On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
> Stephen:
>
>
> As for the Greenfield/Leong article, my view is while I do not disagree with their micro
> analysis, I don't think they have a clear understanding of the big picture. I tried to
> write a response back in November, but other activities inferered and I did not feel like
> explaining why I did not beat my grandmother.
>
No, but goood choice, beating grandmothers won't get us anywhere.
> The problem with labor activists is that they have a tendency to hit at the nearest victim
> rather than the real villian. Beating up the foreman will only
get you a new foreman.
This is something tha bosses everywhere tend to agree on. Then again, who said anything about beating up foremen?
> As for your complaint about the unsympathetic Chinese
buraucrats, to them, you are part of
> Western imperialism.
I wasn't complaining. In fact I was noting that many bureacrats in China or elsewhere might hve fine intentions about helping workers, but that their structural ties to capital very much limit their choices in that regard. As for their view of me as part Western Imperialism, well, so was Edgar Snow. The question is what is one's position vis a vis imperialism, supportive, resistant? The same goes for capitalism. Speaking for myself Henry, as critical as I am of the situation facing labor in China, I am no fan of anti-China hysteria. Nor am i supportive when a Harry Wu receives funding from the AFL-CIO. And I have confronted him when he spoke in Hawaii about his slavish devotion to the US foreign policy agenda.
They don't feel much solidarity
with the America labor movement,
> which seems to them to be full of redneck anti-Communists.
Well, seems to be just don't cut it. Within any labor movement there are anti-communists and those who are not anti-communist. Ironic that you use the word 'redneck' to describe the American labor movement, a derogatory term that the right-wing in the US uses to describe workers who are organized. Can't we do better than this?
Steve
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
> Stephen E Philion wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen:
> > >
> >
> > > My point was: as Americans, like yourself, are the most vocal on this issue, they
> > > are in the position to do something about it by changing American laws that govern
> > > American companies operating overseas.
> > >
> >
> > You seem to know an awfull lot about me. Actually those who are activley
> > vocal about exploitation of labor in China tend to be labor activists who
> > are actively involved in concrete acts of solidarity with labor activists
> > in other countries as well. And, as I mentioned d in a past post, not a
> > few Asian activists have expressed concern about the situation of workers
> > in China. Concern about workers is increasingly internationalised. David
> > Bacoin's article on globalized labor struggles provides good examples.
> > > The other Asian companies are not blaming the Chinese government for exploitation
> > > labor.
> > > They are at least honest about their role in this injustice.
> > > They also point their fingers at American and other foreign banks and the American
> > > market for squeezing them into this position. They are all working for the American
> > > market as subcontractors to American transnationals. Very few sell directly in the
> > > American market.
> > >
> >
> > This is true, but when it ocmes to support for workers in foreign
> > companies indepently organizing to defend their interests, Asian bosses
> > and western promoters of open globalized markets tend to be on the same
> > side. A brief perusal of the literature put out by the Hong Kong based
> > Asia Resoruce Monitor more than amply demonstrates this.
> >
> > > My message is: America, put your money where your month is.
> > >
> >
> > I never know which American it is that liberals like yourself are talking
> > about, the America of the Fords, the Kennedies,..or the other America.
> >
> > China welcomes higher wages.
> > > Chinese workers welcome higher wages.
> > > Chinese companies welcome business contracts with american buyers which permit them
> > > to pay high wages.
> > > Even corrupt officials in china welcome high wages.
> > > You cannot find me a single person in China that does not welcome high wages.
> > > You may think the Chinese government evil, but at least grant it that its not
> > > stupid.
> >
> > I don't recall using such liberal terminology as 'good' or 'evil' to
> > explain the choices state bureaucrats make.
> >
> > > What economic or political advantage come from exploiting one's own workers, if one
> > > has a choice?
> > > All governments want higher wages.
> >
> > And all governments tend to clash with workers when they organize to
> > demand such things, whether we're talking about China or the US. It's not
> > a question of what they 'want', but what interests government , state
> > bureuacrats are alligned with that keep it from enacting its wish for
> > higher wages.
> >
> > > It is global capital and markets as they are currently structured that keep Chinese
> > > labor pay low.
> > > It is DeLong's 18 cents is better than no cents doctrine.
> > >
> > This is a doctrine that you will frequently encounter in The Economic
> > Daily in China. Yes, it is rather distasteful.
> >
> > > I said it before on this list, and I will say it again: for every export dollar of
> > > Chinese goods, only 18 cents goes to China (US Commerce Dept data), of which an even
> > > less amount pays for labor, after interest cost, rent, energy, machinery
> > > amortization, etc.
> > > When an American consumer buys a pair of Nike sneakers for $100, only $18 goes to
> > > China of which only about $2 goes to labor. When he/she goes into a Disney Store
> > > and buy a bean bag Snow White for $3 that looks like it took some poor seamstress in
> > > an unheated shed 2 days to make, that bargain lowers the interest payment of his/her
> > > mortgage. The American consumers are the ones actually benefiting from low labor
> > > pay in China.
> > > They are the final exploiters of Chinese labor in the food chain, because it is in
> >
> > My understanding of American political economy tells me that American
> > workers have seen a considerable decrease in their real wages and
> > benefits, which are closely tied to globalization. Unionists around the
> > world are trying to find ways to educate workers about the negative
> > effects of globalization on workers across borders and how to step up
> > solidarity actions across borders. The ideologists of globalization
> > woiuld like American com\nsumers to believe they are beneffiting from the
> > exploitation of cheap labor, be it in Indonesia, China, or New York City.
> >
> > > their name that Disney squeezed the
> > Chinese seamstress.
> > > Without Chinese labor exploitation, Greenspan could not have lowered US interest
> > > rates last year.
> > > America has the power to raise Chinese export wages. So do it and stop complaining.
> >
> > Sure, the American government 'could' and 'should' enact such legislation.
> > There are labor activists around the world and in America who support such
> > legislation. Despite that Chinese state bureaucrats might 'wish' tha such
> > legislation were enacted, they have no contact with such activists
> > (unless the ILO should be considered an 'activist' organization).
> > > What is so bad about a "portable" minimum wage law, except that it violates the
> > > American worship of free market efficiency.
> >
> > You are addressing this to me, as though I wouldn't agree with this?
> >
> > > BTW, I stand ready to hear your analysis of "the problem of exploitation in
> > > present day China."
> > Actually, I recall that you were going to respond to the analysis of
> > Gerard Greenfield (An Australian of Japanese descent) and Apo Leong (A
> > Chinese from Hong Kong). As for my won views, I think Raymond Lau's
> > analysis in the January 1997 edition of Capital and Class is quite close
> > to mine (Lau is a Chinese from Hong Kong).
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >
> > > Henry C.K. Liu
> > >
> > > Stephen E Philion wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel, I agree with you about Cuba.
> > > > > China does not want to see slave labor also. Mush of it is being practised by
> > > > > enterprises created by foreign joint ventures which came to China to escape
> > > > > minimum wages in their home countries. It America passes a "portable" miminum
> > > >
> > > > Actually an even casual perusal of newspapers in China or related journals
> > > > by official labor bureau and union (ACFTU) reveals that the worst
> > > > violators of workers rights in China are not American companies, but
> > > > rather Taiwanese, Hong Kongese, and Korean firms. Recently there was a
> > > > story in the Workers' Daily about a worker in Shenzhen who was 23 ando
> > > > found in his dorm bed dead from exhaustion, after working shifts from 6
> > > > a.m. to 12 midnight. Not one Chinese would read that story and guess the
> > > > company was an American one. They know without looking the owner is one of
> > > > the above three. This is not to deny that American MNCs exploit labor
> > > > in China, but blaming the problem of slave labor on American companies
> > > > hardly gets us closer to understanding the problem of exploitation n in
> > > > present day China.
> > >
> > >
>
>