On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote (about our difference on blaming NAFTA for job losses): > The left's job is to strive for practical, incremental gains in a way > that points to larger solutions. I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. > > Now we seem to be getting closer to your argument, > which seems to be a brief for trade liberalization so > that Mexico can escape its underdevelopment. > Is this how you think Mexico will develop? It sounds > like by your criteria, to paraphrase you, "capitalism > in Mexico 'with freer access to the richest market in > the world' would be just fine." Except that I did try (whether adequately or not) to "point to the larger solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed countries to world markets. Aren't you? This does not mean support for NAFTA or other trade agreements that are designed to consolidate the power of imperialism (and in this are not different than all their other economic policies, even if this one is more weighty than some). > Your alternatives seem to consist of: > > a world without borders > capitalism is rotten > a "massive increase" in industry in this country > underdeveloped by imperialism, including > by allowing freer access to the richest market . . . > dispossession of Mexican peasants from their land > oppose denationalization of Mexican oil > To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican peasants from their [communal] land". Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local control". First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) nationalities. If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of sand, or some such metaphor. Bill Burgess
