> From: Bill Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:12334] Re: NAFTA
> Last weeK I dashed off a criticism of some "talking points' against NAFTA
> fast-fastacking that had been posted on PEN-L. I argued they blamed
> Mexicans for increased bad food and (illegal) drugs in the US; that
> blaming NAFTA for job losses let capitalism off the hook; and that citing
> 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico was hypocritical. I thought
> these were yuppie-Perot reasons for opposing NAFTA.
> -
> Several people replied that it was unregulated markets in Mexico (not
> Mexicans) that were being blamed for bad food. Max Sawicky complained my
> "translation" mirrored the mainstream media's characterization of
> anti-NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist.
>
> Unfortunately I do think this characterization
> of the *campaign* against NAFTA is (partly) true. Not that the
We all understand there are some perfectly awful
people opposing free trade for perfectly awful
reasons. But this reality does not support the blanket
characterization of anti-NAFTA forces that you "dashed
off."
> pro-NAFTA forces are any less guilty, and worse. Both frameworks
> are rotten. We should reject, not support Perot, Buchanan type arguments
> by clearly opposing NAFTA on the basis of the interests of working people
> in both (and all) countries. Complete silence on one side is complicity
> with the dominant voice.
>
> Michael Pereleman noted that it is not blaming Americans to assert that
> WTO regulations make it difficult to keep steroids and growth hormones out
> of food in European countries. I'm not sure how this point connects to
> NAFTA on Mexico. Should be oppose increasing access to out markets by all
> countries whose health and safety regulations are less stringent than
> our's (i.e. most of the world)? Are pesticides really the problem or is
> capitalism the problem?
> . . .
> one-sided). In my opinion, another good food-related reason to oppose
> NAFTA is how it has helped push indigenous farmers off communally-owned
> land in Mexico. I think many farmers in the US, who are also being pushed
> off their land by the banks and agribusiness can identify with this. I
> also like it because it gets out of the usual framework of thinking of our
> interests as consumers.
This is really your first reason, other than that 'capitalism is
the problem,' and it is entirely well-taken and a staple of
anti-free trade politics. It happens that politically the
argument appeals more to middle-class liberals than to
U.S. farmers, but that's secondary.
> No one commented on the arguments about NAFTA reductions in border
> inspections being responsible for more illegal drugs in the US. It is hard
> to *not* translate this into a call for more border cops, inspections,
> searches, etc. with all this means for immigrants, refugees and ordinary
> working people. This is the Perot-Buchanan-Democrat-Republican line. For a
> world without borders!
The issue here is inspections and searches, not "cops"
in the generic sense. In this respect, a world without
borders means a world without law enforcement, a
dubious appeal, notwithstanding the ineffectiveness
of current anti-drug measures.
> I had said that "blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without
> NAFTA would be just fine". Max Sawicky replied: "Self-evident rubish. It
> implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of
> NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's job is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh."
>
> I'm still scratching my head on this one. The (original) claim was that
> "...NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs."
> NAFTA caused those job losses. If you *don't mention* the role of
> capitalism, corporate greed, etc. they are not included as causes. No
> NAFTA, no job losses caused, no problem. It seems to me Max's approach is
This was your entire post, verbatim (emphasis
added):
"Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary
approach. << Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without
NAFTA would be just fine. >> Citing 'border ecology' against industry
in Mexico is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments -
lets oppose NAFTA for **good** reasons!"
Blaming NAFTA does not imply any benign,
summary assessment of capitalism. It merely
engages a specific issue. You could criticize
the treatment for being reformist and incrementalist,
but that's not the same as being 'yuppie' or 'Perotist'
and implying an indifference to the interest of the
working class.
> to wait until NAFTA is killed by Ross Perot arguments and *then* get on
> with the left's job of explaining how rotton capitalism is.
The left's job is to strive for practical, incremental gains in a way
that points to larger solutions. "Capitalism is rotten" is not
a program, either incremental or long-term.
> Erik Leaver posted some points about the tendentious use of statistics on
> NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of
> Canada-US 'free' trade: some anti 'free' traders made wild claims about
> job losses due to its implementation and completely ignored the effect of
> the recession or capitalist crisis. When this line became untenable the
> fallback was a near-conspiracy theory that the recession was caused by the
> Bank of Canada's high interest policy ...implemented at the behest of *US*
> corporations. Its not domestic capitalists but foreign capitalists that
> are blamed, in other words not capitalism at all, but foreigners.
I can't speak about Canada, but there was no conspiracy
mongering in the U.S. from the left. As to whether the
discussions about job losses were "wild" or not, I can only
refer interested parties to EPI's numerous releases on this
subject.
> I had complained about the 'border ecology' argument. Shouldn't we favour
> a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by
> imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market in
> the world? Are jobs for Mexican workers only OK if the pollution stays
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."
Where's the "good reason" to oppose NAFTA, etc.?
> away from out border? Or should they all locate in Mexico City? I'm sure
> we all favour rational, balanced, minimally-polluting economic development
> in Mexico, but they can't wait for world socialism for us to support it,
> and to do so without giving up anything on protecting ecology everywhere.
>
> Another point to link our interests in the US and Canada with
> those in Mexico against these trade deals: the ne-nationalization of
> Mexico's petroleum industry, which is another blow against their right to
> develop independently of imperialism.
This suggests trade deals are fine, it's only the side agreements
that are objectionable.
You said there were good reasons to oppose Fast Track
and NAFTA-type agreements. You say here these should
be "in the interests of working people in all countries."
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
I see no critique here of trade liberalization under
capitalism, much less of capitalism in general. It
even smacks of the contrary position. The allusions
to land reform and public control of resources are
side issues in this context.
If you do think of some good reasons to oppose Fast
Track, let us know. We can use them.
Cheers,
MBS
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
