>>> Stephen E Philion <philion at hawaii.edu> 02/28/00 04:28PM >>>
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?
******************
CB: Because the editorial is a criticism of the AFL-CIO, the representative of the U.S. unions, critiquing the PRC and Chinese unions, as if the AFL-CIO is doing more for the workers of the world than the PRC and Chinese unions.
****************
I was talking about the nature of the Chinese unions as they exist in the Chinese context.
***************
CB: Yes, but you did it as a comment on an editorial about the AFL-CIO talking about Chinese unions, and the AFL-CIO trying to influence U.S. policy towards China.
*************
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.
***************
CB: The main thing the AFL-CIO should be doing is getting the union movement in the U.S. off of its knees. It doesn't have the accomplishments to go criticizing PRC and Chinese unions. Especially gauling is that the AFL-CIO ("CIA") has an absolutely horrendous history as an agent of imperialism in international trade union struggles, wherein it served as an arm of the CIA in destroying progressive union movments all around the world ! How the hell are we going to listen to the AFL on international trade union issues without enormous skepticism.
**************
> 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.
***********
CB: This is redbaiting slander. My responses are every bit as thinking as yours are , and they are not reflex party lines. Much of "the party line" is better thought out and more logical than any number of "independent" left lines. You have no monopoly on free thinking.
What I say is responsive in the context of this thread. I posted the editorial, and in my opinion comparisons of Chinese and U.S. unions is appropriate at every point. It is not up to you to narrow how I can address the thread, or claim that what I say is not responsive , by demanding I narrow it. It is your discussion that is non-responsive to the initial post , because you try to narrow the discussion to the behavior of Chinese unions only. The topic is the behavior of the AFL-CIO too.
****************
************
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?
***************
CB: Your confusion about the reality of the AFL-CIO, its class collaboration and stooging for imperialism, means you are confused about the realities surrounding a criticism of China by the AFL-CIO
******************
> > . 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.
***************
CB So you are a supporter of the Chinese government ?
I am not so sure that the WW has not made criticism of PRC government sometimes.
At any rate, the editorial is in part a criticism the AFL-CIO's statement about China. You leave out the AFL-CIO part. Since for the WW and the rest of us in the U.S. our main concern must be the conduct of the AFL-CIO, the most important part of the editorial is its relationship to what the AFL-CIO does.
**************
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?
**************
CB: I know what Henry CK Liu's position is on China in the WTO. As a matter of fact, I got the WW editorial from Henry CK Liu. Evidently he agrees with the Workers World statement criticizing the AFL-CIO statement on China.
**************
> > 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.
**********
CB: I thought it was that you agree with the AFL on "no China in the WTO" but for different reasons.
I would imagine that WW might be opposed to China entering the WTO for reasons similar to those of Henry Liu , but the editorial is a critique of the AFL as hypocrite. Those who live in glass houses, like the AFL, shouldn't throw stones. Also, the opposition to China entering the WTO should not be based on anti-communist, "Cold War" posture, as the AFL does. That is the point of the WW editorial
CB