Yes
> and government policy, among other means.
What could this be in the case of the US but some sort of nationalist
measure which has divisive implications when supported by workers in the US?
>
>> 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.
The reality is that given the unfortunate weakness of organised labour, there will be (is) a tendency to encourage reliance on government.
>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.
Cloud cuckoo stuff - for the foreseeable future a real US government will continue to be inimical to worker interests in the US and abroad - your proposal thus merely undermines nascent independent activity by encouraging illusions in government.
Reality is, while I've never seen a labour-influenced American government,
there have been many cases of practical international worker solidarity.
You seem to ignore this option. I know conditions are not good for this now
but it still seems a far more realistic option than your zany notion of
influencing big "capital in general". The meaning of solidarity needs to be
clawed back from current depressing interpretations of the word: elite
pacting, either between trade union leaders and government, NGO hacks
worldwide or the ex-left and the born-again "humanitarian" big powers.
>
>We do NOT need a Gov which
>allows other countries -- particularly Japan and China --
>violate trade rules and agreements with impunity.
This is ultimately dangerous talk - the kind of thing which leads to trade
wars and finally real wars. No matter that it's dressed up here in
pro-organised labour rhetoric.
>
>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.
Max seems to forget that Clinton, Blair, Schroeder & Co are all enlightened humanitarians now and never openly xenophobic (even as they bomb some or other poor scapegoated country). I think US big business interests can easily be pursued via essentially nationalistic campaigns for labour standards harmonisation - all the better for them if it's with the assistance of labour reps.
Russell