Huh? What threat? What sanctions? Who? When? The AFL action in the Petro IPO presented an obstruction to privatization. What makes you think the Chinese regime is reluctant to privatize?
How do you "speed up the nature" of privatization? I don't get the thermodynamics here.
" . . . to rationalize accounting standards, to allow multinationals to maintain proprietary control of technology and import as much of the inputs as possible, to liberalize capital accounts and to enforce military subordination (again note recent case on satellite tech). . . .
mbs: Actually trade w/China is doing the opposite of 'military subordination.' It's bolstering their defense capability. That's one thing that riles up the right about China in the WTO.
China is a strong state, not a tin-pot colony. Trade is proceeding according to its terms, all of which go against the grain of what you cite. Nor is there any whimper of objection from U.S. elites.
You have invented a scenario of imperial domination, but you have not shown that it is being applied by U.S. capital. Even worse, you ascribe it to labor and ignore what labor is really after in trade agreements. Really outrageous.
There is no analogy to the Marshall Plan. Different actors, different context, different economic relations.
" . . . As a commentator has pointed out, we have cold warriors in the
afl-cio. my reaction to the china question is not so much motivated by
immigrant
sympathies but by my fear of the negative consequences of this kind of
anticommunism on our political culture and the global integration that the
world market makes possible. It is true that I remain fearful of how the
anti China campaign will redound upon asian-americans. . . .
>>>>>>>>
"Anti-communism"? I've got news for you. There is no more communism. There's just Louie and his list. Nor does this deficiency prevent the U.S. from doing violence to other countries.
The stuff about our 'political culture' and anti-Asian discrimination -- to coin a phrase, that shit is weak.
>We could turn this argument upside-down too. If
>you really want to insulate China from imperialist
>influence, Rakesh, shouldn't you oppose their
>admission to the WTO and ensuing "dependence"
>on capitalist economic relations?
As already noted, concesssions will be won through bilateral negotiations
or as condition of entry into WTO. Having US and China work within a
multilateral organization seems best to me in this case.
>>>>>
mbs: don't be slippery. you quoted O'Connor approvingly to the effect that membership would open China up to more, not less, pressure, and you evidently see any such pressure from the U.S. as Bad. So why aren't you opposed to China entry into the WTO?
>>>>>>
Max, here is my earlier post on the argument I would have submitted to AFL
CIO spokesperson Thea Lea:
>>>>>
mbs: It's Lee, by the way.
RK: my position remains that most third world exports are non competing with US based production; . . .
[mbs] Many products can be produced anywhere, so they are in fact competitive, even if not one of a given class is produced in the U.S.
. . . As I said, US labor cannot seriously want to block China out for reasons of employment since its best bet to avoid overproduction of capital, i.e. justaposition of idle capital and idle workes as Marx puts it, is availability of Chinese labor so as to expand the base of valorization which has become shrunken in relation to the huge mass of capital that is being accumulated. . . .
[mbs] I have no idea what this means.