> >>> 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:
> > >
>
> 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.
>
> *************
>
>
Steve: That is true, I'm not hopeful that WW will have articles that take
seriously the need to talk about the state of workers and unions in the
PRC. Hopefully I'm wrong, but my sense is they are afraid to touch issues
that are even frequently talked about in the offical press in 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.
>
> **************
>
Fair enough,but let's be honest. Chinese cadres do not want to hear from
indpendent unionists from countries such as South Korea, Indonesia, and
the like. Or let me clarify that, they will allow them to go to an
occasional conference on labor in China, but they are not taken seriously.
We don't have to turn to the AFL-CIO to inform our views of what is
happening to workers in China, but the views of Asian unionists might be
taken more seriously. It's not usually the case I'm afraid.
>
> I originally wrote:
> > 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.
>
> ****************
>
You're quite right, I shouldn't claim you are just reiterating a party line, sorry. I would agree that comparisons between US and Chinese unions are necessary, but that can't be done without a serious examination of both. I don't think the WW is seriously up to the task of critiquing the state of workers and their unions/workers representative commitees...Also, I disagree with the either/or approach of 'it's either AFL-CIO or CHinese Unions as they are now..." I heard over the net about an international meeting of Asian unonists in Taiwan. THey were not at all happy of all issues being formulated along the lines of "support China or support the US"...which obligates one to positions that often run against the interests of workers. And, as I've made clear, I disagree with the AFL-CIO's line on China.
>
> ************
> Steve originally wrote:
> 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
>
> ******************
>
Steve: Actually, I don't agree with the AFL-CIO's position, or I should say this particular position.
I'll respond in my next post to some points raised raised in the next post you sent.
Steve
>
>
>