It could be trade agreements whereby minimum standards for labor were incorporated. Right to assemble, meet, organize, form unions, strike. Minimum wages. Occupational health/ safety standards. Environmental standards. Do you find that divisive, even if workers on both sides of the border(s) support it? (which they tend to do).
In the realm of finance, it could be capital controls and other measures. See Blecker's latest EPI book. For the other stuff, see Jerry Levinson's paper on our web site, and much other stuff.
RG: > 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.
Defeatism. Also, you can't undermine nascent activity by encouraging a variety of non-nascent activities.
RG: > 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.
mbs: You're behind the curve. "US big business interests" are precisely aligned with internationalist neo-liberalism now. "nationalist campaigns for labour standards harmonisation" is an oxymoron. You need to seek a better grip on actual international solidarity activity going on. You seem to be stuck on a vision of purely industrial/grassroots action that does not sully itself with public policy, lest it foster illusions about what capitalist states will or won't do. But that is not the way actual struggles are taking place.
cheers, mbs
p.s. 'zany' is a good thing.