Bravo Jeff. Thanks for these important posts on our trade regimes. And thanks for keeping the political in political economy. I hope folks here think about the implications of your statement: "It’s a measure of the pervasiveness of class in our culture that “liberals” begin a discussion about globalization with the assumption that political virtue lives on Wall Street and political vice at the AFL-CIO."

I'm sold. So what's the cross border political movement look like? Is it Mexican and American unions? Blog communities? How does it work? Who in Mexico wants to talk? Who in American wants to talk? Does the movement speak in English or Spanish? I'm serious.

What is the cross border workers issue that can bring people into the streets the way that the immigration issue did last year? How does such a movement have political power in one country when a significant part of its organization is in another?

Is this movement already happening somewhere?

Jeff, you're basically unhinged. You're living in a dream world. Fictional characters, fictional problems, fictional solutions.

Reece says:

Jeff, you're basically unhinged.

...and concludes his analysis of Mr. Faux's arguments with twelve clever words, none of which address any of the arguments Faux makes in a piece of some length, written with passion and clarity.   

Mr. Faux is quite capable of defending himself.  But I write because I believe this kind of argument degrades the whole debate.  One can disagree without resorting to ad hominem assaults, and a well argued, documented disagreement helps everyone, including the original author, to the extent that it forces that author to sharpen his/her argument.  But this kind of response helps nobody.

aMike

To determine if trade agreements “matter,” it’s useful to ask why the American business community, the establishment media and the business wing of the Democratic Party were so intent on imposing these agreements?

Or even bringing them up for a Democratic vote.

And why does the idea of a moratorium draw such hostility?

Because it's reactionary?

But as I have been writing all week, I think the fundamental reason is that these deals are not primarily about trade. They are about setting the rules of an integrated global economy in ways that favor global corporate interests. ,

Or, lowering the barriers of trade between countries. Whatever floats your boat.

Why is it that in these globalization discussions among college educated professionals, it is always the integrity and motivation of those who challenge the corporate line that is suspect?

Because of much of the empirical research on the benefits of liberalized trade, combined with the fact that many of it's supporters, including quite leftish economists (James Galbraith supported NAFTA) can hardly be painted as taking the "corporate line" combined with the fact that many trade reactionaries have a long history of arguing in bad faith.

But if you have read what I’ve written, just here this week, how could you possibly suggest that I want to keep them poor?

I don't think you want to keep the Chinese poor, I think you could care less about the Chinese. All else equal you probably find the idea of a Chinese worker becoming wealthier mostly unoffensive. But if it means an American worker, particularly one affiliated with organized labor, has to compete for a job with an equally talented Chinese worker, you'll do anything you can & argue rrom any angle, good faith or bad to spare him that indignity.

Oh, you say, because argument against NAFTA wasn’t “serious”. Whose argument?

Yours?

Of course there were people who didn’t want NAFTA under any conditions.

You don't say!

If anything, the argument for NAFTA was the less serious. It was based on promises of jobs, reduced immigration and prosperity among the Mexican poor that promoters knew were false when they made them.

Really? Brad DeLong helped work on NAFTA, he seems to think it had enormous potential for Mexico and has since been disappointed with the pedestrian results. I wonder if he'll show back up so we can ask him if he was lying & new his hopes were false all along.

It's been a pleasure. Of all trade reactionaries I follow, you are my sole favorite & have been ever since I heard you hyperventilating against Gene Sperling.

Is there an assumption that governments make the standards and transnational corporations compete within those standards? The reality is that corporations are the ones who make the standards – no unions, few environmental restrictions, no anti-trust regulations – and countries compete against each other to meet those standards in order to host production facilities.

That is "free trade" in corporate business terms.

I'm not going to pretend these are important discussions

I like Jeff's approach because it's about preserving and extending the hard fought worker and progressive victories that created the American middle class we have now. The American middle class isn't a necessary outgrowth of American capitalism, just as a global middle class isn't a necessary outgrowth of global capitalism. American workers and other progressives fought and died to make American capitalism more just. I percieve's Jeff's vision to be the creation of a global (or regional for now) political movement that takes the society remade by global capitalism and makes it more just and fair for everyday people. That is no more pie in the sky than the dreams of the American labor and progressive movements in the 1880-1890s.

So, if you don't believe in that vision, fine. Do something else. But the cafe is a great place to start discussing the tactics and mechanisms of creating a regional political movement that may make transnational capitalist society more just and fair.

John

Agreed.

I think one reason that there is silence on the political tactics and organizing principles for a transnational progressive movement is that no one has a clue had to make this work.

Some quick ideas:

1. Communication: there has to be a relatively easy way for progressives and workers in the United States to talk with progressives and workers in Mexico and Canada. Blogs are good. But are there any bilingual blogs that work?

2. Organization: Who's doing what today? Are the successful service unions in the US talking to the unions in Mexico and Canada, or are they at war with them? I don't know. Does Change to Win have a counterpart in Mexico? Do progressive intellectuals in the US talk with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts about this subject?

3. Common goals: What is something that American, Mexican, and Canadian workers can unite around? What are five issues that unite us?

As to your number 2: Change To Win has made global organizing a priority, and by doing so has kicked AFL-CIO to do the same. It's a project still in relative infancy, but it is underway.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau