>On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
> 6. Why should the US be able to threaten China every year with non renewal
> in order to exert maximum pressure to close down state enterprises,
> liberalize finance, and do all the things that it will turn it another
> Russia? Why is this good for American labor? And why is this good for
> Chinese labor?
If the annual review of MFN is so good for capital interests, why do they support ending it? And have supported MFN without conditions for years?
There is an assumption in your argument that such privatization and liberalization is somehow opposed by the Chinese elite. Since they have been moving in that direction with enthusiastic corporate support, it seems odd to see MFN renewal debates as somehow inhibiting the direction the Chinese elite has been moving. In fact, the critics of MFN renewal or overwhelmingly those with opposition to unlimited capital structuring of the economy(whether from the left or the reactionary religious-oriented right).
The capitalist elite is happy that China is not democratic or enforcing human rights. They generally see the problems in Russia stemming not from liberalization of the economy but from liberalization of the politics. Capitalists like fascism- capitalism without democracy - so China in its present trajectory is their preferred investment venue.
China at this point fits any basic definition of fascism in the Mussolini-Pinochet tradition. For that reason, I find yours and others defense of China and surprise that capitalists like it just fine to be a bit odd.
Human rights were fine and dandy for the capitalist elite when targetted at socialist countries, but once those countries implement capitalism, they are an impediment to profits, so getting rid of MFN and other human rights reviews are a priority for the capitalist class.
-- Nathan Newman
ps. You never did respond to my question on your inconsistency over condemning the AFL-CIO for insufficient vigor in fighting technology transfer in the workplace, yet condemning their political opposition to such transfer. You seem quite willing to have unions use labor law for protectionis of firm-based technology, but oppose using trade law for the same. Seems inconsistent, but maybe you have an answer?