> Is the FT right?
>
>> Independent unions are banned in China, and the federation unions have
>> traditionally been an instrument for the communist party to control
>> workers, not a vehicle for agitation and strikes, which are almost
>> never allowed.
If 'communist party control' means that (very progressive) labor laws are enforced, what's to be opposed? Also, don't the labor laws of every country make it difficult to hold strikes? Should we retract our support for possible organizing by Wal-Mart in the US because the AFL-CIO has historically been an instrument for Capital to control workers? And if we accept the thesis that labor is not 'free' in China, but 'free' in the US, then we commit ourselves to the position that workers in the US must actually not want unions, since union participation rates are fallling. So no, the premise of the FT article - free/non-free labor - is wrong.
Statist storytelling, and the broken record of Oriental despotism are boring, and debilitating to our solidarity, and thus to the possibility of joy.
JL
>
> If so, how joyful a piece of news is this?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>