The analogy is deeply flawed. In the olden days, national governments stoked nationalist feelings against near-peers in the capitalist world. That's not happening now at all; the guys in charge are campaigning for a world without borders, as far as trade and capital mobility go. National sovereignty is subordinated to the New World Order., though some are more equal than others in this setting.
The main thrust of the progressive critique of free trade is not industrial or sectoral in the narrow sense. It is broadly supportive of domestic manufacturing and international labor standards. Labor organizations in other countries support such standards, since they begin with the simple yet fragile premise of the right to organize. The basic thrust of US/EU labor's trade stance is progressive in the most basic sense, as far as workers in other countries are concerned. There is no chauvinism issue in this context.
> The emphasis should be on bringing foreign workers' working conditions up,
> not on defending native working conditions no matter the cost. The . . .
mbs: Not good. Who in the U.S. would rally to this, other than a gaggle of leftists?
> propagandists for corporate America love to define the debate as one
between
> their version of free trade and the jingoistic protectionism and
> isolationism of Pat Buchanan. If they want to make the world one economy,
> then it will truly become one society and we'll have the beast in plain
> sight - one enemy to deal with, as it were.
>
> Here's a conservative Englishman who's against joining Europe:
> "After years when the opponents of the cultural revolution have fought
their
> little isolated skirmishes and lost them, here at last is a full-scale
> battle against a recognisable threat to our entire way of life. It is as
if
> the conservative elements in society have been hacking at a fogbank with
> blunt cutlasses, to all appearances attacking an imagined foe. Suddenly
the
> fog lifts, and the great scaly monster of national abolition is revealed
in
> all its ugly menace.'"
>
> If they succeed in making the world one economy and one society, the fog
> will lift and the great scaly monster of Capital will be revealed in all
its
> ugly menace.
The second need not follow from the first, nor the rest.
The fundamental principle ought to be to prevent employers from maintaining a labor market where workers must compete against each other and have no practical means of exit. Every island of higher-than-average labor standards (manufacturing, the public sector, etc.) should be defended, the better to pull the rest up.
Levelling down by acquiescing in attacks on the 'peaks' promotes a wholesale deterioration of workers' standard of living.
The fact that areas of superior labor standards are to an important extent correlated with national boundaries is no reason to relax in defense of working class living standards. If workers are striking a company, we do not support scabs because the latter are in more dire economic straits, or because some workers want to be scabs.
Workers in other countries -- and their own organizations -- understand this. Why shouldn't we?
mbs