> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Where should leftists stand on the push by activists in Seattle demanding > that the WTO have stronger labor rights enforcement provisions? Are these > demands the product of imperialist plots to make certain countries, i.e. > China, less able to compete with the US in global markets? Well, there are two kinds of labor rights provisions. The first kind is substantive where global minimum wages are set and substantive regulation of the workplace are made global. There are some legitimate debates over how those might be enforced, how they would disadvantage struggling developing economies, and how they might be used by developed countries as trade weapons. On the other hand, procedural labor provisions, particularly provisions that protect the rights of workers to organize in each country and thereby demand whatever standards workers in those developing countries deem critical, should be the key demand of progressive global activists. There should be no debate among left activists over protecting the right to organize; any other position is merely the defense of national bourgeoisie - whether in the form of private capitalists or state bureaucrats - to exploit other members of their societies for their own enrichment. The International Labor Organization has broadly agreed upon procedural guarantees for workers that, sadly, have little enforcement built into them. Whether the WTO is the best mechanism for enforcing them is debated, but only in the context of whether the undemocratic structures of the WTO should have any of the powers it is developing. But if the WTO is going to continue to develop its powers to override the laws of national governments for the benefit of capital, labor will have to demand protections for its rights globally. --Nathan newman
