[mbs] If you spend money it's the company that you deal
with, but if you WORK, where the job is and where you is
matter a great deal.
The bit about 'shaming' firms is pretty funny. ("Go
you Gates, and sin no more!") But actually the point is
ingrained in the views of others as well. If you mean
anything, you mean that targeting a firm is prelude to
some legislative action that means some new sort of
regulation of said firm, and others like it. So
what is this regulation to be? I raised this before.
Do we exalt a law against a firm leaving Michigan as
somehow a different thing than a law against a firm
relocating to some other country? What is the practical
difference from the standpoint of, say, Chinese workers?
Presumably an anti-relocation law bothers people because
it sounds anti-foreign and chauvinistic.
=======
I'm thinking more along lines of having pretty fine-grained info on the
"sinners" so that activists working along the direct action spectrum have
the goods to engage in public theatre/education; the necessary grassroots
prelude to mobilizing citizen support for legislative change. So yes.
Thats where AFL-CIO etc. policywonks can help continue growing alliances. I
don't know what kind of barriers to exit any legislative package could
design at this stage of the game.
[mbs]So the anti-relocation focus is on
nations with lousy labor standards etc.
========
Given that at this stage of the game we don't have said exit cost function
available, the focus would still be on the firm taking advantage of lousy
labor standards. Firms usually need some Bank capital to finance the up
front move costs, and as an AFL-CIO organizer told me at the Meany Center
off New Hampshire Ave[I think that was the Beltway exit] "nothing is more
fun during a corporate campaign than scaring the shit out of bankers by
putting a whole bunch of activists outside their doors when they're doin'
something stupid." At said organizing rally one would have lots of handouts
on how to strengthen the ILO so it has some FANGS and TALONS. Again, to
build grassroots momentum.
[mbs][mbs] What is the content of this non-ersatz cosmopolitanism?
What is the concrete form of "respect for workers dignity"?
If it isn't labor standards embodied in international law,
including trade agreements, what in the devil is it?
==========
It "should" be in int'l law. Dismantling the WTO takes away Capital's trump
card because it is the only agency that hits States where they live; their
pocket book. Take away that power while simultaneously giving said
enforcement authority to the ILO. Capital could then do all the regional
trade agreements it wants as long as their labor provisions are consistent
with ILO. I realize proving God's existence is easier, but hell, I'm
definitely open to far wiser ideas.
[mbs]To the contrary, all those young people, not to mention
we over-the-hill types, mean zilch without the potential
mobilization of the working class. That mobilization is
necessarily conditioned by the practical importance of
nation-states and their laws as defenders of living
standards against amoral markets.
===========
It's precisely because the young 'unz don't see States as "protecting" them
any more [vacuous labor and enviro. laws "here at home"] that they got in
the streets.
Ian
