>>> "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/12/00 08:51PM >>>
. . .
> Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to
> sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean
> in this circumstance? My guess is zilch.
[mbs] The threat to move a manufacturing plant is central to
the ability of Capital to suppress wage demands. That's
hardly zilch. When this threat entails moving plants to
other countries, it exposes business firms to a combined
nationalist/laborist attack. In effect, Capital runs
afoul of notions of patriotism it had previously used
to uphold its rule. Anyone who fails to take advantage
of this, for the sake of the working class, is being
foolish.
____________
CB: You all are getting to some nitty gritty.
This might sound typically Marxist, but don't we have to think a little deeper to see
how this can really be taken of advantage of by or for the working class ? Doesn't a
real solution have to involve some kind of new level of solidarity between the U.S.
working class and those in other countries ? Won't the nationalist aspect of the above
undermine that ?
__________
Clearly now the trade deficit does not mean
an absolute shortage of jobs, but a change in their
composition. The impact of this change on living
standards has been well documented, and it is not
zilch either.
________
CB: This is no doubt true. But are trade barriers a long term solution for the U.S.
working class ? Doesn't it have to be something more like direct legal curbs and
controls on the perogatives of the corporations to move plants whenever and whereever
they want ?
>>>
Isn't the whole point of free
> trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of
> firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]?
[mbs] No, the whole point is to screw workers by securing
absolute rights for Capital.
>>>
And wouldn't that
> whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade
> becomes triumphant?
]mbs] Yes if we lose, then we would have lost.
> It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was]
> where, but
> rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made;
> property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take
> precedence over Westphailian geographies. Ian
[mbs] It will always be where, as long as people have
some identification with nations. They always will
because nations serve irreplaceable functions, both
good and bad. You're skipping ahead to the fourth
millenium.
__________
CB: If the corporations are transcending the nation in this millenium, isn't it
plausible that the working class can do it a little sooner than a thousand years from
now ?
