On Aug 6, 10:19 pm, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The SL commented recently in the Workers Vanguard that McKinney was
> about as good as one could expect from a bourgeois politician who has
> served a number of terms as a Democrat in Congress, including on the
> House Armed Services Committee.
Of course she demonstrably broke with the Democrats to the left.
> The statement that "globalization is bad for American workers" is a
> nice sentiment, and true in an ultimate sense if you consider
> globalism to be the contem****ary manifestation of capitalism, and the
> only thing that is ultimately good for American workers is its
> overthrow.
Well, "Maximalist" sentiments aside, John, it would seem that a
strategic line of march is opposition to, active opposition, to NAFTA/
Globalization.
> Somehow, I suspect that is not what she meant.
Don't be so sure...people evolve and get 'educated' often quite
quickly.
> In the *immediate* economic sense, which is I assume what she meant,
> it isn't really true. "Globalization" i.e. imperialism involves
> transfer of wealth from countries like Mexico to America. Inevitably,
> the upper crust at least of the American working class would get some
> benefit, probably more in immediate economic terms than is lost by
> factories moving south--not much comfort for the guys working there
> naturally, but they are outnumbered by everyone else.
That would be true under classic imperialism, but not under
globalization. Both NAFTA and the WTO have done HARM to US workers and
none have really benefited from it except a very small layer
(longshore, actually, is one example). By and large, in the immediate
sense, it's hurt the "upper crust" mostly.
> In the argument for example between Bill Clinton and Ross P***** in the
> 1992 elections, Clinton correctly if cynically pointed out that
> Americans were the winners over NAFTA, and Mexicans the losers.
He was wrong. You arguing as it it's an 'equal exchange of
equivelants' as if imperailism has somehow, since it's decline in the
mid-70s, have helped US workers maintain it's aristoctratic status. it
hasn't. It's a race to the bottom...know of any national union
contracts, for example, that are not take aways of late?
David
|
