[24] in peace2
Re: WTO movement and peace
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (The Macomber Family)
Mon Jan 17 09:44:44 2000
Message-Id: <38831E40.87C57B6B@micron.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:50:57 -0700
From: The Macomber Family <artmacom@micron.net>
Reply-To: artmacom@micron.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Karen Sachs <karens@MIT.EDU>, jennifer lewey <jlewey@brandeis.edu>,
peace2@MIT.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So, I apologize to all the white boys out there, as I re-read Karen's letter below, I
realize that it was I who attached the appellation "white" to the "rich boys" of her
letter. Even given the fact that most white boys are poor as dirt, I guess I am so
used to seeing those mixed up together that I made the same mistake in their defense.
Weird, how blinders work, eh?
And apologies to Karen too.
-Art
--------
The Macomber Family wrote:
> Karen, it is clear that you have no knowledge of economics, but instead of holding
> that against you, I would like to give you some simple reading. One book you would
> enjoy is the "Road to Serfdom", by F.A. Hayek and another, I can't remember the
> author now, is called "The Incredible Bread Machine."
>
> Both of these books echo the basics of economics, not from the government's view or
> some rich, white boy - as you so fondly call us - no matter how "Black or Hispanic
> or Asian" my true experience may be, but they outline the actual goings-on of folks
> who are trying to better their own lives. So, they are ground-level texts, easy to
> read and fun too, regardless of someone's alleged race (as seen from the
> outside...).
>
> It is interesting to me that the people of the less-developed countries
> (economically speaking, that is...) appear to want to advance economically but
> don't have the financial wherewithal to jump right in at the level of the average
> American, i.e., with all the worker protections, OSHA saftey regs, and minimum
> wages etc that we can afford today. From my limited perspective, it would appear
> that the protestors in Seattle wanted to stop third world development unless they
> could force development to happen according to some quite unrealistic and costly
> methods. I think the bottom line of the protests is that the protestors are
> saying, "You can't have it unless you do it our way," which is incredibly
> imperialistic to me. Talk about cultural hegemony!
>
> Now, I understand that the traditional Left in America believe that "there is
> enough money and resources to go around", but there is no simple way to accomplish
> this allocation unless you do it at the point of a gun, like Mao, who killed
> millions to get the economic structure just the way he wanted it - and China is
> still trying to figure out how to remove itself from his visions with some
> sembalance of "face." Besides, it should be clear by now, unless you missed the
> past one hundred years, that the peaceful exercise of private property rights is
> the best way to guarantee rising economic standards of living (and health too!) and
> when private property is blocked, then living standards go down. I could cite
> Russia as a start, with their losing ideas of collectivism, or go directly to Cuba,
> which is still a relative backwater even after decades of subsidies from Russia, or
> China, North Korea, or many others who frown on private property and liberty for
> their citizens. Also, for environmental degradation, try Eastern Europe, China,
> sub-Saharan Africa, or others areas where capitalism has been shunned for more
> "enlightened" philosophies wherein the government alleges to know the best way to
> manage natural resources - even tho' they have nothing to lose when they trash the
> place!!
>
> You know, the third world WANTS capitalism, because they see it works. Now, as a
> codicil, I must say that I am not supporting WTO here, in fact, they are merely a
> governmental club, just as unionists are, in that they are protectionists of their
> interests - and want to make that into law, instead of allowing free people to
> trade freely, they want trade agreements, which end up dictating how, when, where,
> at what price to trade. In this I agree with you, that they are a club against the
> little guy.
>
> -Art
>
> BTW, Sinclair and Zin are both very radical Leftists with a 1930's vision of
> economic equality, Sinclair having been there and Zin being more a creature of the
> Sixties, ideologically, that is. If you want to find out economies really work, at
> the human level, better to read the two books I recommended above, they are more
> free, but not completely free, of the ideological language and more to the point of
> what real people do when they get up in the morning to handle their choices.
> --------------------------------
>
> Karen Sachs wrote:
>
> > hi jennifer-
> >
> > i have no knowledge of economics, but it is clear to me that the problem with
> > the wto is NOT that it attmepts globalization. it does not. it attempts to
> > structure world trade in such a way that would best serve huge corporations,
> > and "best serve" for them translates into no concern for worker's or
> > childern's rights, no concern for the environment.
> >
> > this is why their agreements had to be made behind closed doors.
> >
> > i see it as american rich boys saying hey, why shouldn't we hook up not only
> > with each other, but with all the other rich boys in the world- then we'll
> > make even more millions.
> >
> > thw wto agreements have a "profit first" philosophy (obviously, since it's
> > structured by people serving these huge corporations), and so they crush human
> > and environmental rights.
> >
> > a different wto that adresses world trade while also addressing humanitary
> > issues could be a trully wonderful and unifying thing, a true attempt at
> > globalization.
> >
> > out of seattle comes a slightly different (though related) issue- one of
> > centrallization of power and the regard for citizen's rights in america. at
> > the meeting last night, the man sitting stage left (whose name i missed),
> > refering to the "disappearance" of one of the speakers, said something to the
> > effect of: in another country, this man's disappearance would have been for
> > good.
> >
> > how strongly we hold to the notion of our country being inherently different
> > from the others! after witnessing unprovoked officers of the law brutillizing
> > unprotected people, officers who will never be brought to justice, people who
> > may suffer permanent damage... can we still believe that in our country human
> > rights are somehow protected?
> >
> > if people are arrested and beaten in the jails, and all that interests the
> > government is the pr, how far away are we from "disappearances"?
> >
> > wake up and smell the stench of the government. as long as the masses don't
> > know, they do what they choose.
> >
> > and where's the media in all of this? busy watching a few people break
> > windows.
> >
> > i recently read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", describing the horrors of
> > industrial giants' complete disregard for anything but profit, and the
> > horrible resulting squalor of the workers' lives. one hundred years later, we
> > feel that real progress has been made. meanwhile the industrial giants are
> > there, working hard for a great leap backwards.
> >
> > on this optimistic note, i highly recommend to you howard zin's "a people's
> > history of the US" and "you can't stay neutral on a moving train", also by zin.
> >
> > as long as people care and are willing to sacrifice, i believe things can
> > change in the right direction.
> >
> > hats off to the three who came and spoke to us last night, and to all the
> > thousands who were with them.
> >
> > karen
