> > I would just like Carrol's position to be more consistently applied, esp
as
> > it relates to the question of criticising the Chinese Govt, and his
> > abandonment of such a view when it comes to countries other than the US.
>
> More clarity. My statements were u.s.-centered, and I wouldn't pretend
> to judge their correctness in Paris or Melbourne. My point refers to
> present conditions *in the U.S.* I claim the *reasons* for any left
> criticism of China won't be heard -- they will be interpreted in racist
> terms. As I understand the disagreements between me and Angela,
> the disagreement relevant here is in respect to a historical judgment
> of the primacy of racism in U.S. politics. That is a long debate that
> can't be pursued here, but it informs my position on the WTO/WB/
> IMF campaign.
I have no recollection of any disagreement on "the primacy" or otherwise of "racism in US politics". My argument is this: in the context of US politics, it is possible for you to recognise the complex relationship that exists between movements, governments, representation, and so on. In other words, there isn't a synonymity between state and people. When it comes to China, however, the same sense should be applied, but isn't.
If it was, your paragraph could be rewritten to read: The real division is between those who want a mass movement to emerge from the strikes, with strong local roots, and those (like Liu, etc.) who want to discipline that potential mass movement in the service of union and PRC bureaucrats and their intellectual servants." In other words, it would be crude, but nonetheless fairly accurate, statement on what has been happening in China. Not with regard to one set of mobilisations as in the A16 in Washington, but certainly at stake in the difference between PRC sanctioning of protests against the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy and shooting at striking workers.
> The AFL-CIO has defined the terms of the debate *for the present*, and
> it's my empirical judgment at this time that all criticism of the Chinese
Govt.
> *will be heard* as agreement with the national chauvinism (and implicit
> racism) of the AFL-CIO position.
Well, in the absence of criticisms of the PRC from the left, what do you expect to prevail? Though I doubt very much there is such a complete absence as you think, or suggest.
> No theoretical principle is involved. The
> vocabulary does not exist in the United States, now, to make criticism
> of China a valid part of a mass movement.
It has to be a valid part of a mass movement or else it does become a hall of mirrors in which people can only recognise themselves as versions of this or that nationalism, adjuncts to this or that embassy... If you can't see a way out of the racist and xenophobic vocabulary, this is why: it gets utilised equally as a defense of the US Govt and as the position of its ostensible critics.
This is not a class struggle politics or perspective; it's the enforcement of a position whose mode of expression can only be one in which the discipline of movements by state and union bureaucrats, intellectual soothsayers, et al prevails, whether in the US, China, Melbourne or Paris.
Angela _________