What Should Reshape the Globe Trades

the Law of Oppression Proliferating.

（ extracted form the He Yufeng’ work: Power, Ethics and

Econoics）

Author： He Yufeng 何钰烽

Adam Smith believed that every animal must rely on efforts by

itself to survive, and it need to know how to protect itself, he
also believed that only human could exchange something each
other. Nevertheless, modern ecologists proved that animals also
have abilities to exchange something. In America, where lives a
kind of blood sucking bats (vampire bat), they food on sucking
other animal’s blood. If a bat has not sucked blood more than 60
hours, it would die. So some mutual mechanism exist in the
communities of these blood sucking bats. If a bat sucked a large
meal of blood, it would spit out some blood to feeding its hungry
mates, despite of they are no relations at all. Nevertheless,
ecologists found that there were following strict rules in the
game, bats would not feed members who just did free ride but did
not reward at all. Obviously, it is a mutual mechanism in nature.
the magazine primate, 2005, it had recorded a exchange action in
a community of chimpanzees. An other well known exchange action
in chimpanzees is that males use foods changing mating
opportunities with females.

Anthropologists and archaeologists argued that human had begun to

exchange something with each other from the Stone Age, and
primitives had exchange they stone tools at long-distance. In
Lauriston Sharp’s article Steel Axes for Stone–Age Australians,
he narrated exchanges in primitive society. When colonists had
arrived Australia first time, aborigines called Yir Yoront had
been the Stone Age still, they subsisted by hunting, fishing, and
gathering. Stone axe was the most important tool in their
community, and it also played important roles in local social
relations ， it also was highly valued property. Women used it for
firewood harvesting, felling of trees and collect wild fruit, men
used it for hunting and fishing, some times used it for Split
wild honeycomb which was inside tree. Stone axes belonged to men,
but men could lend it to women, it was the unique power of men.
Yir Yoront lived in a broad alluvial plain near north coast of
Australia, but the raw stone which used to make stone axe is more
than 400 miles away. If Yir Yoront people wanted to make stone
axes by themselves, it was a hard work. Fortunately, they needn’t
do it, they could get stone axes by exchanging with other tribes.
Spears made from stingray spines were the major export, while
stone from tribes to the south for stone axe heads was the major
import. The tribes which lived nearby Yir Yoront also did not
make stone axes by themselves they just middleman of the trade
circulations. However, when Western missionaries brought steel
axes to the aborigines in Australia, local societies were greatly
impacted by these steel axes. Steel axe performed great advantage
than stone axe which aborigine used before, but steel axe were
very expansive, Yir Yoront men bothered day after day. If any
one who could give a steel axe to Yir Yoront man, the man would
rather let his wife to make love to the one.

What is the definition of commodity? In Karl Marx’s capital (Das

Kapital) he mentioned that: “A commodity is, in the first place,
an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies
human wants of some sort or another”. As neo-classic economics
definition, commodity is anything which could be exchanged for
satisfying human wants. Karl Marx argued that the essential
attribute of commodity is labor. However in realities, lot of
commodities are not the exchange about labor-productions, for
example, a businessman want to bribe a officer for some
commercial interest, this exchange at least not concern any labor
factors for the officer who involved in. behaviors of exchange
are so complicated and diversified. In the Chinese classic
ZhuangZi has an allegory about exchanging which showed the huge
diversities between exchanges.

Once upon time, there were a family living in Song state(a seigneur existed in 11
centuries BC – 286 BC), the family had subsisted their lives for generations by dying
and tanning, they made a sort of medicine which preventing crack of skin. A
merchant had known that, he bid five hundred golden coins for the formula of
preventing crack. Senior of the family gathered all members to discuss that, they
argued that: we worked for generations just for several golden coins, now, one could
offer five hundred for the formula in one day, that is several times than we have
gotten before. Finally, they decided to sell it to the merchant. Subsequently, the
merchant devoted the formula to the king of Wu (a seigneur existed in 11 centuries
BC – 473 BC). At that time, in winters, Wu state was warring against Yue state. By
the advance of the formula, soldiers could prevent crack in the float battles, and
they won the war. The king of Wu constituted the merchant as a feudal lord of a
land. Both the family and merchant had the ability of prevent crack of skin, family
just protected their hand, and the merchant could became a lord of a land.
ZhuangZi the Free Roam

In this allegory, the family got currency in the exchange,

corresponded, the merchant got powers of lording a land. In the
circulation of exchanges, the power of the patent became the
power of lord a land.

Back to the Yir Yoront case, the man of Yir Yoront who wanted get
a steel axe, was willing to letting his wife making lover with a
stranger. The man temporarily alienated his exclusive power of
mating with his wife. The exclusive power of mating exchanged the
(power of) ownership of commodity in this case. Karl Marx argued
that: As values, all commodities are only definite masses of
congealed labour-time. This viewpoint had been challenged by many
economists. David Ricardo had mentioned that, he could not
resolved such difficulty, why wine which had been stored in
cellars for couples of years cost equally to 100 pounds oak.

Marginalism argued that the value of a commodity is relied on the

subjective evaluation of consumers. If a commodity embodying lot
of labors not be sold in market, it has not any value. But the
marginal utilities for individuals were so different that
marginalism value theory lost its basic function of scales. Like
I mentioned in chapter 1, human brains do not work centrally, he
or she works modularly and parallel. Such architectures of human
mind also limit rational of human behaviors.

Yir Yoront man exchanged steel axe with the exclusive power of
mating with his wife. There are not labour in Yir Yoront side at
all. The value of steel axe constituted of the power of mine
exploitation, labour, the cost of long distance transportations,
tax, and so on, but the cost of Yir Yoront was almost none. And
the desire of merchant who wanted to mating with the man’s wife
probably was involved by the Yir Yoront man self. What is the
essential fact of the commodity exchange? It is power. All
exchanges in human societies are Human power in the abstract. In
the steel axe case, the power of making love with Yir Yoront
man’s wife is equal to the sum of: the power of mine
exploitation, labour, the cost of long distance transportations,
tax, and so on.

Harlotries exist for long time and all over the world, such
unmoral exchanges base on the power of one’s body. To some
extent, the harlotry is similar to the behavior of male
chimpanzee which induce female by foods, that is nature. In
normal circumstance, comparing saleslady who looks mediocre with
beautiful model, there are a gap in wage in same time. That is
because of beautiful girl is less abundant than saleslady. Less
abundant or scarcity is nature of the world, but how to handle it
is a sort of power mechanism. It also is one of the most critical
facts in nature evolutionary competitions. When robbers hijacked
a passerby, they could ask any thing they could find at that
time. That is for robbers controlled the most important power for
passerby, the power of live, so they can ask any thing. In
contemporary societies commodity exchanges are multifarious. In
2007, Guangzhou, china, a special number of License plate of car,
had been sold for 747,000 RMB in public sales. That is exchange
between the power of money and power of scarcity.

Marxian scale of value, labor, do not work for analyzing the

history of land leases and exchanges. In history lands always
were expensive commodities, but who was the first owner of the
lands? It is obvious that the first owner is the conqueror. For
lands exchange in ancient time, the essential thing people
exchanged is power, most exchange is between political ownership
power and money. Power of labor is a sort of power which mean
workers had the power to get reward for his work.

British philosopher Jeremy Bentham had said that, there had not
existed any fortune, until laws came to being. If laws had been
abolished, any fortune would not exist. That happened in the
beginning of the communist china, PRC. It is usually happened in
the alternations of dynasties all over the world.

In a country too, where, though the rich or the owners of large capitals enjoy a good
deal of security, the poor or the owners of small capitals enjoy scarce any, but are
liable, under the pretence of justice, to be pillaged and plundered at any time by the
inferior mandarins, the quantity of stock employed in all the different branches of
business transacted within it can never be equal to what the nature and extent of
that business might admit. In every different branch, the oppression of the poor
must establish the monopoly of the rich, who, by engrossing the whole trade to
themselves, will be able to make very large profits. Twelve per cent accordingly is
said to be the common interest of money in China, and the ordinary profits of stock
must be sufficient to afford this large interest.
1776, Adam Smith: the Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith was right, he evaluated the corrupt society of Qing

dynasty (1644-1911). The rich and powerful man had pillaged the
poor and small capitals in that time. Unfortunately, today in
china, it have been happened still, more unfortunately, it
happened in myself. In 2008, I found that state owned Shanghai
Media Group, SMG, had broadcasted my documents film the Wars of
Qing Dynasty all over the china, but as a result they did pay any
for that criminal behaviors. Government, police, and
bureaucracies refused to do any thing for that. There are also
existing exchanges that state owned TV could broadcast illegal
programs without caring about any punishments, as rewards TV will
do some propaganda which proved the legalization of the rule of
communist party. Of cause, it also happened on Hollywood and HK
film producers. Other wards, state run TV stations in china are
authorized to pillage film producers all over the world in
disguise.

Back to the property of commodity, the essential exchange is

based on the powers. Now, I could give the conclusion: the
commodity essentially is the power which could be exchanged. The exchange
of commodity is the exchange of power. The familiar Marxian theory of
labor value is the exchange of the same power of labor in fact.
If one charge his lens for a second hands video camera to an
other, in this exchange they exchanged the commodities’ ownership
of each other. If a beekeeper charge a jar of honey for barber to
cut his hair, in this case, the beekeeper alienate the ownership
of honey, that exchange the server of barber that is a sort of
power of labor.

If the barber works in the open air, this exchange also could be
analyzed by the theory of labor value. But if the barber works
indoor, the exchange become complicated immediately. The rent and
such like electricity fee and water fee become main costs of the
barber.

Beekeeper’s ownership of his work + scarcity of honey in local + other cost of

tools = barber’s ownership of his work + landlord of barber’s ownership of
the land and house + the ownership of power firms + monopoly power of
electricity + other cost of tools

This equation shows that exchange is complicated by various forms

of powers, but not the power of labor only.

Exchange of commodity is often involved by productivity,

scarcity, production relation, ethics of distribution, trading
circumstance, and so on. The common property of these elements
about exchange is that they are power.

In a interesting Hollywood movie, The Shawshank Redemption, it

has a remarkable story inside the movie. The head of the
Shawshank State Prison, he exploited the prisoner’s free labor
for his own profit. He undertook building jobs by low cost of
labor, that caused lot of building contractor lost their jobs,
for keeping their jobs, they had to bribe the head of prison
for his retreating in some biddings. Why the free labor in
this case harmed the society instead of benefit it?

In reality, it is usual that same production with deferent

price in the market. In lot of case, the deference of the
price not from the deference of power which owned by the
workers. For example, assumption that there are two firms A &
B, which manufacturing same product, the workers of two firms
had same wages of week. Workers in firm A works 10 hours a
day, and 6 days a week. Worker of firm B works 8 hours a day,
and 5 days a week. Both firm have same productivity. As a
result the firm A product’s price should be at least 30% off
than firm B, firm B would retreat from the market by the
competition. In such case, free market competition eliminated
the health, and transformed the competition of managing to the
oppression of workers. Such phenomenon should be formed by the
oppression of power. I should argue that it is the Law of
Oppression Proliferating. It means that in the free trade network, by the
exchange of commodity, oppression would proliferate all over the
network. And if there are no any political intervention, the oppressive
relation of labor should be the main relation of labor.

According to this law, in the film of The Shawshank

Redemption, the prisoner who worked as free labor made the
normal work lost their job or working opportunities. Most of
workers can not work at totally free, so the only way building
contractor nearby could exist is bribing the head of prison,
letting him retreating form the market. But the cost of
bribing finally would shift burden on workers.

The most oppressive relation of labor is slavery. Slavery in

ancient cultures was known to occur in civilizations as old as
Sumer, and it was found in every civilization. Classic economists
had an observation, it is that slavery becomes more desirable for
land owners when land is abundant but labor is not, so paid
workers can demand high wages. If labor is abundant but land is
scarce, then it becomes more costly for the land owners to have
guards for the slaves than to employ paid workers who can only
demand low wages due to the competition. But in the history,
abolishing of slavery had not been caused by the economic
transformation, in fact, it had been caused by the political
movements and wars.

One of the most famous war of abolishing slavery is the American

civil war (1861-1865). As the traditional historians and
economists believed that American south slave agriculture was
inefficient and unprofitable compared with the free agriculture
in north, and slavery had already been a moribund institution
before the Civil War. The profit of slave mainly came form the
rearing and trading of slave. However, more and more economic
historians proved that it is wrong.

In 1974, Robert Fogel and Stanly Engerman had co-written a famous

work the Cross Time, in the book, they argued that on purely
economic grounds, slavery was not unprofitable or inefficient or
a moribund institution. They argued that slavery economy is an
efficient and profitable system at that time. By analyzing
history evidences, they revealed that slave owners were not
becoming pessimistic about the future of their system during the
decade that preceded the Civil War. The rise of the secessionist
movement coincided with a wave of optimism. In fact, on the eve
of the Civil War, slaveholders anticipated an era of
unprecedented prosperity.

In fact, the South slaver economy was not an irrational system,

the price of slave also exposed the profitability of slave. Far
from stagnating, the economy of the antebellum South grew quite
rapidly. Between 1840 and 1860, per capita income increased more
rapidly in the south than in the rest of the nation. (Ironically,
such situation is so familiar to china and America today.) By the
source of census of the United States from 1790-1860, the slaves
population in south increased from 648,640 to 3,951,798 (The figures
for 1850 and before are from DeBow, Statistical View of the
United States, p. 85. For 1860, Population of the United States
in1860. The Eighth Census, Washington, 1864), that is six times of
increase. It also proved that the demands of slave had been brisk. Fogel
and Engerman report the results of an extensive method to compare
the efficiencies of free-labor farms, north and south, with
slave-labor plantations in the Old South and the New South.
According to their conclusions, Slave-labor farms were 28 percent
more productive than southern free-labor farms and 40 percent
more productive than northern free-labor farms. The slave-based
agriculture of the New South was 29 percent more productive for
equal inputs than slave-based agriculture in the Old South. The
free-labor farms of the Old South equaled the productivity of the
free-labor farms of the North. The slave-based agriculture of the
Old South were 19 percent more productive than the free-labor
farms of the North and the slave-based agriculture of the New
South were 53 percent more productive than northern free-labor
agriculture.

In a domestic market network, in antebellum South, the efficiency

of slaver owned plantation had the absolutely advantage comparing
to North free labor plantation. If a firm’s efficiency is 30
percent more than its competitions, most of competitions would be
wash out in the market. In domestic agriculture market, same
weight farm products also sold with same or similar price, with
the 53 percent advantage, South slave owned plantations also
pressed north farmers and landlords to an extremely difficulty
plight. This situation similar to the story of the movie The
Shawshank Redemption. Assuming that North and South planted a
same kind of farm product, North farm workers have to decline
their salaries to just offer their lives, if slaves worked 7
days a week the farm workers have to follow it, and most of
north plantation would be close down. That is why some case
showed that south slaves lived better even than north free
labor workers. In reality, with the increase of slave
population, south slave owned economy impacted north free
labor economy greatly, and caused north agriculture
progressively difficulty. Therefore, as time went on, at a
tuning point of time in North, the voice of abolishing slavery
exceeded the moral confines, at that time, abolishment is the
combination of moral and interest, so it became necessity. As
we know, the American Civil War, beginning in 1861, led to the
end of chattel slavery in the United States.
Comparing the slave labor in south and free labor in north, it
revealed that the oppression of slaves in the south had
transformed to the free laborers in north by the free market
network. It is a perfect instance that proved the Law of
Oppression Proliferating which I mentioned above.

September 17th, 2004, Elche is the capital of Spain's footwear

industry and has been hard hit by Chinese competition. Some
protesters held banners reading "Chinese out" - others smashed
windows. Before that, the protest took a more menacing turn when
two Chinese-owned warehouses and a lorry belonging to a Chinese
entrepreneur were set on fire. And several had been arrested.
Many Spanish manufacturers blame their current crisis on cheap
Asian imports.

In Elche local shoes industry once had been 600 manufacturers.

When Spain had begun to import Chinese footwear in 1998, till
2003, they had imported 61.9 million pairs of shoes for that
year. As the Spanish population is 39 million, in average per
capita had bought 1.58 pairs of shoe which made in china. In
local market Chinese shoes had been sold at the average prices of
5€, and it also profitable, but shoes which in local manufactured
cost 8€ in average. In the retail market, shoes which made in
Spain cost 3-8 times than shoes which made in china. It is
obvious that most of local footwear manufacturers could not
compete with Chinese footwear manufacturers. At that time, lots
of footwear factories had been closed down, at least 30 percent
workers in this business lost their jobs. By the much higher
efficient of per capital Chinese footwear industry evicted many
Spanish competitors out of the market. From 1998 till 2003, just
for five years, Chinese footwear manufacturers had occupied a
great share of local footwear market. Facing the extreme upheaval
in the footwear market, local footwear manufacturers had been at
a loss for any valid replies. In that unfortunate violent
incident, Spanish footwear workers had mistaken the critical
issues and attacking at a wrong target. That action liked the
free-labor to attack sad slavers in the American 140 years ago.
In fact, in this case not Chinese footwear workers deprived
Spanish footwear workers’ jobs, but the unfair globe trade
orders. That also is the results of the Law of Oppression
Proliferating.

Comparing the oppression which Chinese footwear workers suffered,

it is easy to figure out what caused the unemployed in Spanish
workers. As we know, Chinese footwear workers have to be working
at least 10 hours a day and 6 days a week, they usually have not
any insurances and welfares, they could be fired at any time
without any compensations. Even more they worked in the poisonous
and fatal environments without any protections, footwear workers
are being exposed to high levels of benzene, toluene, and other
toxic solvents contained in the adhesives used in the shoe-making
process. Their fates filled with blood ad tears. They have not
the right to organize their own union. Despite there are little
improvement in some globe footwear firms, such like Nike, Adidas,
Puma, but most of footwear laborers are working at sad situation.
In fact, modern legal definitions of freedom of association, the
right to collective bargaining and the right to strike do not
appear in Spanish legislation until the Constitution of 1978.
Recent years, employment in Spain is highly regulated, with the
main purpose to protect an employee's rights. The regulations are
complex: jobs are grouped into categories, and each category has
a different set of regulations. It’s important both as an
employer or employee to be aware of the different types of work
contracts, holiday entitlement and social security requirements
when considering the options of working in Spain.

When china and Spain have begun to trade each other freely, the
Low of Oppression Proliferating has worked at same time. Spanish
footwear workers lost their job, it also a king of oppression.
China became a “workshop of the world”, it has not any accident,
because china had the one of the lowest labor protection
environment in the world and greatest labor supply in the world.
If Chinese footwear workers could have the same right which
Spanish footwear workers own, shoes which made in china would be
more cost, therefore, the impact of the Chinese shoes would be
much more mild, and the taxes of importing could control it.

The World Trade Organization, WTO, it play the most important

role in the present world. But in the organization’s treaties
have not contained any important protector labor rules in its
framework agreements up to present. Once time in November 1999,
Seattle, U.S. President Clinton and others developed countries
chiefs suggested that the WTO include core labor rights and
sanctions and so forth if these were violated. many developing
countries (such like china)saw this as a protectionism vehicles
and that it would be too costly for the poorer nations to be able
to afford such dramatic changes given the poverty and dependency
they are in. at same time, labor right is also an issue of human
right, labor right include the right to collective bargaining and
the right to strike, this related to domestic polities closely,
especially those rights have been deemed to challenge the power
of governments in some totalitarian regimes. More powerful
opponents are the capital forces in developed countries, they
also describe labor rights treaties as a protectionism vehicles.

Moreover, precisely because third world workers are terribly exploited, their
employers will pass on much of the cost of improvements in labor standards achieved
through international trade treaties to their employees in the form of lower wages.
Robin Hahnel

After 1999 Seattle ministerial meeting, subsequent G. W. Bush

administration had not insisted to adding labor rights demands in
WTO treaties. Some NGOs have played more and more important role
in the labor right protections. SAI, Social Accountability
International, is an international non-profit human rights
organization dedicated to the ethical treatment of workers around
the world. SAI’s social standard, called SA8000, functions as a
highly effective and expedient system for delivering improved
social performance to businesses and their supply chain
facilities.

It is pity that labor right standard could not became a part of

world trade treaties. SA8000 standard adopted by some companies,
but because of it had not supported by governments, its effects
have been limited seriously. SA8000 could not instead the
constitution of labor right which will be legislated by United
Nations. It is one of the most important missions for the world
trade order and for the every laborer all around the world. I
would like to forecast that the Labor right constitution of
United Nation will reshape the world trade order far-reaching.

In a free trade network, people want to avoid their power (right)

being oppressed and exploited, they must concern every trade
partners in the network. As I mentioned above, exchange of
commodity is the exchange of power, so other’s power are highly
related to everyone in the network. Inequality of power
inevitably cause Inequality of commodity exchange. Others like
monopolization and protectionism are also a king of inequality.