At 09:06 AM 02/02/99 -0500, Tom L. wrote: >Dear Pen-L, Here is a press release concerning steel dumping. Last week >in testimony before congress our international president George Becker >said, "10,000 steelworkers have already lost their jobs because of steel >dumping and another 100,000 steelworkers are on the edge of losing theirs." > This is not idle chit-chat on George's part---it's the facts! Compounding >this problem is the world wide weakness in demand... Shouldn't we begin from the "world-wide weakness in demand" rather than so-called dumping? One points to the problem being world capitalism; the other tends to points at workers in other countries. >Becker >said the December import figures dramatize the need for immediate passage >of legislation imposing temporary quotas on steel imports at pre-crisis >levels, coupled with a comprehensive policy to prevent U.S. markets from >continuing to be used as the dumping ground for the worldwide glut of >steel... >Such a bill, if enacted, would curtail dumping by requiring our trading >partners to limit steel shipments into the U.S. to pre-crisis levels. Writing from Canada, it is now obvious that steel exports from Canada will be a major target this year in the trade disputes that are escalating between Canada and the US. Canadian nationalists will complain about US protectionism while advocating Canadian protectionism. Perhaps they will agree that the 'real' culprit is....Japan, or Korea or.... I find that some people often go along with nationalist and protectionist views because they highlight the plight of workers suffering from how capitalism operates. However, because progressive-minded people can't go all the way down the nationalist road, the Pat Buchanans of the world win this argument. Hasn't this approach, including the definition of "dumping" imposed by rich countries, proven to be a reactionary dead end for the labour movement? Bill Burgess
