unions ('global south')

[Gordon Fitch]

Dddddd0814 at aol.com:
> ... 
> It is not the job of workers in the developed world to offer their jobs or 
> portions of their salary to workers in the third world in order to "allay 
> their guilt". Nor is it even feasible that third world workers swim across 
> oceans and walk across land masses to demand that workers in the developed 
> world turn over their houses, refrigerators, and other amenities. In order to 
> affect real change in their lives, workers-- third world and 'first'-- can 
> only struggle against the bourgeoisie in their own nation. Anything else 
> simply translates into national chauvinism.
> ...

I advise you not to take Peter Singer too seriously, even
if he takes himself very seriously.  He's good at stirring
people up, because he exploits contradictions in widely
accepted conventions, but he doesn't know how to answer
the questions he raises.

In other news, I don't see why struggling against the bourgeoisie
in one's own nation might not also amount to national chauvinism.
It seems like a misapprehension of one's situation, since the
opposite party, the bourgeoisie, is global. I would think the
proper course of action for a union would be to organize
internationally, and where independent unions are forbidden,
to work politically to change the laws or government in those
states, rather than to confine one's attention entirely to
one's own locality.  I realize this is mere liberalism, but
I'm speaking to the case at hand within the framework given
above.

-- Gordon