Permit me to make a few remarks regarding labor, progressive economic
theories, China trade, and Poundian economics.

Carrol Cox wrote:

>  And the
>ransacking of the Seattle movement by AFL-CIO conservatives generated
>the virulent chauvinism and racism of an ostensibly "progressive" campaign
>to keep China out of WTO. (The campaign generated a mealy-mouth
>argument that -- profesing great concern for Chinese workers -- in effect
>argued that "we" needed to destroy the village to save it.)
>

This is an extremely complex issue, and it touches quite directly on our
interpretation of Pound's work, and most especially on the Chinese dimension
of his work.

The AFL-CIO  is only one constituency fighting against so-called "normal
trade relations."  Environmentalists, Chinese dissidents (including Wei
Jingsheng of Democracy Wall fame), human rights groups, religious
organizations, Free Tibet campaigners, students from the anti-sweatshop
movement, and many others oppose PNTR.   (Of course, there are Republicans,
Reform party activists, Buchananites, and many who oppose NTR for racist and
chauvinist reasons, and because they are searching for a new enemy to serve
as an excuse for a massive arms buildup).

The main issue which concerns me is the welfare of Chinese and US workers,
who are having PNTR foisted on them.  The primary effect of normal trade
relations will be the same as NAFTA:  more factories will move from the US
to where they can pay lower wages (namely China, in this case), more workers
in the US will lose their jobs and be laid off, and Chinese who are being
thrown out of the state run industries will be compelled to work for lower
wages, with no benefits (no health insurance, no overtime pay, no vacations,
longer hours, etc.)

The Western media, for the most part, does not report the views of Chinese
workers.  However C-Span recently broadcast in Chinese (and in English via
translation) an interview with Qiang Li, who worked in a US owned Farberware
plant in China.  The conditions were atrocious, far worse than those in most
state run industries.

If you want more details about the exploitation of Chinese workers in China
by foreign (mostly US) multinationals visit the web site of the National
Labor Committee, and read their report:  Made in China

www.nlcnet.org

Workers at "Kathy Lee" handbag plants, producing for Walmart, slaved away
seven days a week, 12-14 hours a day, with one day off per month, for the
sum of THREE CENTS  PER HOUR.

As for keeping China out of the WTO, that is virtually impossible now, and
was so before the House debate, which was really only a "debate about
whether to have a debate" each year on the status of US - China trade.

Bill wrote:

>It's interesting to hear the AFL-CIO accused of  "ransacking" the Seattle
movement, whatever that "movement" is.  The AFL-CIO has been working to hold
China
accountable for human rights for the past decade.  The AFL-CIO policy for
many decades has been
to raise other labor standards, wages, etc.in other nations to US levels,
not to close down US factories and put US workers out of well-paid jobs to
set up
low-wage, substandard jobs in other nations.
>

I agree with this last statement completely.  The Big Business lobbyists
have massively outspent labor on this issue, in advertising and in sending
their three-piece suited representatives to bribe and twist the  arms of key
members of Congress.  In terms of money and personell deployed, this has
been the biggest Corporate blitzkrieg in US history.

However, the AFL-CIO, does not want to get to the root of the problem.  They
don't want to call for political strikes or organize for the sake of
fundamental change.  They do not oppose the existence of mega-corporations,
or of wage slavery; and they do not call for the democratic control of
industry.  To that extent, they have become fully "bourgeoisified."

Bill says,
>
>The AFL-CIO and other labor organizations
planted the seeds and laid the foundations for the "Seattle movement" and
many other
workers rights/envoronmental standards/ fair trade >groups.
>

Not quite true.  The AFL-CIO dragged its feet at Seattle, and did not
participate in the non-violent civil resistance.  Instead, they had a
seperate march far away from the main events.  They only endorsed the
Mobilization for Corporate Justice Rally in DC at the last moment.  I am
glad they did.  They have a role to play.  However, the students movements,
the anti-sweatshop groups, and independent labor groups were more
influential in DC.  (and in Seattle)

How does this relate Pound?  Pound's view of the worker, of the laborer, in
Chinese history needs further elaboration.  His economic theories, I would
argue, owe far more to his idealization of the Chinese feudal system ( and
to Italian fascist economic theorists, such as Odon Por) than they do to
liberal economists, like Douglas.  Douglas is only mentioned four or five
times in the entire Cantos, while the economic "achievements" of Chinese
emperors are pointed out countless times.

If you want to read more on this subject, you can look at an article
entitled "Ideograms and Economics."  I just posted this one the day before
yesterday.

www.geocities.com/weienlin/econ.html


Regards,

Wei


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com