The WTO

[DaRk-OnE]

Who are the WTO and do they actually help anyone ? Are they bias?

[bolshevik butcher]

bias? They're pretty mutch run by the imperialist countries, it's just naother means of opression, and countries that dont follow wto dont get help. They do there best to make sure that countries that dont do what they want get a hard time, venezuela for instance, or they even forced bolivia to follow their ideas.

[Tupac-Amaru]

I dissagree; the WTO is a good and useful organisation. It is run on a one-country-one-vote basis with no regard for the economic power of each nation; every single member has a veto. In addition, no country can be compelled to obey a WTO rule that it opposed in the first place.

Their main aim is the elimination of trade barriers...which i beleive benefits all...especialy the workers.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I strongly disagree with that. It allows for jobs for workers rights to be easily stepped on and puts profit before people.

[Bannockburn]

The WTO is an interesting organization. The organization basically is a mechanism for capital to transcend borders regardless of economic restriction, or domestic law. Thus, American capital can go into third world nations, and invest, and likewise here in the US. It sets up a network of power relations of capital where there is no one central totality, but a web of interconnected capital. As a result, capital and labor restrictions here in the US can easily be invested and workers used in unrestricted labor laws in certain countries.

Also, since capital is primary any international or domestic law that impedes that flow will essentially be overruled. Thus, any state that would try to protect its worker will eventually lose for capital investment.

[CrazyModerate]

I'm sorry, did you type "massive greedy douche organization" in the topic of the title?

As far as globalization goes, if it were done for the right reasons, such as spreading the high good social aspects of the first world, such as healthcare, education, and welfare, then it would be great. But for now I think they like to stick to making the rich-poor gap larger. And by "they" I mean the "massively greedy douche organization." I think they have some other name, WT- something. But I just can't remember it. ANd whenever I see it, its replaced with "massively greedy douche organization."

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 24 2005, 07:30 AM
I dissagree; the WTO is a good and useful organisation. It is run on a one-country-one-vote basis with no regard for the economic power of each nation; every single member has a veto. In addition, no country can be compelled to obey a WTO rule that it opposed in the first place.

Their main aim is the elimination of trade barriers...which i beleive benefits all...especialy the workers.
Uh... you're joking, right?


Negotiations

Where most international organisations operate on a one country, one vote or even a weighted voting basis, many WTO decisions, such as adopting agreements (and revisions to them) are determined by consensus. This does not necessarily mean that unanimity is found: only that no Member finds a decision so unacceptable that they must insist on their objection. Voting is only employed as a fall-back mechanism or in special cases.

The advantage of consensus is that it encourages efforts to find the most widely acceptable decision. Main disadvantages include large time requirements and many rounds of negotiation to develop a consensus decision, and the tendency for final agreements to use ambiguous language on contentious points that makes future interpretation of treaties difficult. Richard Steinberg (2002) argues that although the WTO's consensus governance model provides law-based initial bargaining, trading rounds close through power-based bargaining favouring Europe and the United States, and may not lead to Pareto improvement. The most notable recent failures of consensus, at the Ministerial meetings at Seattle (1999) and Cancún (2003), were due to the refusal of some developing countries to accept proposed.

The WTO began the current round of negotiations, the Doha round, at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar in November 2001 (WTO, 2004d). The talks have been highly contentious and agreement has not been reached, despite continuing talks in Cancun, Geneva, and Paris.
[edit]

Dispute resolution

Like most other international organisations, the WTO has no significant power to enforce the decisions it makes when a member brings a complaint against another. If decisions of its Dispute Settlement Body are not complied with, it may authorise "retaliatory measures" on the part of the complaining member, but no other enforcement action is available. This means that economically powerful states like the United States can essentially ignore rulings against them from complaints brought by the economically weak, as the latter states simply do not have the power to hurt US trade enough to force the US to change its position. This has been the case, for example, with the March 2005 Appellate Body ruling in case DS 267 declaring US cotton subsidies illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO

[Tupac-Amaru]

Wot about the recent case in the WTO a few months ago where Brazil forced the US to stop subsidizing its un-profitable Cotton industry?? Thank's to this, cotton farmers in brazil, the carribean, and esspecialy in western africa will now be able to present their goods in the world market and become more competitive....therefore helping them get out of poverty.

I seriously think that the WTO is not to blame, they are just a scapegoat for all left-wing anti-free trade people. The real bastards are the IMF and the World Bank...THEY exploit labour. All the WTO does is it trie to liberalize trade barriers...which in my opinion is great...i mean why should you pay 5$ for a t-shirt if you can by an imported one from China for 1$...i mean that's good for the consumer! The people also profit from this, not just the evil corporations (as we are meant to beleive).

[Severian]

The WTO is merely an arena where contending governments attempt to resolve their trade conflicts.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 25 2005, 11:03 AM
Wot about the recent case in the WTO a few months ago where Brazil forced the US to stop subsidizing its un-profitable Cotton industry?? Thank's to this, cotton farmers in brazil, the carribean, and esspecialy in western africa will now be able to present their goods in the world market and become more competitive....therefore helping them get out of poverty.

I seriously think that the WTO is not to blame, they are just a scapegoat for all left-wing anti-free trade people. The real bastards are the IMF and the World Bank...THEY exploit labour. All the WTO does is it trie to liberalize trade barriers...which in my opinion is great...i mean why should you pay 5$ for a t-shirt if you can by an imported one from China for 1$...i mean that's good for the consumer! The people also profit from this, not just the evil corporations (as we are meant to beleive).
What so hundreds of U$ cotton farmers lost they're jobs, way to go WTO!

[Tupac-Amaru]

Doesn't matter if the loose their jobs...they were in an old and un-profitable industry anyway...it was only a matter of time...they should join the ever-growing service industry.

And remember that thanks to the wto....thousands and thousands of farmers in western afrika are finaly able to sell their cotton on the world market...they need the money more than the american cotton farmers.

[Severian]

It's not exactly progressive to complain about working people in other countries "stealing American jobs."

[Atlas Swallowed]

http://rwor.org/a/v21/1030-039/1035/edit.htm

Decent article about WTO from 1999.


WTO is run by bankers and corporations they may occasionally do something good for workers(very rarely), but they are all about proffit, regardless of the cost to workers or enviorment. Tool of Wall Street Imperilism, like the CIA is.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 25 2005, 05:03 AM
Wot about the recent case in the WTO a few months ago where Brazil forced the US to stop subsidizing its un-profitable Cotton industry?? Thank's to this, cotton farmers in brazil, the carribean, and esspecialy in western africa will now be able to present their goods in the world market and become more competitive....therefore helping them get out of poverty.
A rare example. The WTO has also destroyed tarriffs and barriers in third world countries, allowing the US to flood markets with subsidized agricultural products and completely destroy local farmers. This is true through out South America, Mexico, Korea. Hell, Korean farmers have killed themselves in protest of this. Not to mention its weakening of environmental laws. It primary benefactors are corporations and the G8 nations, not poor people.



I seriously think that the WTO is not to blame, they are just a scapegoat for all left-wing anti-free trade people. The real bastards are the IMF and the World Bank...THEY exploit labour. All the WTO does is it trie to liberalize trade barriers...which in my opinion is great...i mean why should you pay 5$ for a t-shirt if you can by an imported one from China for 1$...i mean that's good for the consumer! The people also profit from this, not just the evil corporations (as we are meant to beleive).

The T-shirt costs $1 because it was made by slaves. That isn't something I want to support. Neoliberalism does not benefit working people, it hurts them.


It's not exactly progressive to complain about working people in other countries "stealing American jobs."

Is it progressive to complain about multinational corporations moving their operations overseas so that they can operate without things like unions, environmental restrictions, benefits, health regulations and taxes getting in the way? Working people aren't stealing American jobs, American jobs are being given to workers in other countries because those people can be more easily exploited and abused.

[Severian]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 25 2005, 12:50 PM
A rare example. The WTO has also destroyed tarriffs and barriers in third world countries, allowing the US to flood markets with subsidized agricultural products and completely destroy local farmers.
It's reification to say "the WTO" does anything. The WTO is not a thing or a force in the world. It is an arena where contending forces meet. Of course the stronger ones usually win. That's true of any negotiation.



It's not exactly progressive to complain about working people in other countries "stealing American jobs."

Is it progressive to complain about multinational corporations moving their operations overseas so that they can operate without things like unions, environmental restrictions, benefits, health regulations and taxes getting in the way?

No. That's saying the same thing in a different way.

[Luís Henrique]

Wot about the recent case in the WTO a few months ago where Brazil forced the US to stop subsidizing its un-profitable Cotton industry?? Thank's to this, cotton farmers in brazil, the carribean, and esspecialy in western africa will now be able to present their goods in the world market and become more competitive....therefore helping them get out of poverty.

More likely, landlords in Brazil will have more reason to stick to a crop which is essentially directed to exportation, thus increasing the dwarfing of Brazilian internal market...

The US cotton industry is unprofitable because it pays better wages. Thanks to this ruling, Brazilian exploiters will be able to continue to rely on low wages instead of having to improve production methods.


All the WTO does is it trie to liberalize trade barriers...which in my opinion is great...i mean why should you pay 5$ for a t-shirt if you can by an imported one from China for 1$...

Course, because the wages of Chinese websters are the wonder we know.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 25 2005, 02:02 PM--> (Severian @ Oct 25 2005, 02:02 PM)
black banner black [email protected] 25 2005, 12:50 PM

Is it progressive to complain about multinational corporations moving their operations overseas so that they can operate without things like unions, environmental restrictions, benefits, health regulations and taxes getting in the way?

No. That's saying the same thing in a different way. [/b]
What? How isn&#39;t progressive to complain and challenge the neoliberal agenda that benefits corporations? <_<

And it isn&#39;t saying the same thing a different way. Complaining about worker&#39;s "stealing" jobs is an inaccurate analysis of the situation, which is completely different than recognizing the economic motivation of multinationals to do that, and challenge them.

[workersunity]

tupac you are very mistaken on this issue, as the WTO is a free trade organization, that really makes it possible for the developed countries to even heap more profit from third world countries. and saying each country has an equal say is quite ridiculous, the US and our allies, britain etc.. have the say in it, this group goes right along with FTAA, NAFTA, they push workers out of work, and make it so easily accesible non corporate brands of food,medicine etc.. wont be allowed, since its not FDA approved, some stupid shit like that. WTO is one of the worst organizations around

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Oct 25 2005, 11:03 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Oct 25 2005, 11:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:02 PM

black banner black [email protected] 25 2005, 12:50 PM

Is it progressive to complain about multinational corporations moving their operations overseas so that they can operate without things like unions, environmental restrictions, benefits, health regulations and taxes getting in the way?

No. That&#39;s saying the same thing in a different way.
What? How isn&#39;t progressive to complain and challenge the neoliberal agenda that benefits corporations? <_<

And it isn&#39;t saying the same thing a different way. Complaining about worker&#39;s "stealing" jobs is an inaccurate analysis of the situation, which is completely different than recognizing the economic motivation of multinationals to do that, and challenge them. [/b]
Exactly. I&#39;m pretty sure that people on this site aren&#39;t complaining about this stuff from a jinogistic "damn foreigners took our jobs" kind of way. It&#39;s more the motivation behind it, ie to find a source of workers that are easier to exploit because they are poorer and thus have less power (and many other reasons of course, like not being unionised).

[Severian]

You know what&#39;s paved with good intentions. And it&#39;s not really possible to know what&#39;s a real motivation and what&#39;s just a rationalization, anyway.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:22 AM
The WTO is merely an arena where contending governments attempt to resolve their trade conflicts.
:huh: :blink: :o :blush: <_< :rolleyes: :lol:

:(

:angry:

[Latifa]

A very expressive post, Miles.

I&#39;m going to take the typical response card and say the WTO can crawl into a hole and die for all I care.

[Tekun]

I agree the WTO, is nothing but a gang of elitists looking to globalize their capitalistic trade practices

The WTO basically wants to impose their will upon the poor and lowly, in regards to trading
Not only that, but the majority of those who sit on the WTO are affluent and corrupt politicians who disregard the people suffering as a result of the poverty
Its far from fair representation, those that are rich are represented - those that are poor are not
Those at the WTO are mostly concerned with the well being of the wealthy and the wicked

And, those who don&#39;t join are placed in a sort of embargo, since they don&#39;t abide by the rules set at the WTO

Worse of all, its run by the US, European union, and Japan
^Tha 3 great capitalists

[ComradeOm]

The WTO is a tool, nothing more. Because its run by capitalists it promotes liberal capitalist practices, even when they may lead to disaster. Who’s to say whether the organisation will have a role in a socialist future.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 25 2005, 02:37 PM
More likely, landlords in Brazil will have more reason to stick to a crop which is essentially directed to exportation, thus increasing the dwarfing of Brazilian internal market...
Maybe this has some logic as a defense of imperialist import barriers*...but this case dealt with U.S. export subsidies for cotton. So, more likely, those subsidies helped U.S. exports penetrate Third World markets, and now they won&#39;t.

Also, export subsidies mostly benefit the wealthier farmers, as well as the processors, distributors, etc., of agricultural products. They&#39;re certainly not geared to helping working farmers.


The US cotton industry is unprofitable because it pays better wages.
I&#39;m not sure how much cotton farming in the U.S. even employs wage-labor. I vaguely recall that the harvest is largely mechanized. In any of the stuff I&#39;ve heard about farm workers in this country recently, I don&#39;t remember cotton being among the crops mentioned.

So: why would a bunch of supposedly anti-imperialist leftists reflexively take the side of the U.S. against a semicolonial country, Brazil, in a trade dispute, without even looking at the concrete facts?

I&#39;d suggest that it&#39;s because the whole "anti-globalization" movement, or whatever its called this week, is really based on economic nationalism, in the imperialist countries.

Mass organizations of working people in the Third World have tended to make the opposite demands: that the imperialist countries reduce their import barriers, not raise them.

Edit: this is an old debate, of course.

An article explaining the real content of the anti-WTO protests in Seattle, 1999 (http://ww.themilitant.com/1999/6344/634436.html)





*though I don&#39;t see how more production of, say, food crops instead of cotton would automatically expand the domestic Brazilian market. You may have cause and effect backwards - expanding the domestic market would make it more profitable to produce crops for domestic consumption.

[bolshevik butcher]

Doesn&#39;t matter if the loose their jobs...they were in an old and un-profitable industry anyway...it was only a matter of time...they should join the ever-growing service industry.

Would you have said the same to the miners in 1984?

[Tupac-Amaru]

No i woulnd&#39;t.

Firstly because the number of miners was much much greater than the number of american cotton farmers.

But most importantly, because these miners had no-where elese to go. They have been mining for their whole lives and they were usualy in an area where mining was THE ONLY industry. Therefore it would very very hard for them to find another job, firtsly cose they would not have the skills, and also because the job would probably be located far away. Many of these miners are still unemployed today, so i definitely would not have said the same. (FUCK MAGGIE THATCHER)

However, the case with the american cotton farmers is very different...there&#39;s very few of them...and im sure it will be easyer for them to find another job in the services industry. I mean i really find it ridiculous that cotton is still grown today in america...the only reason that those farmers can even compete on the world market is thanks to massive amounts of government subsidies (that money could have gone to better use).

[bcbm]

So: why would a bunch of supposedly anti-imperialist leftists reflexively take the side of the U.S. against a semicolonial country, Brazil, in a trade dispute, without even looking at the concrete facts?

I&#39;d suggest that it&#39;s because the whole "anti-globalization" movement, or whatever its called this week, is really based on economic nationalism, in the imperialist countries.

Mass organizations of working people in the Third World have tended to make the opposite demands: that the imperialist countries reduce their import barriers, not raise them.

Economic nationalism? I&#39;m still failing to see how any leftist could reasonably support the neoliberal "free trade" agenda, given that its been damaging to both people in the first world and the third world.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 27 2005, 07:41 PM
No i woulnd&#39;t.

Firstly because the number of miners was much much greater than the number of american cotton farmers.

But most importantly, because these miners had no-where elese to go. They have been mining for their whole lives and they were usualy in an area where mining was THE ONLY industry. Therefore it would very very hard for them to find another job, firtsly cose they would not have the skills, and also because the job would probably be located far away. Many of these miners are still unemployed today, so i definitely would not have said the same. (FUCK MAGGIE THATCHER)

However, the case with the american cotton farmers is very different...there&#39;s very few of them...and im sure it will be easyer for them to find another job in the services industry. I mean i really find it ridiculous that cotton is still grown today in america...the only reason that those farmers can even compete on the world market is thanks to massive amounts of government subsidies (that money could have gone to better use).
I think it&#39;s wrong to tell soemone to just go and getta job and that it will all just be ok. The world economy&#39;s slumping at the moment. Any job they get will probably be very badly paid, burger flipping job. What about the people and they&#39;re familys livelyhoods?

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 25 2005, 05:03 AM
Wot about the recent case in the WTO a few months ago where Brazil forced the US to stop subsidizing its un-profitable Cotton industry?? Thank&#39;s to this, cotton farmers in brazil, the carribean, and esspecialy in western africa will now be able to present their goods in the world market and become more competitive....therefore helping them get out of poverty.

I seriously think that the WTO is not to blame, they are just a scapegoat for all left-wing anti-free trade people. The real bastards are the IMF and the World Bank...THEY exploit labour. All the WTO does is it trie to liberalize trade barriers...which in my opinion is great...i mean why should you pay 5&#036; for a t-shirt if you can by an imported one from China for 1&#036;...i mean that&#39;s good for the consumer&#33; The people also profit from this, not just the evil corporations (as we are meant to beleive).
oh yes, lets buy a sweat shop t-shirt. do you buy nike? there ana american company that enslaves its sweat shop workers, and the WTO lets this go on. is the WTO good?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 24 2005, 01:30 PM
I dissagree; the WTO is a good and useful organisation. It is run on a one-country-one-vote basis with no regard for the economic power of each nation; every single member has a veto. In addition, no country can be compelled to obey a WTO rule that it opposed in the first place.

Their main aim is the elimination of trade barriers...which i beleive benefits all...especialy the workers.
You believe the WTO is good orginization? I can&#39;t believe I&#39;m hearing this on this forum. The WTO claims they support ending barriers to trade, what they actually are doing is furthering the a neo-liberal system and increasing globalization. The only thing that results from the WTO is exploitation of the have nots by the haves.

[Severian]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 27 2005, 02:43 PM
Economic nationalism? I&#39;m still failing to see how any leftist could reasonably support the neoliberal "free trade" agenda, given that its been damaging to both people in the first world and the third world.
Why are you assuming that you have to support one or another version of the bosses&#39; trade policies? As Marx said, under free trade or under protectionism the workers will go to the wall.

I don&#39;t really agree with Tupac-Amaru, but he&#39;s done one good thing here - pointed out a case where the WTO "court" found for a Third World country, giving all the "anti-globalization" people a chance to decry that and support the imperialist countries&#39; export subsidies.

(Under the imperialists&#39; version of free trade, of course, it&#39;s the semicolonial countries which have to lower their import barriers, while the imperialist countries keep many of their tariffs and export subsidies.)

***

The anti-China stuff is particularly reactionary. China remains a country where working people made many gains as a result of the 1949 revolution, and where working people are fighting to preserve those gains, resist privatizations, layoffs, and all kinds of moves towards capitalism.

The demands levied on China in trade negotiations - pressure the Chinese regime to move more quickly towards capitalism and launch deeper assaults on working people. So for leftists to join in specially demonizing China and demanding trade sanctions against it, is to aid in pressuring China in a reactionary direction.

[bcbm]

Why are you assuming that you have to support one or another version of the bosses&#39; trade policies? As Marx said, under free trade or under protectionism the workers will go to the wall.

I&#39;m assuming you have to support one or the other because I see them as the major options at this point and I think supporting an agenda promoting some form of "fair" trade benefits the majority of workers more than one promoting "free trade", which primarily benefits the bosses and the first world.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 28 2005, 02:40 AM

oh yes, lets buy a sweat shop t-shirt. do you buy nike? there ana american company that enslaves its sweat shop workers, and the WTO lets this go on. is the WTO good?
It is not the responsibility of the WTO to organise labour rights. All the WTO does is try to liberalise trade barriers...looking after the workers is not in their job description. If you want to complain about workers rights complain to the ILO for not doing its job correctly, or better yet, complain to the companies themselves...but not the WTO, it has nothing to with this.

[Guerrilla22]

While that is true, the countries thaat run the WTO, the G8 countries know very well that by liberalizing trade, companies in their countries will be able to exploit those in other countries due to their poor economic conditions or lack of labor laws in those countries, which is why the WTO was created in the first place by members of the US and British government.

[Severian]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 29 2005, 07:05 AM
I&#39;m assuming you have to support one or the other because I see them as the major options at this point
Well, that&#39;s the big problem with the left these days. They don&#39;t see a revolutionary perspective, seeking to advance workers&#39; struggles towards taking power, as a "realistic" perspective that can serve as a guide to day-to-day action. Which IMO it always has to be, regardless of how close or far it may be at any time.

So leftists fall into one or another form of lesser-evillism. Following along behind one or another faction of the bosses.


and I think supporting an agenda promoting some form of "fair" trade benefits the majority of workers more than one promoting "free trade",

"Fair trade" is a contradiction in terms. There&#39;s no such thing.

The agenda labelled "fair trade" consists of a set of excuses for the advanced capitalist countries to maintain import barriers against the "Third World", such as supposed labor and environmental standards. As if they cared, or as if the governments of the First World could be the instruments of advancing workers&#39; rights in the Third World.


which primarily benefits the bosses and the first world.

You keep saying that. But if that&#39;s your criterion, why do you take the side of the U.S. vs Brazil in a concrete trade dispute over export subsidies?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+Oct 29 2005, 07:22 PM--> (Tupac&#045;Amaru &#064; Oct 29 2005, 07:22 PM)
Organic [email protected] 28 2005, 02:40 AM

oh yes, lets buy a sweat shop t-shirt. do you buy nike? there ana american company that enslaves its sweat shop workers, and the WTO lets this go on. is the WTO good?
It is not the responsibility of the WTO to organise labour rights. All the WTO does is try to liberalise trade barriers...looking after the workers is not in their job description. If you want to complain about workers rights complain to the ILO for not doing its job correctly, or better yet, complain to the companies themselves...but not the WTO, it has nothing to with this. [/b]
Why do you even pretend to be left wing?

You&#39;ve made numerous posts like this one, arguing right-wing garbage.

Maybe it&#39;s time to come out of the closet.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Firstly im not pretending to be left-wing...i am left-wing.

Secondly, that post you refered to was not right-wing nor was it garbage. It simply states a fact: the WTO is NOT in charge of working conditions.

But make no mistake about it, i am left wing, the only difference is that i am not as idealist and uncompromising as most of the members in this forum. So if you really insist in calling me something, then call me a revisitionist, but don&#39;t say i&#39;m right-wing, cose im definitly not.

[bcbm]

Well, that&#39;s the big problem with the left these days. They don&#39;t see a revolutionary perspective, seeking to advance workers&#39; struggles towards taking power, as a "realistic" perspective that can serve as a guide to day-to-day action. Which IMO it always has to be, regardless of how close or far it may be at any time.

As if I can only hold and advance one position at a time? I&#39;m pushing forward on both fronts, but I&#39;m not seeing the implementation of worker&#39;s power anytime soon, so I try to focus on smaller, more concrete things that can occur right now while I try to advance revolution.


The agenda labelled "fair trade" consists of a set of excuses for the advanced capitalist countries to maintain import barriers against the "Third World", such as supposed labor and environmental standards. As if they cared, or as if the governments of the First World could be the instruments of advancing workers&#39; rights in the Third World.

"Fair" trade, ie guaranteeing that workers are paid a decent living wage for their product. Its pretty common in farming right now and some factories as well. Its usually co-ops from various countries working with co-ops in other countries and giving fair prices for things, instead of paying next to nothing. It has nothing to do with protectionism. Though I&#39;m still not clear how one can support moving, say, a shoe factory from the US where workers have some basic rights to a third world country where the bosses can essentially murder the workers and get away with it.


You keep saying that. But if that&#39;s your criterion, why do you take the side of the U.S. vs Brazil in a concrete trade dispute over export subsidies?

I never said I did. Please don&#39;t put words in my mouth.

[enigma2517]

The WTO, IMF, and World Bank are nothing but a bunch of organizations that are subordinate to their most powerful masters (you figure out who that is).

Neo-liberal cronies say that they are expanding free trade, but its obvious from a look at things like NAFTA that they are nothing more than a myriad of protectionist trade policies. They insist that poor countries open up their capital borders while closing their own when an industry falls behind.

The American car industry would have severely crashed in the 1980&#39;s if it wasn&#39;t for the major protectionist efforts made by Reagan against Japan.

I highly suggest reading some of Noam Chomsky&#39;s work on this.

[voice of the voiceless]

a few of the first things imposed upon iraq by the WTO were:

Heavy taxation on exported goods
(to maintain the impossibility of an independent capitalist economy to compete with the west...and it would with its oil reserves)

Lessening of Taxation on imported goods
(america can flood the country with goods, create dependence on the Rich countries and their economies....the internal contradictions inherent in capitalism mean that the bourgeoisie must sell goods everywhere as the working class in their own country alone cannot afford to buy the goods completely)

Lowering of minimum wage
(to ensure in this case, but also many others, that iraq remains a pool of cheap labour and easy exploitation for the big business of the US)

Basically the WTO stands as a resolution to the crisis of capitalism..... It ensures the Dropping of all national economic barriers so the bourgeoisie of the US can nestle everywhere, sell everywhere, use labour everywhere and as cheaply as possible.



etc etc

&#33;&#33;and the first thing the US did was to reintroduce Saddams anti trade union laws&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 30 2005, 05:23 AM

Well, that&#39;s the big problem with the left these days. They don&#39;t see a revolutionary perspective, seeking to advance workers&#39; struggles towards taking power, as a "realistic" perspective that can serve as a guide to day-to-day action. Which IMO it always has to be, regardless of how close or far it may be at any time.

As if I can only hold and advance one position at a time? I&#39;m pushing forward on both fronts, but I&#39;m not seeing the implementation of worker&#39;s power anytime soon, so I try to focus on smaller, more concrete things that can occur right now while I try to advance revolution.
See, that&#39;s your problem: you see those two things as separate. Rather than the concrete, day-to-day activity, being driven by the perspective of advancing towards revolution. And immediate demands on the rulers being chosen to fit that perspective.

Instead, the concrete, day-to-day activity is driven by a reform-oriented perspective, while revolution is an "ultimate goal" honored as an abstraction.


I never said I did. Please don&#39;t put words in my mouth.

Well, maybe I misunderstood you. But OK then, why don&#39;t you say where you stand on that case, and others where Third World countries appeal to the WTO in protest of First-World tariffs, mport barriers and export subsidies.

All I have to go on now, is you chose to jump in to that debate on the same side as Clenched Fist, who was complaining about American jobs being lost as a result of a decision in favor of Brazil.

***

"Voice of the voiceless" suggesting that the WTO (rather than, say, the U.S. occupation&#33;) imposed anything on Iraq is a good example of the kind of mystification and reification I was talking about earlier.