Pertinent to this updating of Lenin ( and Marx's) analysis, the one element in Lenin's definition of imperialism that seems to have turned into its opposite is the fierce inter-imperialist rivalry of the early 20th Century. The Cold War forced the imperialists to unite against socialism. That unity persists after the fall of European socialism. The transnational bourgeoisie now dominate the national bourgeoisie. It is possible to have the transnational bourgeois organs of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, new GATT, even the U.S. Treasury. There is no threat of war between the old European interimperialist rivals, as was a very important aspect of Lenin's analysis and era.
WWII was both an anti-socialist war and an inter-imperialist rivalry war of the old WWI type. After WWII, the imperialists steadily united, negating the interimperialist rivalry.
Without going into a longer dissertatiion on these historical developments, the existence of a much more united and concentrated transnational bourgeois ruling class, even more transnationally centralized than in Lenin's era ( which was more transnationals from Marx's era) , requires a qualitatively new analysis of "free" trade and protectionism.
Although, there are national chauvinist problems with the "Buy American" movement and I didn't support that slogan as a trick bag for American workers, opposition to NAFTA, new GATT, IMF, U.S Treasury neo-liberalism is opposition to the leading bourgeoisie in the world today, the transnationals.
Max gives a good rule of thumb in paying attention to the workers, even if their conclusions are mixed on these issues.
Our "job" is to prove to the American workers that the slogan "workers of the world , unite" is truer than ever, because the bourgeoisie of the world are more united than they were in 1860. The only chance American workers have of stopping "free" trade is to unite with the workers of other countries, not with their "national" (less transnational) bourgeoisie, such as Perot.
Of course, the bourgeoisie help us with that. All the Chrysler signs have been switched to "Daimler-Chrysler" around here. How is buying a Chrysler, buying American ?
Charles Brown
Charles Brown
>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 09/27/99 10:52AM >>>
JH:
>I don't think that 'the worse, the better' is Marx's central point. . .
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