<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Max Sawicky wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>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</blockquote> 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</html>