October 02, 2003
Politicians, Exploitation, and War
I received an email regarding a news item I posted elsewhere, entitled Chinese Girl’s Toil Brings Pain, Not Riches. The story reflects inequities between standards in the work force in the U.S. and the plight of Chinese workers. The email claimed we should start making plans for war with China to free those people under that horrible Communist system.
Absent a history of the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. and rise of the super capitalists from the close of the Civil War through to the stock market crash of 1929, it is easy to view the oncoming interaction between the U.S. and China in such black and white simplistic terms as exemplified by the author of that email. Absent an understanding of the cultural and demographic differences between the U.S. and China, it is possible to view China now, and in the future, as a greater threat than the USSR was during the post WWII era. Should a President today, or in the future, fall prey to such ignorance, the world as we know it may be lost.
China has over 1 billion people, more than 3 times the U.S. population. Just a few decades ago, China was largely agricultural with 100's of millions of self sustaining farms and villages. Life expectancy was far lower than in the U.S., life was hard and the monetary system did not even reach the majority of those self sustaining farms. In just 60 years China has come from virtual medieval standards of living into the 20th century. This kind of growth in the U.S. was accomplished through sweatshops in the garment district that spanned decades. Through sharecropping labor that just met subsistence living standards. The U.S. brutalized children in the labor force, breaking their backs and their spirits during the industrial age of the North and in the coal mines of the South.
This history was all part of the transition in the U.S. from an agriculturally based economy to an industrial based economy. Such a history of industrialization was not unique to America. Great Britain and most of the modern free European nations on the west side of the iron curtain experienced similar exploitation of the work force in their transition to an industrial economy.
While it is heartbreaking to read of child labor in China especially through the eyes of a young girl, we must not forget that our own prosperity and burgeoning middle class with comfortable 41.2 hour work weeks and two cars, home, DVD players and PC's, resulted from moving the agricultural workers into industrial jobs and using labor as a cheap consumable to grow the capitalist enterprises that would employ ever more and more farm workers in the cities. It is just such a transition that is taking place in China but at an accelerated rate, since, they have almost a magnitude of order more people to move from the farm into productive industrial and technological positions than the U.S. had during its industrial growth period.
China has no other option but to make this transition from agricultural to industrial/technological economy. Millions of Chinese were starving a little more than a decade ago. China faced another revolution and civil war had it not laid plans to move the people in China into the 21st century with all of the benefits that a modern economy can offer. The people of China are demanding more freedom, more prosperity, and more security. China's government has made believers of its people and for the most part, the people have faith and trust in their government to guide their nation into the 21st Century world marketplace. It is difficult, but, the Chinese people are seeing more democracy in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore. And more democracy is promised. They are seeing more jobs and money is becoming common place even in many rural villages.
It is a mistake, a very great and grave mistake, for Americans to superimpose their current worker and work place values on China as it experiences the same transition today that the U.S. has now placed deep in its history books. There is no question, that current trade imbalances between the U.S. and many nations undergoing this transition from agriculture to industrial and technological economies are hurting the job growth in America and forcing the U.S. to give up its hold on manufacturing for the world marketplace. To politicize and base foreign policy on the negative trade imbalances in America is easy game for politicians. It is seductively easy for politicians to use the trade imbalances as a means of creating the illusion of predatorial third world nations and painting American workers as victims. Such an illusion will not however lead to any solution for American workers. The third world’s only resource to enter the global marketplace and the 21st Century is cheap labor. They must exploit it or cease to exist economically.
Further, if such an illusion is used to create a hostile foreign policy toward China, which has a well developed nuclear arsenal and is eyeing military objectives in space, a new era of nuclear brinkmanship will inevitably result; one which the world may not survive. Americans must make intelligent choices at the ballot box in November of 2004 and beyond. And American political leaders must yield manufacturing to other growing countries since, we can no longer be competitive in that arena. The U.S. must make its own transition from manufacturing to technology, innovation, and services which can be marketed globally.
It is one thing for the American people to elect political pundits who have no experience in government or Hollywood stars with lots of money to be Governor of California. The world will survive a poor choice there. It is quite another issue should the American people so cavalierly vote in a President with a similar lack of credentials. The world, including the U.S., may not survive it.
Posted by David R. Remer at October 2, 2003 03:00 AMDavid,
Your “Feature Article” is very interesting. I note the gigantic Anti-American tone of your writing:
The U.S. brutalized children in the labor force, breaking their backs and their spirits during the industrial age of the North and in the coal mines of the South.
If hard work, to you, means a broken back and a broken spirit, then I don’t know what to say. But the transition in this country, in my humble opinion, not only did not break the backs and spirits of this country’s elderly, it was the very glue that held them together and gave them a sense of “PRIDE” in being a citizen of our great nation. I know my grandfather, Peter Mortensen 1918-1991, would turn in his grave if he knew there were people out there saying his back and spirit were broken working in a coal mine in Pennsylvania.
Your demeanor in this posting leads me to believe you probably haven’t had to do manual labor in your life, or your character is remarkably weak if it broke your back and spirit in doing so, either way, your lack of pride in this nation is appalling.
Your entire artice was based on a response to a New York Times (ag. Monkeys Write) article which is famous for over-dramatization of the evidence and spinning thusly to the liberal agenda.
I laughed when you linked to a Christian Science Monitor website (Christianity without the morals, ethics, or responsibility) that spent two sentences talking about China’s Purchase agreement for Satellite Technology that would allow them to better coordinate their Military, when the whole article was about their fervent desire to join the elite club of countries that have put a man into space. This because it would solidify “National Pride.” Something left-wing radiclas do not have. It was a nice attempt at spinning the fact that China has a large Nuclear Arsenal and that they are working diligently to have an effective space-program.
—> Therefore we should all pee our pants if we don’t elect a president in 2004 who will do everything within their power to stroke the budding Communist Regime, lest we be rained down upon by China’s Significant Nuclear Arsenal.
Nice grandstanding.
I am so sick of the phrase “anti-American”
Then again, Yukon, you remind me why I hate conservative thinking.
Your post is pro-child labor, anti-organized labor and goes on to define what you think Christianity is (or isn’t).
Do you have any undertanding, at all, of American history, its values and principles?
Wait a minute… isn’t stroking commies what Reagan is lauded for doing?
Posted by: StainedBlueDress at October 2, 2003 06:19 PMYukon,
You hit a topic where I get to call your bluff. I, too, come from a coal mining family. Anthracite coal. Pennsylvania.
Apparently, you haven’t studied the history of anthracite miners.
You wrote,”I know my grandfather, Peter Mortensen 1918-1991, would turn in his grave if he knew there were people out there saying his back and spirit were broken working in a coal mine in Pennsylvania. “
Yes, I am sure he would.
Why?
Because he had all the union benefits of better working conditions that were won between 1880 and 1910 in the PA coal mines.
The breaker boys, child laborers sent to pick coal, the early teens in the shafts, the endless work days… all that back-breaking, spirit-breaking hardship was beaten down by true Americans with the guts to fight corporate control.
Your grandfather surely worked hard, and was part of a proud group of men, but don’t for once lose sight of the fight our forefathers made in those hills to earn him what he and the others of his age group had.
Go read about the Molly Maguires and tell me what you think life was like for mining towns before unions.
If the mines weren’t unionized and if the corporations hadn’t been beaten back, it would be a much different country. Much worse.
SBD
Posted by: StainedBlueDress at October 2, 2003 06:24 PMYukon Jake, what you call anti-American is American history. My piece was written to be very pro-American and very pro future America. I have a 12 year old daughter whose future in this country is of great concern to her and her parents. My article is about insuring a continued and great America for her and 100’s of millions of future Americans long after I am gone.
If you fail to see that, I understand.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2003 06:41 PMStained Blue Dress,
While you have a valid point regarding the unions that I, after having read up, was unaware of which my grandfather was a part (thank you for the family education) that idea that I or my post was pro-child labor. That’s ridiculous.
To David,
I, too, have a daughter, and I, too, worry for her future in this country. After having a chance to walk away from your article and come back, I can see how your worry for our future manifests itself and is not necessarily so “Anti-American.”
Part of the fuel for this blog and I think all debate is the “listening” or in this case “reading” from which everyone engages debate.
I am a conservative, not because I so much identify with Republicans, but becaquse I really think the democratic philosophy is tragically flawed. Most every point from socialized medicine to affirmative action (SBD thinks I’m racist now) to welfare to you name it, I believe has done this country a gigantic disservice.
Part of “my” listening for liberal ideas, includes guilt, or white guilt, or any other thing that I “OWE” someone because someone before me screwed up a policy, or was a biggot, or whatever. Your article started out line- iteming the horrors of our past and while it’s important to learn from the past, rubbing our noses in it and saying “see what we did,” makes me sick, and gets us nowhere as a country. So I spent the rest of my reading picking liberal idioms in which to poke holes.
You said one thing that I agree with, and that is that Americans must make wise decisions in the 2004 Ballot Box. While I consider Mr. Bush to be doing a poor job (not in Iraq - just in never speaking to the American People - for God’s sake throw us a bone) I consider the possibility of some of the Democratic Agenda coming to fruition in the next 4 years to be far more ominous.
Points taken and points given.
-Jake
Posted by: Yukon Jake at October 2, 2003 07:38 PMYokon Jake, appreciate your reply. It was thoughtful and focused on communication and I have always preferred two way streets. Thanks. If we both have children, our concerns and hopes are likely very much alike. That is a bridge I hope members from all persuasions can cross.
The way I see it, human societies have achieved such rapidly changing dynamic structures to live in that no single philosophy, ideology, or answer can have a shelf life of more than a generation. This poses serious challenges to societies since generations intersect and coexist within a moment in time.
Example, Reagan faced an economy heading for the rocks. He and Congress chose to increase debt and deficits to stimulate the economy. It worked. Decades later, high interest rates low investments and consumer demand were the issues of the day. Reducing debt, constraining spending and raising wages were called for. It worked and Clinton and Congress were pleased. Now we are faced with a new scenario unlike the previous ones with slow growth, stagnant job growth, high deficits and debt and virtually no inflation. A new answer is required.
Sticking to a single ideology or philosophy on economics is doomed to fail. They are all built on a set of assumptions and criteria at a focal point of history. The human society is inventing new scenarios all the time and flexibility and adaptability in our models of understanding and our ideologies and philosophies are required to meet these new and challenging conditions. My despair comes from seeing such adherence by American voters to conservativism, liberalism as solutions or apathy which concedes there is no solution.
We need to drive our nation like a defensive driver who constantly looks ahead and takes small movements now to avoid large obstacles down the road or threats that could suddenly appear at the next intersection. Sticking to a republican or democrat emblem, sticking to conservative or liberal ideas, sticking to supply side or demand side explanations of economy seriously impede our ability to flexibly adjust our driving according to the road conditions both immediate and further ahead.
It is not enough anymore to register as a Democrat or Republican and vote the party line. Americans, I believe, are going to have to start thinking out of the box; that goes for politicians and voters alike. If we don’t we aren’t going to meet to be prepared for China’s GDP growth, or the social upheaval that is underway in reaction to rapidly declining environmental conditions, or the interdependence of national economies and financial institutions. Not to mention the asteroid that could be discovered in the next 12 years bearing down on us all.
Dialogue, learning, questioning, experimenting, challenging the status quo, and using logic and reason and common sense as a measure of concensus is what I hope for and what our daughter’s future’s rest upon, in my view.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2003 08:25 PM
