<<
 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.
  >>

any connection to Pound is certainly not demonstrated in your remarks on this
subject, which are little more than a truncated regurgitation of sentiments
expressed by progressive commentators as regards the WTO, NAFTA, GATT, etc.
in fact, the trade issue is not complex at all, it's obvious to the point of
brutal crassness.  it's my guess that most of the list members are as aware
as you are of the implications of China trade, as well as the rest of the
trade issues; after all, as I suggest above, it's not as if these issues
aren't widely discussed.  no one that I know relies on the Official Media,
having abandoned that venue years ago.


I assume by "our interpretation" that you're referring to yourself and Carrol
Cox.

joe brennan




In a message dated 05/28/2000 8:59:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< 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

  >>