>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.
Not at all. What I'm objecting to is the almost single-minded focus on trade and "globalization." The UAW finds it a lot easier to talk about Mexico than it does about nonunion parts plants in Ohio. All this focus on the MAI and WTO by NGOs is conducted in such analytical isolation from markets in general - so much so that you have Nader et al bellyaching about monopoly and insufficient competition.
>Try listening to the workers on this one, why dontcha?
An old Pew Center poll showed that rank & file union members were much less opposed to NAFTA than were their leaders. Unfortunately I can't find it now or I'd cite chapter & verse.
As for the workers, the U.S. working class is a very complicated formation; I think lots of people in these debates are still operating with an unstated assumption that "worker" = brawny white male autoworker. Also, Max, I think you underestimate the solidarity potential of the rank-and-file worker - first, out of self-interest (raising "their" wages means less competition for "us"), and second out of real sympathy. When Charlie Kernaghan took some young Guatemalan sweatshop workers on a tour of the U.S. heartland, they were very warmly received. Problem is there aren't many people like Charlie in organized labor.
Doug