Gerard Greenfield comments on Marty's posts

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

(I crossposted Marty's posts to the Socialist Register mailing list, where
Gerard--a leading activist and writer on questions of labor rights in China
and Vietnam--is subscribed.)

I agree with Marty's concerns. As we've been trying to argue here it's
not be a debate about "we support China joining the WTO" or "we oppose
China joining the WTO", it should be "we oppose the WTO." By extension
this means we oppose China joining, but it's a different kind of
argument. It also means we can express critical opposition to the impact
of the WTO on China - like the effects of massive subsidy cuts that
include housing and health. And the sacking of a million textiles
workers to meet just on of the WTO entry requirements.

So much of what came out of Seattle seems to be about the impact of the
China joining the WTO on the US. Whereas it should be about the impact
of the WTO on China, the US, Brazil, India, etc etc. This would involve
shifting the focus back to TNCs, globalisation and - hopefully -
capitalism. And that includes capitalism in China and capitalists.

Besides, what do these progressive forces mean by "China"? That lumps
the working-class people and and peasant-faremers in with China's
capitalists, the military (including its capitalists), government, etc.
So is Mike Dolan "coming at" Chinese workers and peasant-farmers too?

In solidarity

Gerard Greenfield
Editorial Collective Member
QuanQiuHua JianCa (Globalisation Monitor)
http://globalmon.uhome.net/



Louis Proyect

(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)