Thanks for posting the Henwood article.  Though I have some issues with
parts of it, I think he makes a critical point, one that the "Left" needs
to think about: namely, the crucial distinction between "globalization" and
economic nationalism.

Henwood is right in his observation that it's outrageous for Nader and
others [Michael Moore too comes to mind] to see NAFTA, WTO and other
supranational agreements as mainly a burden on the American worker.  Third
World labor has suffered because of American imperialism for too long, and
the American working class, or at least its organized institutions, has
been a willing handmaiden to that process.  The AFL and CIO, separately
before the merger and jointly thereafter, have been strong supporters of
the imperial mission, pursuing restrictions on immigration, supporting the
Cold War, welcoming Keynesian military budgets, and so forth.

Having been raised in Northeast Ohio, I'm terribly sympathetic to the
plight of workers who lost their factory jobs when plants moved, first to
Mississippi and then to Mexico and then to wherever the wages were cheaper.
 But in the end, it's workers everywhere, not just in Youngstown or
Cleveland, who have suffered.  Too often Nader, Moore and others do sound
too much like Pat Buchanan and the economic nationalist of the right [who
may be on the "right" side, but for some dangerous reasons].

By far, the biggest victims of transnational corporate globalization have
been the Mexicans [wages in maquiladores have actually been reduced by
about half since NAFTA], Vietnamese, Indonesians, etc., much more than
Americans.  I think the point that must be stressed is that capital
organizes and harmonizes its interestes across national boundaries, and
labor and environmentalists and others must too!

Bob Buzzanco


Bob Buzzanco
Associate Prof. of History
University of Houston
Department of History
Houston, TX  77204-3785
[log in to unmask]
http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/buzzanco.htm
713.743.3093
713.743.3216 [fax]
[log in to unmask]