me...
> Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Martin Hart-Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:18903] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
>
