Economic Nationalism (jim o'connor)

Gary Bramstedt gbfoto at
Tue Jan 4 10:12:28 PST 2000

Max Sawicky wrote:

> U.S. economic nationalism equals U.S. imperialism?
> Any argument?
> Jim O'Connor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Oh, tons.
> For instance, if workers demand that 'their' plant stay
> in Michigan, rather than move to Mexico, that could be
> painted as economic nationalism. Similarly, rejecting
> imports that compete with domestic production.
> Nationalism in this sense seems to be a shield that
> workers use in an effort to advance their struggles.
> We might prefer them to strike out more boldly, but
> it's not simply our decision to make, obviously
> enough.
> By contrast, imperialism seems to be about the use
> of force in other countries to capture resources,
> control markets, despoil the environment, or even
> advance domestic political concerns (i.e., start
> bombing Iraq at a critical moment in the
> impeachment proceedings).
> What does the first have to do with the second?
> cheers,
> mbs

I agree with Jim; "workers demand that 'their' plant stay" is a hypothetical construct that hasn't materialized in any form that I can recall in America in my lifetime. Aren't there more overlaps between "US economic nationalism and US imperialism" than differences?

glb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20000104/012baaf9/attachment.htm>

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list