[mbs] Upside down logic. There are legal trade unions in the U.S., but not in China. The extent to which union organizers are put-upon in the U.S. does not compare to China. The same goes for democracy and human rights.
U.S. policy in other countries in these dimensions is clearly a very different story. The problem w/your ultra position is the only demand is for the U.S. Gov to withdraw. Labor's demand is for the Gov to do the right thing.
>>>>YF:
Neoliberalism was first put into practice by the
Pinochet dictatorship supported by the US government. The Bretton
Woods institutions have been practically controlled by the American
ruling class, and it is through them that neoliberalism has been
imposed on the world in the name of SAPs. . . .
>>>>>
[mbs] True enough, but this is a totally static view of U.S. policy, thus it allows for no positive potential, hence no politics other than ultimatism.
You are pretty consistently even-tempered in your outrage, for for a lot of people ultimatism is just the flip side of abstentionism. When you're depressed, you complain, criticize all positive efforts, and abstain. When you're angry, you want the whole world to turn upside-down next week.
>>>>>>> YF:
And it isn't China but the
American governing elite that have attacked social programs & trade
unionism *here*.
>>>>
[mbs] No comparison with the PRC. And the labor movement certainly has not attacked social programs, much less itself.
>>>>>>>>YF:
Most importantly, it is not Chinese but American
politicians that have created Lockdown America with *millions* of
Americans languishing in jails and prisons.
>>>>>
[mbs] Still no comparison, particularly on the execution front.
>>>>>>>>
Hey, what about more
human rights here? By focusing on China, organized labor is truly
wasting time, money, & manpower; the impact of China on American
workers & world politics is minuscule, compared to the U.S.
government's.
>>>>>>>
[mbs] Critics of labor always put a reductionist cast on the campaign, to the effect that it's about "China." It's not about China. It's about jobs and living standards. China is a politically opportune whipping boy, and it deserves to be whipped, so flog away I say. I've said before this policy reflects defensiveness and some aspects of conservatism on the part of labor, but that is not the same as being a Bad Thing.
>>>>>>
As for trade deficits, it appears that the AFL-CIO would have no
problem with the state of unionism, democracy, and human rights in
the rest of the world if the USA ran trade surpluses (perceived to
benefit American manufacturing workers).
>>>>>>>
[mbs] Check their statements before you venture there. The AFL wants balanced trade -- imports roughly offsetting exports. Big surpluses are not good for an economy either. More exporting does not imply big surpluses -- only small*er* trade deficits.
>>>>>YF:
The AFL-CIO used to support
"free trade" when it mainly meant more exports of goods made in
America (which is to say until the mid-1970s or thereabout). It
makes neither economic nor political sense to say that U.S. trade
deficits are caused by the lack of Chinese democracy.
>>>>>
[mbs] That reductionism again. The PRC is both material (large trade surplus vis-a-vis the U.S.), and symbol, both with real political implications.
>>>YF: From what I
have experienced, Japan is neither more nor less democratic than
America; it has run trade surpluses vis-a-vis America because the
saving rates have been high in Japan and low in America.
>>>>
[mbs] Well there has been criticism of Japan too, including from us. Said criticism is not on grounds of democracy or labor rights, where Japan is comparable to the U.S. It goes to their predatory trade practices. As for your statement about savings rates, you are repeating the neo-classical explanation for trade deficits. We used to hear the U.S. had a trade deficit because we had big budget deficits. Well guess what. We got no budget deficit, and the trade deficit is bigger than ever. There are other explanations.
>>>>>YF The
proximate cause of U.S. trade deficits is that, being a hegemon,
America can borrow & spend without saving (current account deficits
being mirror images of capital account surpluses). Harping on trade
deficits so much, organized labor may end up reinforcing the voices
of economists hectoring us about the evils of low domestic saving
rates, the virtues of balanced budgets, etc. Yoshie
>>>>>>>>
[mbs] Unfortunately all the damage about saving and budget balance has already been done. We are going to pay off the national debt. There is nowhere to go but up in that particular debate.
I'd say that harping on trade deficits is a great way to advance discussions of living standards, globalization, and even capitalism.
mbs