>People are antsy about nationalism, and not for bad
>reasons. But a national government is a crucial
>buffer for workers against amoral global capitalism (AGC).
Those of us out in the periphery just have to wonder: since when does that wonderful US government of yours somehow have different interests from "AGC"? Maybe we just don't appreciate all the benefits of the American way.
>Fact is that "internationalism" often devolves to being
>squishy soft on AGC. The idea that trade unions, mythical
>bolshevik formations, or street carnivals will do against
>AGC is a cop-out.
But the US government will do/is different?
>Free movement of people and goods
>is simply laissez-faire by another name. Should striking
>workers allow "free movement" of substitute workers into
>their shops?
No (if they can organise to stop it).
>Should we allow unfettered immigration of
>skilled workers, rather than forcing the Gov to support
>training for the unskilled? Hell no.
Who the hell is "we"? You and Bill Clinton? Your organised workers suddenly include just about every other class interest group (apart that is from your real enemy: foreign skilled workers).
It seems from your argument that while workers are too weak by themselves to ensure that they are not undermined by unorganised elements brought in by the bosses, they amazingly are strong enough to force the US government to protect them. Surely some contradiction here?
Lining up with "your" government seems like a sure recipe for undermining any sort of independent defensive action. Isn't there a long enough history of the failures of patriotic working class organisation? Looks to me like ersatz worker solidarity.
Russell