MIM NOTES No. 201            January 1, 2000

U.$.-China trade deal bad for Chinese peasants and workers

On November 16, the united $tates and China signed a trade 
agreement which paves the way for China to join the World Trade 
Organization (WTO). The deal lowers Chinese import taxes, 
especially on agricultural products, and allows greater foreign 
ownership in Chinese enterprises. Foreigners can now own up to 50% 
of Chinese telecom companies, for example. The deal also opens 
China's financial markets and banking industry to foreign 
investors.(1)

This agreement will be bad for the majority of Chinese. 
Agricultural prices will fall as a result of an influx of cheap 
Amerikan foodstuffs. This will hurt the rural population, still 
over two thirds of the population. Competition with big, 
imperialist, monopoly capitalist firms will also hurt state-owned 
enterprises, driving unemployment even higher.

Of course, bourgeois economists say that these problems are simply 
growing pains and that competition will force Chinese firms to 
modernize, that foreign investment and know-how are necessary for 
the economy to advance. But they have been saying this about 
capitalist countries in the Third World for decades now but with 
nothing to show for it. Over 14 million children die from 
starvation in the capitalist Asian countries each year.(2)

The Amerika-first bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy are 
speaking out against the trade deal. Pat Buchannan and Republican 
presidential hopefuls like Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes are crying 
crocodile tears over China's "human rights record." (If these 
charlatans were actually concerned about the well being of the 
masses, we might hear them talk about the fact that the united 
$tates imprisons more people per capita than any other country on 
the planet, China included.) These politicians seek to represent 
those Amerikan capitalists who can't compete with China, for 
example, textile and apparel makers in the South.

Labor hacks like AFL-CIO president John Sweeney are speaking out 
against the deal because of the incorrect perception that it will 
cause hordes of Amerikan workers to lose their jobs.(2)

Of course, the pro-"free trade" internationalist bourgeoisie drove 
a hard bargain, and made sure that this deal preserved Amerika's 
competitive advantage. For example, it keeps protectionist 
loopholes in place, by defining China as a "non-market" 
economy.(3)

The restoration of capitalism in China was a boon to the 
imperialists and a bane to the people of China. It has given the 
imperialists a new source of surplus value and a new market to 
dump their overproduced goods. It has taken away important gains 
for the Chinese masses, including guaranteed employment and 
advances in the position of wimmin. Those who put forward 
socialism as a solution to the ills facing humynity must recognize 
that China is no longer socialist and sharply differentiate from 
the current Chinese regime. The current leadership appears to be 
planning for the introduction of Western capitalism a la the 
former USSR. According to Amerikan trade negotiators, Chinese 
premier Zhu Rongji said, "We're not going to get to a market 
economy in five years. In 12 years, I think so."(4)

Notes: 1. L.A. Times, 26 November 1999. 2. Ruth Sivard, World 
Military and Social Expenditures, cited in: MIM Theory 5, p. 54. 
3. L.A. Times, 16 Nov. 1999, p A-1. 4. Economist, 20 November 
1999. 5. L.A. Times, 16 November 1999, p. A-10.