US nationalism equals US imperialism

[Barbara Laurence]

Max Sawicky asks me to theorize the relationships between "imperialism" as
acts of force and violence abroad and labor struggles in Michigan. OK.
There isn't any. "Imperialism" is an abstraction and abstractions don't
exercize force (although people who use them sometimes do). My original
query pertained to "US imperialism," a historically concrete category. If
Max had entered the "US" befor the "imperialism," he could be accepting my
premise, which he doesn't want to do (is my guess). Do you want me to try
to prove to you, Max, that the U.S. is imperialist? Do you really want to
argue that it isn't? If so, please give me something to argue with.

Max also says that when workers demand that "their" plant stay in Michigan
rather than move to Mexico, "that could be painted as economic
nationalism." Maybe by a house painter, but not an artist. It's rather
simple trade unionism. The workers don't legimate their demand by sying,
"we're Americans and don't deserve this." They say "we're trade unionists
and we're going to defend our gains by stopping a runaway plant."

Max also says that workers "rejecting imports that compete with domestic
production" could be construed as US nationalism. Again, protectrionist
unions don't act in the name of all American workers, or the US government,
or US business, or any other national-type category; they act in the
defence of trade union gains. When the AFL-CIO under the regime of cold war
liberalism collaborated with the CIA to overthrow leftist union leaders
abroad, that's imperialism. Unions which support the blockade of Cuba are
imperialist, or acting as same. Imperialism is a relationship between
nation-states, not an economic practice, first and foremost, and there are
many occassions when the AFL-CIO acted in the name of "US national
security" (nationalism) in imperialist ways.

Finally, I don't know any examples where "US nationalsim" is used by
"workers" as a "shield" to advance their struggles. Nor even by "unions,"
which is usually the agent in these things.

Historical note: When over 1000 (mostly Mexican women) workers struck the
canneries in nearby Watsonville, CA for 18 months some years ago, the
reason was company wage and benefit reductions. The affected companies said
that the flight of other canneries to Mexico put them in bad economic shape
and hence the need for give-backs. The new low wage and benefit offer was
so low that workers didn't believe they could live in their normal way
working for peanuts. Never once did they use nationalism as a "shield."
"Survival" was why they called the strike and stuck with it. They often did
hint at "company racism" and "company sexism" as reasons why the company
held out so long against the workers.
Jim O'Connor