Author: chairman

** I also think Chinese parents are a significant liability ** by seneca [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-8-17 19:10:03 |Display all floors

The "China Exclusion Campaign" of 2000 is overlaid with overt anti-commun!sm and

WHY ANTI-CHINA CAMPAIGN HURTS MOVEMENT

By Richard Becker

Is China the main problem for the workers of the United
States and the rest of the world? Or is it U.S.
imperialism, which has extended it tentacles into most of
the world's countries?

The answer seems so clear that it should hardly need
discussion. But it has become the issue around which a
major struggle has broken out in the important upcoming
mobilization to Washington.

Thousands of students, workers, environmentalists, church
and political activists will gather in Washington on April
16-17 in an attempt to shut down the semi-annual meetings
of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The IMF
and World Bank are U.S.-dominated instruments of the giant
banks and corporations. Together the IMF and World Bank
have played a major role in making the rich much richer
while spreading poverty and environmental destruction,
especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. They are an
integral part of capitalist globalization

The many activists and organizations involved in what is
being called "A16" hope for a repeat of the successful
demonstrations in Seattle four months ago, when the meeting
of the World Trade Organization was severely disrupted,
leading to a collapse of the talks. The Seattle protests
gave great impetus to the movement against corporate
globalization and the April demonstrations promise to be
the largest ever held in the U.S. against the IMF/World
Bank.

Now a serious struggle over direction and demands that
could potentially derail this incipient movement has broken
out.

AFL-CIO TARGETS CHINA

The leadership of the AFL-CIO labor federation, along with
some other sectors of the movement mobilizing for A16 and
the activities leading up to it, have chosen to make the
People's Republic of China their main target. The AFL-CIO's
major activity is a "mass lobbying day" on April 12, under
the banner of "No blank check for China."

Before and after Seattle, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
announced that stopping China's admission to the WTO and
blocking the granting of permanent Normal Trade Relations
to the world's most populous country was a top priority.

NTR is also known as Most Favored Nation status. Having
NTR or MFN status merely means that a country is not
subject to any special tariffs or sanctions in its
commercial relations with the United States. The U.S.
presently grants MFN status to China on a year-by-year
basis, a process to which other countries are not
subjected. Hearings are held in Congress annually to
determine if the PRC "deserves" another year of MFN. This
process causes deep anger and resentment in the PRC.

Several groups mobilizing for A16, like the Economic
Policy Institute, Global Exchange and Public Citizen's
Global Trade Watch, have joined in the AFL-CIO-led
campaign.

Mike Dolan of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch was
quoted in the Dec. 6, 1999, Wall St. Journal as saying,
"China, we're coming atcha. There is no question about it.
The next issue is China." A spokesperson for the Economic
Policy Institute, a liberal group, has opposed China's
admission to the WTO because it is involved in "market
distorting government policies, including requirements for
technology transfer to domestic firms, local content and
offset requirements."

The AFL-CIO leaders, their mainly Democratic Party allies
in Congress and the other groups mentioned above oppose MFN
status and admission to the WTO for China because, they
claim, China does not have adequate labor standards, uses
prison and child labor, violates human rights, and does not
allow workers to organize "independent unions."

Leaving aside for a moment the very dubious accuracy of
the charges against China, couldn't the same be said about
the U.S., and even more so about its neocolonies like south
Korea, Indonesia, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan,
Panama, and so on? There is no campaign to exclude these
countries from the WTO.

PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T PROTECT WORKERS

The key issue, the real issue, for the AFL-CIO leaders is
protectionism. Because Chinese workers are paid lower wages
than U.S. workers, they argue, normalizing trade between
the two countries will undercut U.S. workers, especially in
manufacturing.

The threat of job loss is far from hypothetical. Tens of
millions of manufacturing and other jobs have been lost
over the past three decades due to plants closing in the
U.S. and relocating in lower-wage areas, primarily in Asia
and Latin America. Countries with right-wing military
dictatorships installed and supported by the U.S.
government have been particular favorites for relocation.
This is a process that will continue, trade agreements or
not, as long as capitalism exists.

The protectionist stance of the AFL-CIO leaders will not
stop capital flight.

But protectionism does accomplish something: It pits
workers in the advanced capitalist countries against their
sisters and brothers in the oppressed, trying-to-develop
countries. The anti-China campaign misleads workers here to
believe that another country and its people is the main
enemy, rather than our "own" capitalist ruling class. By
doing so, it undercuts and diverts the struggle into "safe"
channels--safe for the ruling class. The capitalist owners,
the ones who shut down and relocate the factories, are let
off the hook.

In addition, the anti-China campaign is overlaid with
overt anti-commun!sm and covert racism. The latest issue of
the Teamsters union magazine features a back cover
attacking "Commun!st China." And it is impossible to forget
that anti-Chinese racism has a long and inglorious history
in the U.S. with which any anti-China campaign inevitably
connects.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Congress and many
Western state governments, including California, passed
racist anti-Chinese legislation, barring property-owning,
immigration, voting rights and more for Chinese people. In
1882, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion
Act, outlawing Chinese immigration to the U.S.

It cannot be forgotten that the labor movement of that
era, including many unions and the Workingmen's Party, then
a major power in California, spearheaded the anti-Chinese
hysteria, which frequently took the form of lynch mobs in
the streets of San Francisco and other cities and towns.

This history is not unknown to those who are joining in
the "China Exclusion Campaign" of 2000. Global Exchange has
written: "We hesitate to become involved in the AFL-CIO
campaign to keep China out of the WTO because we fear that
it may promote protectionism, racism and anti-Commun!sm."
But then it goes on to support the campaign, arguing that
"we should oppose granting China permanent NTR because
permanent NTR will harm Chinese workers' interests."

The argument that China should be kept out of the WTO and
denied NTR to "protect the interests of China's workers and
peasants" has become suddenly fashionable among the left-
liberal supporters of the China exclusion campaign. It has
the advantage of providing a left-sounding cover for a
reactionary campaign.

It also disregards the PRC's right to self-determination,
and treats the Chinese government as lacking in legitimacy.
This view is shared, of course, by large sections of the
U.S. ruling class.

U.S. IMPERIALISM'S AIMS TOWARD CHINA

A half-century ago the Chinese Revolution broke
imperialism's grip, united the country and shocked the
imperialist ruling class here. "Who lost China"--they
really did think it was theirs--was the question posed by
the corporate media and politicians, and this set off a new
wave of anti-commun!st repression in the U.S.

Since then, the U.S. has employed different tactics at
different times in its campaign to regain China: nuclear
encirclement, war, sanctions, economic, political, military
and diplomatic isolation or engagement, and so on.

But there is no real division over the aims. These are to
contain the PRC, limit its development and power, destroy
its socialist industrial core, oust the Commun!st Party
from power and ultimately reduce the country to its former
status as a colony, open without restriction to U.S.
capitalist exploitation of its labor, resources and market.

Since the revolution, China has made enormous strides
forward in economic development, to the point that some
imperialist strategists believe it could become the major
rival of the U.S. within several decades. At the same time,
China is still a developing country, struggling to
modernize and acquire technology of all kinds. And it is
still encircled militarily by the U.S., which maintains
large, nuclear-equipped forces based in Japan, south Korea,
Taiwan, the Philippines and on a huge off-shore fleet.
China is targeted by more than 6,000 U.S. nuclear missiles.

China's interest in joining the WTO is based on
development and acquiring technology. The U.S. ruling class
wants to bring China in with the hope of subjugating it.
This is a continuation of the same struggle that has been
going on for 50 years.
......

Full text at http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2000w13/msg00122.htm

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2004-8-18 17:29:19 |Display all floors

seneca....

It's fair enough that you want to distance yourself from the above posts in ESL.cafe.com, but to say you simply "know of" this site is a little misleading. You recently suggested this site to other people on this forum, and you also have numerous posts on ESLcafe.com.
You're very preoccupied with arguing with  the "Chairman" and pointing out his fallacies (which is about as easy as shooting fish in a barrel really). Not so keen it seems to argue with the "stosscrafts" and "senor boogie woogies" of the world. Reread some of the stuff that people write in ESLcafe.com - most of it is generalising and patronising to chinese at the very least , and a few posts even exceed anything the Chairman has produced so far in terms of hatemongering.   
In these situations, where, may I ask, has the righteous zeal (which you use neverendingly in criticising all thing chinese) gone. Why so vociferous on one hand, and silent on the other?

Okay, a couple of analogies. What would one say to nazi skinheads when they point out (quite correctly) that the bombing of Dresden was a horrible war crime.  Congratulate them? They may have a point, but would one congratulate them? Ofcourse not.
In my home country there was a far right candidate standing for the election who said all sorts of nasty things. The conservative Prime Minister chose not to agree or disagree with her. He did, however, criticise the Left for criticising her. He did not openly disagree with her but everyone knew where his real thoughts lay.

The "Chairman" is dangerous? Crazy maybe, but I doubt that he's all that dangerous.
You, my friend, are the dangerous one.

The latest post of yours is yet more crud. This term  "face" might have its uses occasionally, but I've heard it parrotted so many times as blanket statement that some westerners love to use as a way of belittling chinese and explaining away any real profound analysis of Chinese society. I suggest you and your friends stick your heads out of the "Social Customs" sections of  your "Lonely Planet" guidebooks, and think for a moment: The endless churning out of crappy Vietnam War films from America due to the fact that despite killing over 2 million people, they weren't able to win a war. Keeping face maybe?
The dummy spitting superiority complex and constant putting down of chinese "they are brainwashed, they don't think, they are rude blah blah"  that seems endemic with expats in China - a way of trying to keep "face" maybe, when you're out of your depth?
Westerners care as much about  "face" as chinese do, its no magic bullet to explain why you can't get along with or understand chinese.

As for your allusion to high rates of suicide in China and its "obvious" connection to the faults you see in the chinese  education system. I trust you have had some schooling in the past - did you ever learn about the principles of causality? One of the countries with the highest levels of youth suicide in the world is Australia - sport loving, care free, school truanting Australia. Luckily our social scientists are a bit more careful than you about making assumptions - as of yet they have found no easy  explanation for why australian kids are killing themselves, only that the causes are probably multifactorial. I'm sure if you asked more biased and dishonest overseas commentators on their views they would have simpler reasons eg Malaysian press would say because of drugs, Iranians would say premarital sex, Chinese press would say because of "a lack of strong goverment and too much freedom yadda yadda."

Ohh, in passing, those pesky overbearing chinese parents seem to do wonders for overseas chinese kids, who are overachievers both academically and at work. How does that fit into your paradigm? Ohh sorry, I forgot, they are in nice WESTERN countries, some of the wests superiority must have rubbed off on them, couldn't possibly be any other reason.

I would criticise Chairman as well for his arguing style, but he does this too well himself I think.

Just one last thing, any Mainland Chinese interested in Westerner's views on China should definately check out that Chatroom on www.ESLforum.com. Rather than just get the choice picking offered from "The Stud"  it would do you good to see what Westerners who've been to china are really thinking, especially when they don't suspect that Chinese are listening.
You'll find there are some good people out there. But there's also lots of bigots, not to mention a disproportionate amount of sleazebags too - lots and lots of threads by males bragging about how many chinese girls they've had and how popular they are with them.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-8-18 19:29:00 |Display all floors

That was a very good post Rice and Fish. Well written.

The only problem I have is that Seneca, who was your target sepcimen got one or two mentions and chairman got 6-11 mentions.

:)

if chairman is crazy, it does not say much for the competition.

A good post Rice and Fish, even if it includes considerable anti chairman thoughts.

chairman is good to hate, I can see you agree.

:)

A very smart, well thought out, well organized post Rice and Fish.

By the way, where are all the chairman posts that make reference to you ?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-8-18 21:54:30 |Display all floors

wei_sun, that was a different way to look at it, your right of course. Just the

Well said.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2004-8-18 23:40:15 |Display all floors

chinese

there are no civilized but stronger countries in the world,the rich enslave the poor,the strong insult the faint  ect .i think it is a principle in the globe nowadays.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2004-8-18 23:47:49 |Display all floors

i am a chinese

i think of a lot.after read the essay.do not worry about that chinese won't be the muslim,they won't plot the another 9/11

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2004-8-19 18:17:35 |Display all floors

seneca....

tried to find that thread on chinese education, it's in the Living in China section, right? Which subsection is it in, I'm having difficulties finding it, and can't be bothered scrolling through every subsection.

Anyway, without seeing it, I don't think many people will disagree that there needs to be criticism about China's education system. What I object to is your using any criticism you can find about China to support your triumphant world view that Modern China is inherently inept, morally wrong and backward in every concievable way, and that its people are totally misinformed and therefore unable to know anything on their own without your gracious help.

You probably also think that all modern chinese leaders are completely bad and have never done ANYTHING remotely good ever (Not like lovely Jiang ji shi and his enlightened american backers). That last statement was an inference, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong there.

The other thing I object to is that you seem blinkered by attacking chauvinist pro china posters, but are silent to chauvinist pro western posters.

Your last post didn't really address any of the arguments or claims that I made in my last post, or anyone elses.
You did manage to use the phrase "hyperchauvinistic, self-censuring and self-appointed" which is accurate for some of your adversaries, but also unfortunately also amply describes you.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.