Social Protectionism

[Dace]

From: Max Sawicky
>The distinction between anarchic capitalists and the leaders
>of the capitalist class, so to speak, is well taken, but in
>that case there is an equal lack of evidence on the part of
>the Clintonoids of any substantive support for social
>protection in trade rules.  Any bending they have done is
>in response to labor pressure, and particularly in light
>of the fact that it's an election year.  The "fair trade"
>rhetoric of Dem politicians waxes and wanes systematically
>in response to the political calendar.
>
I wouldn't doubt that the White House is responding to progressive pressure.
That doesn't mean Clinton hasn't figured out how to wield the "social
clause" as a weapon.  As Gerald Greenfield notes, it won't be the AFL-CIO
that issues labor complaints to the WTO.  Only the White House can make
those complaints.  If the president makes a complaint, it will be based on
the same political and economic considerations that fuel all of his
decisions.  Does this extend American power?  Does this benefit American
multinationals or investors?  Sanctions will only apply to *countries*--
poor countries-- not the rich multinationals that exploit them.  They can be
used, not simply against products manufactured by sweatshops or forced
labor, but against any product exported by that country.  This could be a
powerful weapon against developing nations that start to outcompete American
firms.  If there's anything in that country's practices which violate labor
standards, the US could slap sanctions on whatever export we happen to find
threatening, not just the one produced through unfair labor practices.
While that particular instance of unfair practice would stop, the relevant
multinational could simply close up shop and move elsewhere.  Since every
country will violate labor standards in one way or another, we can pick and
choose our targets based on our own interests.

The social clause provides a moral weapon.  It's an exact parallel to the
drug war.  We know that people take illegal drugs.  But we're not really
trying to stop the drug use itself.  We like widespread drug use.  It gives
us an opportunity to break down doors and haul people off to jail.  The drug
war serves as a means of keeping potentially troublesome populations under
state control.  As to violations of labor rights, we're all for them.  A
social clause will not eliminate them but will merely give Northern
governments a pretext for punishing the South when we feel like it.  The
social clause will only apply to the South, just as the British ban on
alcohol in the 19th century only applied to the working class.  As Chomsky
points out, the British government singled out gin for prohibition, gin
being the working class drink of choice.  The government knew perfectly well
that workers would keep drinking gin, but now the police had an excuse for
breaking up labor meetings.  If Parliament had criminalized a prevalent
upper class drink, like Irish whiskey, this would have demonstrated a
genuine desire to root out the scourge of alcohol.  So, too, if the social
clause overturned the "right to work" in the American states that still
maintain this anti-union policy, that would demonstrate an honest effort to
improve working conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>[mbs] As far as trade goes, Reagan and Clinton have been
>pretty consistent; can't speak on Nixon.  But this
>is mostly secondary to my point, which was that
>painting the progressive movement's drive for social
>protection clauses as a tool of imperialism is simple
>slander by the politically lost.
>
I don't think anyone's suggesting that.  I'm certainly not.  My assumption
with progressives is always that they want what's right, but they're apt to
delude themselves into believing that a phony liberal in the White House
will actually help bring about a better state of affairs for the working
class.  In fact, Clinton and Gore have one consideration-- power.  That's
it.  Nothing human or decent.  Just power.

Ted