Governments don't have interests so much as reflect them. Presently the US Gov reflects the interests of AGC, as you note. But this is not written in stone, as far as I'm concerned.
> >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?
mbs: *Could* do. Not necessarily 'will' do.
> >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).
mbs: 'Enemy' is your word here. The right terminology is opposition to the use of market forces to reduce labor standards. The objective of organized labor is to forestall this to the extent possible, both through collective action and government policy, among other means.
> 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?
mbs: as above, both industrial action and public policy are tools to be used whenever possible. No reason to confine oneself to one or the other. There is no hierarchy or necessary sequence. Sometimes the labor movement is strong enough to win an industrial fight. Sometimes it is strong enough to win a legislative one.
> 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.
mbs: Equating what I've said with "lining up with [my] government" is a pretty bizarre reading. "My" Gov is lined up with neo-liberalism. A labor-influenced Gov would act differently.
If you think about the problem of explaining a constructive role for the state in upholding living standards against the depredations of AGC, you should realize that such a case has little use for "patriotic" content in the usual, jingoistic sense. What's at stake is not some hollow America the beautiful, but a frame of reference centered on the ability of workers to attain decent living standards without need for direct government aid. (This does not preclude the provision of services which are properly in the public sector, such as health care.) Nor is vilification of foreigners helpful to such a case. We need foreigners as export consumers. And to an extent which should be subject to public regulation, in the interests of the working class, we need imports too. We do NOT need such decisions to be guided by AGC for the purpose of destroying labor standards in the U.S. We do NOT need a Gov which allows other countries -- particularly Japan and China -- violate trade rules and agreements with impunity.
As I've noted before, the logic of a constructive populist approach to trade is for international harmonization of labor standards. This does not go well with xenophobia or prejudice of any sort.
Having gone on about this, I would like to admit that it is possible to over-emphasize trade. Workers need a lot more than fair trade policies, so the 'nationalist' dimension of populism is not the most important feature in my view. More important for the U.S. are monetary and fiscal policy, public investment, and social insurance, all requiring a national government, incidentally. Quite often, free trade liberals are also prone to superstitions about "independent" central banks, public debt, and bogus crises in social insurance. So there remains a populist difference relative to liberalism and the thinner strains of social-democracy, even if one ignores trade policy. Then there's culture, but it's too late to open that can of worms.
mbs