No subject

Scott Marshall scott at
Mon Jan 3 06:53:35 PST 2000

Chris said: <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.>

Scott replies:

What claptrap! with a small "c" and a smile.

This is not a perscription for struggle with global capitalism. It is not the resposibility of the unions in the developed countries to bail out imperialism, or solve it's problems. It is the Monsantos, the CitiBanks and the like that plunder and force poverty and underdevelopment on the 3rd world. That's where the fire should be aimed.

What the unions do have to do, and what I think they are beginning to try and figure out is: How to place their just demands to protect their jobs and living standards in a framework that builds international class solidarity. As they did in Seattle, they have to say: The corporations are the enemy and we will support your struggle against them in every way we can. The decline of wages and working conditions in the developed countries in no way have helped workers in underdeveloped countries - it has only increased the bottom line of the corporations. Unions advocating paternalistic "concern" is of no value, only joint struggle and class unity can win the day.

And Chris, what is this constant "no single organization has all the answers" stuff - who are you arguing with? I never said that.

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list