>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 09/27/99 04:12PM >>>
CB:
. . . There is no threat of war between the old European interimperialist
rivals, as was a very important aspect of Lenin's analysis and era. . . .
mbs: I think this is a key point, which incidentally can be turned up w/o benefit of Leninist analysis.
(((((((((
Charles: To ignore Lenin's originating the analysis is a sort of plagarism, but of course, comrade Lenin didn't try to copyright his intellectual property. The issue of failing to credit Lenin is an expression of anti-communism, and , obviously, anti-Leninism. You might say "so what?" To me it is important because it demonstrates the scientific validity of Leninism , contra the bourgeois propaganda that Leninism is "ideology".
I believe the rest of Max's post is intended to agree with what I said, no ?
CB
((((((((((((((
>>>
. . .
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
>>>
mbs: Here are two important facts that intrinsically militate against chauvinist trends.
The first that U.S. workers, like all others, need all the help they can get; chauvinism is not practical politics. Buchanan is the purest expression of chauvinist 'national capital,' but for all his huffing and puffing, he has never put forward much in the way of economic remedies for the worker except his own take on trade policy. Otherwise he's an economic conservative, not a populist. If he started supporting strikes and labor measures, I'd start to worry. For one reason or another, he has eschewed most pro-labor policies (unlike LePen, for instance, who fully supports the French welfare state, as long as it's for white people). This is fortunate because they escape being branded with his image, the way trade policy is being so defined.
The second is that domestic content or buy American are increasingly meaningless slogans, given the global division of labor. The national identity of the boss becomes less meaningful on the same account.
Tariffs were never much of a threat in U.S. trade policy, from where I sit. The basic focuses seem to be two: standards for labor (right to organize, minimum wage, health & safety) and the environment as part of trade regimes, and discretionary action against unfair trade practices. These are clearly subject to abuse -- like most any other policy -- but there are also excellent cases for them. Why the higher bar for these policies subsumed in the blanket indictment of so-called "protectionism"? The Gov is about to fund the construction of an umbrella to protect the U.S. against missiles from god knows where; how much scrutiny do you think that receives from the neo-liberal elite, relative to some modest trade measures?
We've heard about the socialism/nationalism of fools. More to the point is that free trade ideology is the freedom of Capital. Sort of like the little old lady who spoke at the Reform Party convention (she had been doing a walk across the U.S. on behalf of campaign finance reform). She made a speech which began something like, "I'm here to reject the principle that money is speech and corporations are persons."
mbs