On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Charles Brown wrote:
> >>> Stephen E Philion <philion at hawaii.edu> 02/28/00 02:53PM >>>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > EDITORIAL: AFL-CIO & IMMIGRANT WORKERS
>
>
> >
> > Then there's China. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has
> > engaged in a full-throttle Cold War campaign of lies and
> > invective against this socialist nation. The AFL-CIO and
> > member unions make all sorts of wild claims in their drive
> > to bar China from full access to world trade. They claim,
> > for example, that unions are illegal in China. In fact, 103
> > million Chinese workers are represented by industrial
> > unions, a greater proportion of industrial workers than
> > have union rights in the United States.
> >
>
> On the face of it this is true, but a Marxist analysis would unpack the
> nature of the trade unions these workers are members of, its depleted
> budget that renders it capable of doing little in the way of organizing or
> protecting workers, and the virtual non-role it plays when workers face
> widespread cases of management looting public assets...
>
> ************
>
> CB: US trade unions play a virtual non-role when U.S. workers face widespread cases of management looting public assets. Think of the Chrysler bailout, the S and L bailout, the billions in tax abatements, the national debt payments to the banks and financial institutions for that matter. Haven't heard a peep out of U.S. labor about all that and much, much more looting of public assets.
>
n> You fail to unpack the nature of U.S. trade unions in your criticism of
the comparison of them with Chinese unions.
>
> **************
>
Steve:
Charles, I wasn't comparing Chinese unions with US ones, what is the point
of doing that? I was talking about the nature of the Chinese unions as
they exist in the Chinese context. What exactly is the funtion of the
unions as they presently exist and what are their capacities? If we're to
offer an alternative analysis it has to, at least, be based on that
information. Stating that China has X % of its workforce in unions tells
us little that is informative about the state of the Chinese working class
or its unions, then we can at least honestly talk about the reality of
both. This is something that some union cadres do in China btw, so it's
not something that we are incapable of or have to fear doing.
> The AFL-CIO
> leadership often does make wild claims in their quest to prevent China
> from entering the WTO. However, it does workers little in the way of help
> to make wild claims about the level of representation experienced by
> workers in China today, be they in the state sector or private sector.
> This only leads to confusion about reality, hardly a basis for solidarity
> between working classes of different countries.
>
> ***************
>
> CB: Except when you look at the class collaboration of U.S. unions the comparative claims are not that wild. Your argument here depends upon an unrealistic view of the "independence" of U.S. unions.
> > *************
>
Steve: This is not a response, just a reiteration of a party line. It doesn't address the argument I made that confusion about reality leads to confused stances. What does that have to do with class collaboration?
> > . Labor should take a lesson from what happened with
> > the overturning of socialism in the former Soviet Union.
> > There, life for workers has seriously deteriorated. Pay and
> > working conditions have gone from being some of the best in> the world to among the worst. Industrial accidents and
> > pollution have risen sharply. This and worse is what would
> > happen to workers in China if the socialist state were
> > dismantled.
> >
>
> This is happening right now in China, at a less advanced pace than in
> Russia, but certainly occurring apace. Denying it will get us none too
> far.
>
> ************
>
> CB: I don't see a denial of it. I see a warning that anti-socialist
thrusts such as that of the AFL will aggravate it.
Your main thing is you are against the Chinese government
,but on this thread you
Steve: On what basis do you make the argument that I am against the CHinese government? All the arguments I have made you can find in Chinese gov't publications. For example, the argument that the union has been seriously defunded is one you can find in the official trade union journals and newspapers. The argument I make that they are not able to represent workers interests when managers/cadres in the most blatant and widespread fashion sell off public assets is widely reported in Chinese union documents. If they can report such mattters of fact, why should socialists abroad be afraid to discuss them? You will never see mention of such issues in WW because the assumption is that such matters cannot be discussed honestly without violating WW's commitment to Chinese socialism. A false assumption.
can't make your argument
without asserting unrealistic praise for U.S. unions. Given their record , U.S. unions are in no
position to criticize Chinese policy.
> *************
>
Steve: Not in the least, being a Marxist does not oblige me to heap unrealistic praise on US unions. In fact vis their call to keep China out of the WTO, I have no interest in promoting such a stance. However, I am friendly with Marxists in CHina who do not want China to enter the WTO, but for very different reasons than the AFL-CIO. BTW, you might even note that the stalwart defender of Chinese Nationalism, Henry CK Liu, has even been critical of China's plan to enter the WTO. Now, Charles, is Henry CK Liu an enemy of the Chinese government?
> > The AFL-CIO's statements on China have left the impression
> > that the U.S. labor federation is hostile to both the
> > Chinese people and socialism. That is certainly how workers
> > in China see it. That alone should be reason enough for the
> > AFL-CIO to reconsider what it is saying and doing on China.
> >
>
>
> Certainly the AFL-CIO should reconsider its stance on China and on the WTO
> as well. However, its stance should be based on factual understanding of
> what is actually happening in China to China's workers (across sector,
> gender,...), not appeals to vague numbers that tell us little about the
> real nature of class relations as they exist in China today.
>
> ************
>
> CB: And your implicit "comparison" of China and
the U.S. shouldn't be based on unstated appeals to no
numbers whatsoever on U.S. unions, whereby you
tell us nothing about the real nature of
class relations as they exist in the U.S. today.
And therefore your effort to make it sound
like U.S. unions have a basis for attacking China fails.
>
Steve: Since I have made it clear I am against this position of the US labor unions, I don't see why I am taken to be its uncritical defender. You have set up a straw man who doesn't exist.