Charles wrote:
Overall, it seems likely that the foreign transnational investors in the
U.S. would have common interests with the domestic U.S. capitalist
_vis-a-vis the U.S. working class...
Toyota, for example, probably agrees with GM , Ford and Daimler-Chrysler
( I
forgot about German transnationals as part of the U.S. ruling class) that
"President Bush should force the UAW to take cuts in their OUTRAGOUS
HUMONGOUS (sic) Pay and Benefits? "
=============================
I passed over this comment in my earlier reply on this subject this morning,
but it is actually, on the contrary, another good illustration of how
capitalists, transnational or otherwise, do NOT have common interests when
they are in competition with each other and are unaffected by the same class
relations.
I doubt Toyota "probably agrees" with the US carmakers' efforts to wring
concessions from the UAW, although it likely wouldn't be so impolitic as to
comment publicly on that dispute. The UAW, after all, has not only
historially benefited US autoworkers at the Big Three and in the auto parts
sector but it has also indirectly and inadvertently assisted the US
industry's Japanese competitors whose lower labour costs at home and at
their non-union assembly plants in the Southern US have enabled them to grab
market share from their US rivals. So to the degree GM, Ford, and
Daimler-Chrysler are able to drive down their wage, benefit, and legacy
costs and to narrow the gap with Toyota and the other Asian manufacturers,
this works against the interests of the latter, and they would have no
reason to welcome this development.
As it is, the unionized US industry in the Midwest has lost its preeminence
and the the battle for global supremacy between the US, European, and Asian
auto manufacturers has shifted to China and other low-cost developing
countries and regions where they are able to compete on more even terms.
