Clearly not central, but plain enough and wrong.
We should get straight from the outset that "protectionism" is the neo-liberal translation of any infringement on unregulated capital and merchandise flows across national boundaries. Buchanan gives them a chance to paint it in crypto-Nazi colors. BdL plays along with his 'nationalism of fools' reference.
Labor's main thrust is to uphold labor standards. Obviously there is self-interest involved. But this is good for foreign workers too, and they know that. Specific unions are naturally interested in sectoral measures that they hope would benefit them directly, but this is a secondary focus.
Up till now, labor and elements of the Right have combined to disrupt so-called free trade measures. The real test will come with the opportunity to construct positive trade agreements. We're not there yet. Rhetoric on the right about the New World Order and to some extent from some liberals (i.e., Nader) go against the principle of any trade agreements, or any international standards for commerce. So there is a fundamental difference between left and right on trade, in economic terms alone. The chauvinism and immigration just add fuel to this fire. There is no chance of any sustained alliance between labor and 'fractions of capital.' It is purely tactical, and can never be more than that.
"Buy American" is a straw man; nobody's talking about that now.
A valid criticism of the trade emphasis is that too much is made of it by labor, as a way of lessening pressure to do more in other, less safe areas.
>>>>JF: . . .
Anyway, as I understand Marx, the point of opposing protectionism
was that its abolition would lead to a more rapid development of
the productive forces, with the consequence that the proletariat
would grow more rapidly in both numbers and power. This would
in turn would lead to an exacerbation of the contradictions between
capital and labor and hence eventually, so Marx hoped to revolution.
I am not sure that Marx's point here is reducible to a simple
immiseration thesis. . . .
>>>>
mbs: all the more reason to discount its current relevance. There's no issue of further development of productive forces or transition from agriculture to industry, as you say later. I hope we don't want to facilitate the transition from manufacturing to services unless we think that the worse things get, the better.
Free trade in its neo-liberal, liberal, or "marxist" variants, is mostly another name for an unfettered market, or really unfettered ownership of capital, since the market-like nature of the result will be highly problematic. If regulating trade is bad, so too should regulating domestic markets. If a minimum wage is bad for Korea, it must be bad for the U.S. Throw in occupational health and safety, environmental regulation, etc. etc. Mix in the nostrum that globalization makes taxation difficult or prohibitively expensive and you're down to the anarchist fantasy of a minimal state.
That's the slippery slope you folks are dancing along.
Try listening to the workers on this one, why dontcha?
mbs