FWD: "Neither Progressive Nor a Response"-- response to Barry/Weint

[MDOLAN <mdolan@citizen.org>]

  FORWARDED MESSAGE from NAIMAN @ CITIZEN * Robert Naiman (mail@smtp  
  {NAIMAN@CITIZEN.ORG}) at 7/07/97 5:10 PM
  --------------------
  Response to Barry/Weintraub on NAFTA's critics
  
  This is in response to the Tom Barry/Sidney Weintraub attack on NAFTA's 
  critics which appeared on "Progressive Response"[sic]. I do not read 
  "Progressive Response" regularly -- in light of the fact that of the 2 PR's 
  that have been forwarded to me, the first argued for extending NAFTA to the 
  Caribbean Basin, and the second was the Barry/Weintraub piece, I have no 
  plans to do so in the future. But the Barry/Weintraub piece did manage, it 
  seems, to confuse a few people, so it is worth responding to. The views 
  expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
  employer. Although I do not expect that they diverge very much in this 
  instance.
  
  Anderson/Cavanagh have already taken up the cudgel of explaining that the 
  forces opposed to NAFTA are not all, in fact, crypto-Nazis; and Mark 
  Weisbrot has pointed out the basic flaws in economic logic of the 
  Barry/Weintraub "argument" (although I hope no-one was left with the 
  impression that one has to study economics to understand this stuff -- it's 
  pretty simple; if anything the study of economics seems in general to 
  damage the ability to understand these simple points.)
  
  I would simply like to add a few points which were not been touched on.
  
  1. Folks should understand that to the extent to which there is an IPS line 
  on NAFTA, which of course there isn't, seeing as it's a self-governing 
  ararchist collective, it can be roughly understood as "the left wing of 
  globalization". Namely, globalization/economic integration/"the NAFTA idea" 
  is not seen as inherently bad. Like a car which is going in the wrong 
  direction, but if only one could disable the driver, or at least get a 
  handle on the steering wheel, one could at least begin to steer it in the 
  right direction.
  
  This is not my view. I think the car is going in the wrong direction 
  because it was built to go in the wrong direction.
  
  I hold "globalization"/economic integration to threaten to popular 
  sovereignty, in every country.
  
  Thus, what I have in common with IPS is that we oppose NAFTA, reasons for 
  opposing it, and largely but not completely a strategy for opposing it.
  
  Some associated with IPS seem have as their goal a "progressive NAFTA". 
  Their strategy seems to be to try to slow down the car so we can grab the 
  wheel. As such, a primary concern is who will be next to the driver's 
  window when(if) the car slows down. 
  
  I doubt seriously as to whether this car can be driven in any other 
  direction. It was built to drive in this direction, and most of the energy 
  of the car comes from those who would lose interest were the car to go in 
  any other direction. Probably it would take no less energy to change NAFTA 
  than to scrap it. Probably less to scrap it, because faced with the choice 
  between progressive NAFTA and no NAFTA, capital would take the latter.
  
  On this last point, consider: the current push for trade agreements is 
  coming at a specific moment of world political history. That moment is the 
  self-perceived triumph of Western economic and military imperialism. 
  Corporate and political elites see a political moment in which the left is 
  marginalized from economic debate. They want to institutionalize this state 
  of affairs.
  
  Consider: would there be any discussion of extending NAFTA to Chile if 
  Salvador Allende were still President?
  
  Recall also the problem of "uneven development" in the political sphere. In 
  the current political moment, we may get a "global accord banning child 
  labor," although nothing in play has any real teeth. Does that mean 
  everything has to wait for global accords? Suppose we wish to ban imports 
  from countries that persecute gay men and lesbians. Do we have to wait for 
  the whole world to agree? Don't we have a right, nay, an obligation, to 
  exercise authority over the political consequences of our consumption?
  
  2. Economics is not a science. It is of necessity imprecise.
  This does not by any means excuse sloppiness. It does mean that to 
  participate intelligently in economic debates one has to be able to 
  distinguish orders of magnitude of slop.
  
  Thus, it is correct to say that attributing 420,000 jobs *net* lost to 
  NAFTA based on an (adjusted) Commerce Deptartment multiplier is a crude 
  estimate. However, to ignore the effects of imports completely is slop of a 
  higher order of magnitude. Thus, to fault those who apply the multiplier to 
  the trade deficit and then turn around in the next breath and ignore 
  imports is completely ridiculous.
  
  3. "Protectionism", etc. Mark Weisbrot pointed out that, in the case of 
  Mexico and beyond, a "protectionist" economic policy has been unduly 
  maligned. I would add that the words "protectionist", "mercantilist", etc. 
  function in the current debate much as the accusation of "communism" 
  functioned in the U.S. in the 1950's. The purpose of these terms is to 
  exclude alternatives by placing them outside the realm of "accepable" 
  debate. I would argue that this phenomenon is contributed to not only by 
  those who use them as accusations but by those who deny them. The denial "I 
  am not a protectionist" functions like "I am not a communist" i.e. "I am a 
  reasonable person, not like those lunatics whom you rightly condemn."
  
  At the very least, let those who use these words define what they mean by 
  them. Recall the definition of "communism" given in by the U.S. government 
  in NSC 68: "the belief that the government has a responsibility for the 
  welfare of the people" and the operational definition of "communism" that 
  has been used by U.S. supported regimes in deciding which of their 
  opponents to murder (Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia...) and ask yourself 
  if the "free trade" crowd are not using the accusation of "protectionism" 
  with similar exclusionary intent.
  
  4. Internationalism. 
  
  "Everywhere the bourgeoisie are traitors to their own country" - the 
  philosopher of praxis.
  
  You can't get to PC heaven for being an internationalist: Clinton, Bush, 
  the CEOs and the CIA are all internationalists. The point is to be a 
  *progressive* internationalist.
  
  A progressive internationalist in the United States has three principle 
  tasks:
  
  a. Oppose U.S. imperialism
  b. Oppose U.S. imperialism
  c. Oppose U.S. imperialism
  
  One of the most important things one can do in order to do a,b, and c 
  effectively is to be rooted in the struggles of our own society, e.g. give 
  a fig what happens to workers in the United States (which some would argue 
  one is morally bound to do in any case.)
  
  That is, we must undermine U.S. imperialism domestically by making common 
  cause with its domestic victims.
  
  NAFTA provides a great opportunity for this, becuase the rulers had the 
  chutzpah to put before the political system an agreement linking 
  outsourcing with structural adjustment.
  
  Thus, I would argue, the internationalism that has any practical import 
  must be absolutely clear in its opposition to NAFTA rather then dissemble 
  on the point.
  
  Moreover, I would presume that "internationalism" requires, at the very 
  least, internationalism within the U.S. -- surely it would be ridiculous to 
  be concerned about Mexican workers up until the point that they become U.S. 
  citizens, but not after; surely it would be outrageous to ignore the plight 
  of African-American workers; these are two groups disproportionately 
  hammered by NAFTA and its kin.
  
  [Digression: give your friends the "progressive internationalist or naive 
  liberal" test. Suppose you're in the U.S. Senate. Jesse Helms sponsors a 
  bill that would zero fund US AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, 
  USIA, the World Bank, and the IMF.
  
  You get one vote, yes or no. How do you vote?
  
  Vote no -- you're a liberal, not a reliable enemy of U.S. imperialism]
  
  5. Suppose that NAFTA had no negative effect save one: it undermined the 
  ability of workers to organize into unions in the U.S., and their 
  consequent ability to organize to defend and extend their rights in the 
  workplace and their political causes in society. I maintain that this one 
  reason alone would be sufficient justification to oppose NAFTA, although of 
  course we would have fewer allies in the sphere of official politics.
  
  In any capitalist society as we know them, strong labor unions are a 
  precondition for obtaining and maintaining a decent life for the majority, 
  economically, socially, and politically; and are key to the viability of a 
  popular progressive political movement.
  
  Once it was true that if someone identified as progressive you could be 
  reasonably sure that they understood this last point. Hopefully it will yet 
  be true again.
  
  6. Neoclassical economists often adopt the view that the cost of job loss 
  is zero. In the real world, this is false, not only because there is 
  unemployment, but because the labor market is segmented. Some of this 
  "segmentation" is the fruit of popular struggle. To the neoclassical 
  economist, the union worker who loses a manufacturing job and winds up with 
  a lower paid no-benefit service job has only lost an "unearned rent" and is 
  now being paid their "marginal product" which is determined by their "human 
  capital" but to a progressive activist this is rollback of the gains of 
  social struggle. Some of this "segemntation" is spatial-- and is relevant, 
  say, to the ability of folks to find meaningful (or any) work near loved 
  ones, children's schools, etc.
  
  Apology for length.
  
  -bob 
  
  Robert Naiman
  Senior Researcher
  Public Citizen -- Global Trade Watch
  215 Pennsylvania Ave SE
  Washington, DC 20003
  
  naiman@citizen.org
  202-546-4996 x 302
  ***** NOTES from MDOLAN (MDOLAN @ CITIZEN) at 7/07/97 5:21 PM