Social Protectionism

Rakesh Bhandari bhandari at Princeton.EDU
Mon Mar 13 07:21:08 PST 2000

>yes i'm a

Too bad, Max. Marv Albert has bought the rights to the Rick James song. Yours, Rakesh

ps that social protection thing

1. This whole social protection thing stinks: eliminate third world tariffs, don't allow tech transfer, don't oppose Marreckh (sp?) patent rights regime, use your own threat of protection to force FDI into your right to work states; but then invoke social protection against third world countries. All burdens of adjustment are shifted outside. Well you're no rootless cosmpolitan for advocating such a program. Congratulations!

2. You don't respond to my point that social protection will be mainly used against *NON-COMPETING* imports in order to compel subordination to or further integration with US imperialist capital or in order to save quota increases for countries that are already so subordinated and integrated. You don't prove that US labor will have the power to do anything more than provide an imprimatur for such big country politics, which of course will allow Mazur, etc to pass off such symbolic victories as justification for their absurd salaries.

3. You don't prove that if such social protection is invoked, automation at home won't accelerate, thus killing off the jobs you thought you could protect.

4. You don't explain why if the boycott is such an important weapon that Sweeney, etc aren't fighting for the right to use it at home.

5. You don't prove that the WTO would ever be able to sanction tariffs against anti labor countries, which means that you are advocating entry into the WTO though labor has nothing to gain from it all.

6. Why should the US be able to threaten China every year with non renewal in order to exert maximum pressure to close down state enterprises, liberalize finance, and do all the things that it will turn it another Russia? Why is this good for American labor? And why is this good for Chinese labor?

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list