re Seattle
>I would say that by and large the dominant theme expressed by the unions
>was internationalist. Some, especially my union the steelworkers go even
>farther. George Becker, the president of the USWA, basically told us at a
>pre-WTO protest meeting, that he doesn't see anyway to fix the WTO because
>it is the tool of the banks and the transnational corporations to divide
>and exploit the world. The USWA also called a conference on building
>international trade union solidarity during the seek in Seattle. It
>included unionists from Africa, Latin and South America, Asia and the
>pacific rim. Yet the steelworkers are one of those most accused of
>protectionism - and to a degree this is also their stance, though I would
>not cynically suggest protectionism as their main issue as some do. In fact
>many honest union leaders are trying to grapple with these question without
>the benefit of Marxism.
>ps. I'm not sure what is acceptable to post here, but I've written a piece
>on what happened in Seattle for Political Affairs that I would be glad to
>post if folks are interested. Its more feature than analysis, but might be
>of interest to some who weren't there.
Unless Doug warns you off, which I cannot imagine in this context, please post here.
I do not think any one organization can allow itself to be set up to claim all the answers, but a deeper analysis of the possibilities at Seattle would be useful.
Your para above pinpoints the dilemma of how US trade unionists can protect jobs while also being internationalist. Certainly difficult without marxism, but also difficult without a radical policy of reforms.
Schweickart has proposed what he calls "socialist protectionism" - a policy of tariffs to protect high labour cost jobs with the funds essentially hypothecated to go back to the developing countries.
What the trade unions in the developed countries need to grasp is that there must be mechanisms systematically to transfer wealth back to the periphery of the capitalist world, and not out of patronising charity. If that is part of a bargain that protects the workers of developed countries from chaotic job losses, that looks like a good internationalist bargain.
Any hints that any of the unions or their research departments are imaginative enough to investigate this, because a stance that the WTO is just unreformable seems to me to let global capitalism off the hook?
Anyway, yes, why not forward the analytical article even if it does not cover this point?
Chris Burford
London