Chinese Workers Are Showing Disenchantment
Official Statistics Show Number of Labor Disputes Has Soared as Workers
Complain of Late or No Pay, Layoffs, Corruption
By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, April 23, 2000; Page A23
BEIJINGThe number of labor disputes in China has
as the
League of Nations, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was
mobilized in a particularly hypocritical campaign since Britain and France
had expressly prevented ILO stipulations being applied to their sweat-shops
in China when the organization was originally founded. What incensed the
Western powers
"analysis" of policies/strategies pursued by the AFL-CIO are
useless if they talk about "The AFL-CIO this, the AFL-CIO that".
Steve
Subject: L.A.LaborNews - The China Syndrome - meltdown in the movement
THE CHINA SYNDROME - OR, HOW TO HIJACK A MOVEMENT
by Jim Smith
Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm
Comment No. 35, Mar. 1, 2000
"The U.S. and China: Enemies or
Allies?"
The United States and China have had a tumultuous re
net terms. This does not
mean no capital is exported. It means that more
is imported than exported. And indeed, a trade
deficit with China means they accumulate more
claims on assets in the U.S. for the period
in question than the U.S. accumulates in claims
on Chinese assets.
__
CB
).
Actually, there are two ways about it. Trade deficits with any single
country (e.g., China) do not always eliminate jobs, since in theory that
deficit might be balanced by trade surpluses with other countries. Turning
to the empirical reality, we find that the US had trade deficits with a
whole
growth has been
mediocre for most of the present recovery (the most recent years a bit better).
I respond:
Actually, there are two ways about it. Trade deficits with any single
country (e.g., China) do not always eliminate jobs, since in theory that
deficit might be balanced by trade surpluses
What do we import from E. Europe? Mail order brides (A Russian woman I know keeps us
informed about this trade; Haven't heard of one working out; Mostly jerks who can't
get a US woman to put up with them), caviar? I thought that the expansion of NATO
meant that we would get to sell lot's of good
"Max B. Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/00 12:10AM
There is no comparison between the inchoate Japan bashing
in the early 1980's and the present movement. Trade deficits
eliminate jobs. There are no two ways about it. In
the U.S. we've had manufacturing jobs replaced by
lower paying
, instead of taking
goods foreigners take dollars. These dollars
are claims on capital in the U.S. In textbook
language, we are importing capital in net terms,
not exporting it. The fact that we run a big
trade deficit with China, for example, does not
reflect increased U.S. penetration of China
hat we run a big
trade deficit with China, for example, does not
reflect increased U.S. penetration of China, but
just the opposite.
__
CB: Surely there is not increased penetration of Chinese capital in the U.S. The U.S.
is building plants in China, and the goods are exported to the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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_
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 say it will fail
in
progressive forces gearing up to stop China from being admitted to the
WTO. This can be criticized as contributing to displacement of class
rage#151;rightly directed at transnational capital#151;onto the
repressive Chinese ruling class. Without at all absolving Chinese
market-Dengist cadre ("t
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.
Oh really? On what
steve wrote orginally:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Fwd: SLATE NEWS: Thurs., March 9, 2000
The Washington Post leads with President Clinton's introduction of a bill
to secure permanent normal trade relations [a.k.a. "most favored nation"
status] with China, a story fronted by the New York Times and Los Angeles
Times ...
In a speec
Newsbytes
Thursday, February 24 9:49 PM SGT
EU Squeezes China On Foreign Ownership
BEIJING, CHINA, 2000 FEB 24 (NB) - By Martin Stone, Newsbytes. European
Union (EU) negotiators are reportedly seeking the right to 51 percent
foreign ownership of Chinese telecom firms as part of talks
[This was Henry's comment on the points raised in the discussion]
This is the official position copies from the Chiese Embassy web site.
Wrong to Criticize China for Trade Surplus
October 29, 1998
It is wrong for the United States to criticize China for not taking
measures to
reduce its trade
I want to raise a question about the logical consistency of Rob Scott's
February 16, 2000, Issue Brief #137.
Scott is, of course, arguing against China's admission into the WTO.
Scott notes that Clinton is "confidently forecasting that the huge U.S.
trade deficit with China will im
efore the U.S. trade deficit
with China stops expanding, with a peak deficit of $649 billion in 2048."
However, Scott claims that this trend is really "unsustainable and would
lead to a financial crisis long before the deficit with China reached
anything approaching $600 billion."
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
My question is where does this financial crisis come from? If I
understand Scott's logic correctly, he is predicting a financial crisis
for China, much like what Mexico experienced in 1994-95.
Sounds more like he's predicting a U.S. financial crisis
I agree with your logic Doug, If the U.S. deficit with China approaches
even 100 billion I think the chances of a financial crisis for the U.S.
seems likely. But, Scott is predicting a collapse for China and a
devaluation of the Chinese currency; something rather unlikley if the
Chinese
If China has a trade surplus of 100 billion dollars and the US suffers a
financial crisis, it will have a catastrophic effect on the Chinese
economy. A 100 billion surplus represents a 100 billion dependency on
the health of the US economy. (unless, of course, one is a neo-classical
who believes
In a missive forwarded by Max Sawicky, Rob Scott wrote:
Despite the [Clinton] Administration's rhetoric, its own analysis suggests
that, after China enters the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China will
expand, not contract. The contradiction between the Administration's
claims and its own
. . .
Also, as progressives, shouldn't our focus also be on the negative effects
of the Chinese government on its workers rather than solely on the negative
effect of the US trade deficit with China on US workers? . . .
I'm told something on the Chinese worker front is
in the works. If you
excepted,
as to a nonexistent contradiction between
the recent immigration policy change and the
campaign of WTO/China exclusion.
I referred to the abandonment of nativism (as seen in the AFL-CIO's change
in attitudes toward undocumented workers). Obviously, the nativism they had
abandoned
gives
rise to the other.
What policy do you recommend, Max, that can help Chinese workers rather
than simply engaging in "a straight-forward
defense of workers in the U.S." and ignoring the other workers of the
world? Do you think that excluding China from the WTO does so? Why?
Call me
This is summarised from Western Producer Feb. 17. The
article is from Manila through Reuters. It sounds as if it
is a news release from Monsanto.
"I would say there is a technolog race already under wasy in
Asia, led by China and India because there is no other way
to deal with their popul
February 16, 2000 Issue Brief #137
The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal
Administrations own analysis suggests
spiraling deficits, job losses
by Robert E. Scott
No one can predict the future. But the Clinton Administration is
confidently forecasting that the huge U.S. trade
Shilei, a young associate professor from Beijing, just signed on to our
list. He is not doctrinaire. I think that we might learn from each
other.
Here is what he wrote to me:
I am not a professor yet, but an associate professor.
Peking University has conferred a Ph.D degree on me that
Hopefully we can convince the good cadres to stop the bad cadres and then
this problem can be solved.Steve
South China Morning Post
Friday, February 4 6:44 AM SGT
State-owned firms left behind as dependence on US grows
The imports and exports of foreign-invested joint ventures
[This morning Henry Liu posted an extraordinarily perceptive analysis of
US-China relations beginning with the Nixon visit. I have not read anything
anywhere that gets beneath the surface of the sort of banalities found in
the Nation Magazine and other left-liberal or radical publications
South China Morning Post - Business
Tuesday, October 12, 1999
A SHARES
Airline revamp trims controls
nalysis of Adam Smith..."
That's what he says! But Blaut, of course, has no serious answers to
the fact that China never invented a mechanical clock, so he wraps
his arguments in false accusations, misreadings, and emotional -
unscholarly - remarks about eurocentrism. Obviously, he will
At 10:36 AM 10/4/99 -0700, Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
That's what he says! But Blaut, of course, has no serious answers to
the fact that China never invented a mechanical clock, so he wraps
his arguments in false accusations, misreadings, and emotional -
unscholarly - remarks about eurocentrism
Ok, I will take your advice, and stick to my research objectives. So,
from now no more stuff to pen-l on what Blaut writes. Next I will
comment on Gratham on the agricultural rev. but not anytime soon,
as administrative-teaching jobs are piling up,
So why do you keep responding to his
excellent advice.
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
Sometimes silence tells more than thousand words.
wojtek
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
,
October Review, Hong Kong.
mail address: G.P.O.Box 10144, Hong Kong
e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zhang Kai
It is half a century since the Chinese revolution scored a victory and
the People's Republic of China was set up, and with the changes in the
relations of production
answers to
the fact that China never invented a mechanical clock, so he wraps
his arguments in false accusations, misreadings, and emotional -
unscholarly - remarks about eurocentrism. Obviously, he will let this
criticism pass, too,
My God, you sound arrogant here.
for he knows I know how
The post forwarded below is, I believe, the post from which this entire
debate over origins and eurocentrism departed. That is, on September
10 Lou Proyect vigorously opposed the equation of priority with
superiority. Someplace along the route he switched positions and
now measures human
Rod:
Thanks for the good message. A lot of what I say is uncalled for and most
of it is ungrammatical.
Ricardo can speak for himself. He will, I am sure, tell us that he accepts
the Weberian idea of unique, pre-modern, European rationality as a fact and
as a factor. We had several pillow fights
te-medieval polities somehow
explain Europe's unique development and expannsion, while the fact that
China was a single empire, is rooted in the notion that an empire somehow
cannot be as progressiveas a small state (the theory of "Oriental
Despotism") anbd while this view isd fairly
Of course a further wiggle on this is, even if
it were the "monolithicness" of China that held
it back (which I do not necessarily accept), this
does not explain why some of China's equally or
even more technologically advanced neighbors
such as Korea and Japan did not engage in su
Ricardo may have in the previous debate claimed that europe had some special
intellectual power, but he did not do so in the debate on this list. The
Weberian hypothesis that Jim B. keeps putting into other people's mouth is
simply a fantasy of his own making. It is not implied in any
Rod Hay:
Are you implying that Ricardo is a Weberian on some lists (H-world and WSN)
but a Marxist on Pen-L? I don't have time to dredge up his many eloquent
postings in defense of Weber's theory of unique European "rationality." He
might want to make the argument here himself.
In any event,
Yes Jim B. you are right. It was uncalled for and completely ungrammatical.
But at the same time, Ricardo has not been pushing a Weberian line on this
list (I don't know what he does on others). As far as Weber is concerned, he
did say at one time that you misunderstood Weber. Whether that is
Eric Jones in the European Miracle has a discussion of China. He argues at a
certain point an emperor put a halt to foreign contacts. That before this
Chinese sailors had made it as far as the Cape of Good Hope. China turned
isolationist and inward. Europe because it had not been unified
I agree with Max that the history of capitalism as an aspect of the theory of social
change must be united with action and practice. This means especially for those of us
in the U.S.and other imperialist centers making this discussion of history (some of it
remote in some senses) relevant to
Brad De Long wrote:
Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most
of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not
*that* much more costly...
Are you sure of what you just wrote? With far reaching mechanization, I
suspect that we would not loose too
At 06:38 PM 9/15/99 PDT, you wrote:
Sure Michael, Canada defaulted on some of the railway bonds too. But that
just makes my point even stronger. Countries can industrialise with the aid
of foreign investment.
yes, if they're settler colonies (exported from W. Europe, the imperial
core of the
. It is "failure" in the sense that China, after having
the most advanced economy in the world prior to 1500 - some even
saying that it was on the edge of the first industrial revolution as
early as the period of the Sung dynasty (960-1275 AD) - did not
industrialize. Moreover, even
eek. We need a broader context to this idea
of "failure". It is "failure" in the sense that China, after having
the most advanced economy in the world prior to 1500 - some even
saying that it was on the edge of the first industrial revolution as
early as the period of the Sung dynast
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:47 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11103] Re: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Rod, countries no longer have that option.
Rod wrote,
Sure Michael, Canada defaulted on some of the railway bonds too. But that
just makes my
One case in Africa that sticks out as
peculiarly tragic is that of Botswana. It
has been one of the few "success stories"
in sub-Saharan Africa in recent decades,
with one of the highest rates of GDP growth
in the world of any country during the 1980s
(fourth behind China
E: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Jim,
Most of your points in this message are well taken.
But I am a bit perplexed regarding the question of
HIV. Quite aside from whether the rate of infection is
as high as you say, although it may be that high in a
few countries, I fail t
Rod, countries no longer have that option.
Rod wrote,
Sure Michael, Canada defaulted on some of the railway bonds too. But that
just makes my point even stronger. Countries can industrialise with the aid
--
Michael Perelman
While the mechanism of surplus value production must be analyzed in
Rod Hay wrote:
You could on and on with the moral outrage. War and conquest extract
terrible penalties on the defeated. Inside Europe as well as outside it. Has
no one read the history of the thirty years war?
But the question is how dependent was the development of capitalism on the
nt: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 6:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: "Henry C.K. Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú"
Subject: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
At 05:12 PM 9/14/99 -0700, Craven, Jim wrote:
Add to all of that and more that fully 50% of all children born in Africa
today
in India in his 1850s Herald
Tribune articles, it makes no sense to do so today. Canada, the US and
Australia were basically bourgeois settler regimes in the midst of
hunter-gatherer and agrarian societies who were exterminated in order to
allow for efficient exploitation of timber, fur, etc. In China
I think the relevant question is not whether it was large or small, but rather
whether it was critical or not. Let's suppose that the take off
industrialization might have needed investment of about 8% of the GDP. The
domestic savings could provide say 5 to 6 per cent and the rest 2 to
3 per
The land "of" the U.S. is not its own. It IS a "foreign investment" in the indigenous
peoples' land.
CB
"Rod Hay" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/15/99 02:46PM
This is probably false. Both Canada and the United States relied very
heavily on foreign investment particularily during the early stage of
Jim,
Most of your points in this message are well taken.
But I am a bit perplexed regarding the question of
HIV. Quite aside from whether the rate of infection is
as high as you say, although it may be that high in a
few countries, I fail to see what that has to do with
imperialism.
];
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 6:34 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11084] RE: Re: RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Jim,
Most of your points in this message are well taken.
But I am a bit perplexed regarding the question of
HIV. Quite aside
Sure Michael, Canada defaulted on some of the railway bonds too. But that
just makes my point even stronger. Countries can industrialise with the aid
of foreign investment.
Original Message Follows
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, Rod, but the U.S. defaulted on many of
Rod, countries no longer have that option.
Rod wrote,
Sure Michael, Canada defaulted on some of the railway bonds too. But that
just makes my point even stronger. Countries can industrialise with the aid
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
care,
Jim
-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:11092] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become
Capitalist
Jim C.,
Yeah, I'll buy most of that, :-). The p
Yes, Rod, but the U.S. defaulted on many of its foreign bonds, giving it a real
advantage.
Rod Hay wrote:
This is probably false. Both Canada and the United States relied very
heavily on foreign investment particularily during the early stage of
industrialisation.
--
Michael Perelman
Max:
The gold issue is interesting in a related vein.
Aside from its relatively (?) negligible industrial
uses, if gold is no more than a store of value/medium
of exchange, the accumulation of gold by a country
would seem to be no different than if Allan Greenspan
suddenly showered a given nation
Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/15/99 12:53PM
Everything I've looked at tends to suggest that profits from
non-cotton plantations--sugar, tobacco, et cetera--went to support
elite consumption and not to boost investment...
Cotton, as I said, looks different...
(
Does
This is probably false. Both Canada and the United States relied very
heavily on foreign investment particularily during the early stage of
industrialisation. Both made it by heavy exploitation of natural resources,
but would not have been able to get these out to market without the foreign
:10983] RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Add to all of that and more that fully 50% of all children born in Africa
today are born HIV positive. I like to use the metaphor of imperialism as a
gigantic "reverse Hoover" vacuum "cleaner".( actually a vacuum plunderer
nd billions amd billions of today's dollars...
More later?
Mf
-Original Message-
From: Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:03 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:10996] Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Rod Hay wrote:
Yo
Louis Proyect wrote:
The absence of foreign investment today is
not so much a sign of "benign neglect", but rather that the bones have been
already been picked clean. Colin Leys, on the Socialist Register editorial
board, has written an analysis of underdevelopment in Africa that
elaborates
Rod Hay wrote:
But the question is how dependent was the development of capitalism on the
exploitation of the peripheral countries.
I think you pose the question in a misleading way. Development of
capitalism where? The question should be; why has capitalism resulted in
polarisation rather
Charles Brown wrote:
On the other hand, the industrial plants established in Korea,
Mexico, Brazil, China (et al ? South Africa) in the last 20 years
continue the export of capital trend that Lenin (Hobson ?) marked.
If anyone's interested in South Africa, the 1980s witnessed TNC
Brad De Long wrote:
Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most
of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not
*that* much more costly...
Are you sure of what you just wrote? With far reaching mechanization, I
suspect that we would not loose too
Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most
of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not
*that* much more costly...
Brad DeLong
The low figure in part results from artificially low wages paid to Third
World workers + low prices paid to Third World
At 10:28 AM 9/14/99 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
According to the US ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, 1999, Table B-105,
total imports from non-Industrial countries in the first 3 quarters of 1998
(at an annual rate) equaled 414.9 billion US$, which is more than 45
percent of total US imports.
countries that are heavy
foreign investment targets - China, Mexico, Brazil, some Southeast
Asian countries, etc. - but most of the rest of the so-called Third
World - Africa, much of South Asia, the poorer countries of the
Western Hemisphere - is pretty peripheral to capital's concerns in
1999
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99 03:25PM
Charles Brown wrote:
Do you have a way of calculating the profits made by imperialism
from its main investment targets ? Why else would Ford and GM, etc,
move plants to Mexico and Brazil, etc., except a much higher rate of
profit ?
Yes, of
And that small minority elite who superprofit from direct foreign investment are the
bourgeois dictators who control the U.S. economic policy, IMF, the President, The
Treasury Secretary, Wall Street, etc.. They are the ruling class.
CB
"Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99
Or maybe
age-
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:39 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10968] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
There are no statutes of limitation on imperialism. Just because US
multinationals are ignoring most of Sub
401 - 500 of 668 matches
Mail list logo
