Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:24:16 -0400 (EDT) From: MATHEW-AT-enigma.rider.edu Subject: Re: Free Trade > > >Until NAFTA, the US trade union movement had done absolutely nothing > >to assist the working class in Mexico. Indeed, its leadership had > >worked with the US state department to subvert and destroy any real > This is wrong on several counts. There have been several joint organizing > projects etc initiated jointly by US and Mexican unions in the last ten I have grave doubts about this "US labor and "joint" organzing" line of argument. I tend to agree with the thesis that Marx intended and supported the idea of free trade becoz it destroys national boundaries and "internationalizes" the labor movement. Translated into today's vocabulary it means "if there is an international regime of capital, why not an international regimeof labor?" So far so good - I mean, theoretically this is valid position. However, when we try to think of how it would materially unfold then we have to contend with the history of the labor movements - and a very dirty history at that. When Nafta was unfolding and American labor was up in arms about job loss I remember speaking to some trade unionists/marxist scholars in India (thats where I am am from and therefore some familiarity with whats happening in India) and there attitude was very simple - "See why the hell should we suddenly become concerned about American labor? Why is it that the call for the International Brotherhood of Labor is on us now? For five decades when American labor (Western Indus. countries labor more generally) had fascinating arrangements under the Keynesian Welfare State and built themselves up into a "labor aristrocacy" they forgot all about international brother hood and such stuff... Why are they remembering us now? What stops us from saying that we are gaining jobs right now (exploitative but nevertheless jobs) and you are losing them - suits us! just as you said suits us for five decades" Of course, they were not so crude and calm about these pronouncements but I am just summarizing it this way to make a point clear. The idea of internationalization works if the nature of identities and labor startegy are both capable of seeing the international picture. In the past, neither have the first nor the third world labor movements seen or done much along these lines. Theoretically speaking both the attitude of American labor right now - "protect our jobs" and the attitude of Third World Labor - "send the jobs here, what me worry about American labor" are both regressive. But these are precisely the effects of the last fifty years... The problem however is that when somebody like me speaks to the thrid world activists then I have no responses left, except a call to "stop being defensive" and the treatment of "unions as devices for protection of jobs" and "build international bridges." Unfortunately for many of them this call sounds hollow and they sometimes say so. The problems I see specifically with the posts are are as follows: For Chris the "teleological theory of internationalization" holds a primary place in his argument... However, the "real" events do not necessarily follow this logic. Capital and its international movement is (and was) expected to "secularize" - i.e, eliminate nationalist tendencies etc... except that we have found, as Hall following Gramsci would say, "capital tends to accentuate some of these differences rather than simply homogenize everything out" (not an exact quote) in the startegic use of labor (even this homogenization-hetrogenization is a dialectical formation uni\like Marx's original formulation). This brings me to my response to Scott - if indeed an internationalization is the "goal" then it means a "negoatiation" giventhe difference in real conditions of existence that persists even today between first and third world labor forces. What is the nature ofthis negotiation?? Scott raises a voice against "paternal" attitudes... I agree... but how does one imagine a negotiation which eliminates the effects of some very material differences in context? IF American labor starts from "we want to protect our jobs" then how can a negotitation unfold coz, third world labor is probably also saying exactly that - we want to get/protect jobs? Biju --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005