What is fascinating to me about the case of China is both the extent of conflicts betweeen workers and managers/ministries over the terms of SOE reorganization and the almost complete lack of any active reaction on the part of the left faction of the CCP. There is missing any strategy whatsoever to show support for workers in these conflicts. What makes this so remarkable is how much space exists in China for making this possible through legal means. Intellectuals/cadres in China possess enough knowledge of labor and enterprise conversion laws that make it feasible for them to set up the equivalent of legal aid organizations, institutes studying systematically the different problems workers face in specific segments of SOE industries, strategies for defending SOE workers' legal rights (as they exist on the books) and the like.
is it possible that even the members of the "left faction" of the CCP have some sort of vested interest that goes against putting pro-worker rhetoric into action?
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
- Re: RE: WTO hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: RE: WTO hypocrisy, michael Thu 31 Aug 2000, 05:46 GMT
- RE: Re: RE: WTO hypocrisy, Lisa & Ian Murray Thu 31 Aug 2000, 15:09 GMT
- More on China's labor strife, Lisa & Ian Murray Thu 31 Aug 2000, 05:13 GMT
- Factory Closings in China Arouse Workers' Fury, Stephen E Philion Thu 31 Aug 2000, 05:10 GMT
- Re: Factory Closings in China Arouse Workers' Fury, Jim Devine Thu 31 Aug 2000, 15:27 GMT
- Re: Re: Factory Closings in China Arouse Workers' Fury, Stephen E Philion Thu 31 Aug 2000, 18:25 GMT
- pomotismo, Jim Devine Thu 31 Aug 2000, 20:03 GMT
- Re: pomotismo, Doug Henwood Thu 31 Aug 2000, 20:14 GMT
- Re: Re: pomotismo, Jim Devine Thu 31 Aug 2000, 20:33 GMT