On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Nathan Newman wrote:
> I actually agree with the LBO rule on sanctions but it only solves so
> many debates, since where authoritarian repression jails the first
> sign of resistance, we are still left debating whether the scattered
> remaining activists, often in exile, count as "legitimate" voices of
> the people.
-No. If they are only few and scattered, then they are not yet a movement -that can represent anyone. If people can unite and make their voice heard -under South African Repression, they can make their voice heard under any -repression.
First, while South Africa had its own degree of evil stench based on total racism, that very fact meant that its repression could not be as pervasive as China. Without getting into the simplistic authoritarian-totalitarian distinction (or even claiming the latter is worse), South Africa by the necessity of creating an illegitimate minority rule could mostly contain seething resistance, never completely crush it. Just to keep control, they had to leave the Desmond Tutu's and other mediating forces at large, which created groups that could speak on behalf of the population, as well as having surrounding states that could host ANC resistance. Most early calls for sanctions came from people in the ANC in exile, so that holds for China as well- from union activists to Tibetan protesters- even if under an even more controlled situation.
Secondly, unlike Apartheid, the Chinese system of repression threatens not only those workers dignity and freedom, but the freedom of workers globally. They are the key element in forcing a race to the bottom in wages and freedom. In labor organizing campaigns, when a company beats down its workers and breaks their will through terror, the union doesn't say to the public, welll, go buy at that company until the workers regain their will to organize. Unions slap a "Do Not Patronize" sign on the company and call for a boycott until the company signs a neutrality agreement and allows the workers a free vote on unionization.
Until China signs a similar political neutrality agreement - ie. respecting the ILO conventions on the right to organize - I see no problem with a similiar call for sanctions and boycotts. This is not a call for China to match the West's wage or benefits levels before they can get full trade, but the basic demand that they allow people to organize before they get the benefits of no tariffs and free access to markets where their lack of organizing will help undermine the freedom of workers here. Why should anyone support China's ability to export union-busting?
> I kind of feel like the capitalist class has adjusted to the reality
> of a semi-fascist capitalist China and are diving in to reap the
> profits, while much of the Left remains under the illusion that China
> is still a pro-worker socialist regime
-I never called you a cold warrior. I wish you wouldn't call me a
-communist dupe.
Well, others have implied I and others were cold warriors. And I wasn't implying folks were communist dupes; since I don't think China is communist, I am implying folks are capitalist dupes, meaning that by protesting sanctions against China, you are objectively serving the interests of the capitalist elite. If I thought the Chinese government was still in any real way acting in the interests of its workers, however "deformed" or otherwise, we'd be back in the old debate, but I'm pretty convinced at this point that the Chinese Communists have just become a capitalist elite using internal repression and control to extract bribes and personal status from global capital in exchange for hocking the country's assets to Merrill Lynch.
-- Nathan Newman