Re: RE: Sid Schniad on China and the WTO

[Martin Hart-Landsberg <marty@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nathan,

I think you are missing the point here.  We all condemn worker abuses.
And we should all speak out against them everywhere, here in the US and
also in China.

So what is the issue?  All the articles/material that has been sent over
Pen-l describing the Seattle activities (including the one you sent) make
clear that those involved in them, while motivated by a variety of causes,
came together in large part out of a growing anti-capitalist understanding
of the world.  I think that is true even if most did not and would not use
those words.  Or, to be on the safe side, perhaps it would be better to
say that the great majority of people who came to Seattle are receptive to
an anti-capitalist message.  And it is our challenge to work with and as
part of those movements to deepen that understanding and to try and shape
a movement that can become more united, more powerful, and more class
conscious.

I think that directing the movement into reform efforts is a mistake.  I
personally would want people to oppose the IMF and not see the IMF
becoming part of poverty reduction as it proposes to do as an advance.  I
personally want people to oppose the WTO and not see a WTO with some labor
and environmental side agreements as an advance.  In other words, I think
we have the opportunity to build a radical, anti-capitalist movement and I
do not want to see it become side tracked.  And I should add that while it
is the WTO and the IMF that have mobilized people we should work to
develop the movement to look beyond these institutions towards capitalism.
Said differently we want to encourage the movement to begin to look at the
structures of power and capitalist logic as it operates in this country,
not just as it is expressed in these institutions.

So, if people were upset and marching in Washington because they correctly
saw that MNCs think only about profits and could care less about workers
and the environment and they opposed the WTO because they saw how it
strengthened capitalist efforts, then we in this country should work to
mobilize people to demand that workers rights and the environment be
better protected in this country.  If Clinton says that these are
important rights and the WTO should take them up we should demand that he
and the Congress pass laws that defend these rights in this country.  That
is the best way to sharpen the issue and struggle.  And to build a
movement that can defend worker rights in this country.  And we should
work to mobilize people to support similar struggles in other countries.
In other words it is our duty to bring the key issues into sharp focus.

Focusing our attention on whether China gets into the WTO deflects that
focus.  First it encourages people to think that the WTO only needs some
labor and environmental safeguards and then it will be OK.  That undoes
much of the radical potential of Seattle.  It also focuses attention not
on our capitalists but on another country and its policies as the primary
cause of our problems.

Beyond that, many of the most militant working class movements in other
countries do not want to see labor and environmental riders put in the
WTO.  The South Korean labor movement does not.  The Brazilian labor
movement does not.  And for good reason if you ask me.  So pushing this
issue has the potential to divide us.

In sum, the point I am making is that it would be a serious mistake if we
made the China issue the top priority for our movement building.  And to
be clear no one has argued that we have a responsibility to or should
defend the Chinese government;  I am also critical of Chinese government
repression of labor activity and organization.

Marty Hart-Landsberg