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
>
