Protectionism is not in the long-term interests of U.S. bourgeoisie (Re: [Marxism] Re: Bhagwati and Sweatshops)

["Xxxx Xxxxxx" <xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Julio wrote:

> Bhagwati's point is that the U.S. picks and chooses the "issues" --
> manufactures the "issues," so to speak -- in order to weaken the
negotiating
> position of the Third World.

Bhagwati's point is well taken, Julio. You don't have to repeat yourself.
But has the U.S. "succeded" in imposing a protectionist agenda on the third
world? My point is rather different. The U.S. "choses the issues" to in
order to "open up" the third world to U.S. exports and multionationals. For
example, the U.S. retaliates against those countries (import restrictions,
sanctions etc.) which do not maintain open markets for U.S. exports. From
the "point of view" of the U.S., the problem is not labor standards per se.
It is the "inefficient" nature of third world markets.  Of course, the U.S.
uses labor standars as an "excuse" to cover its free trade agenda.

Further, U.S. "capitalists" do not give a fuck to labor standars here and
there. In the long run, sweatshops in India are irrelevant to the entery of
Indian products to U.S. markets. Capitalists are "better off" without those
"restrictions." They will do business with India no matter what. No time in
this country protectionism succeeded (except Great Depression). It either
"backfired" or opposed by the big bourgeoisie. Let's not confuse some minor
restrictions with protectionism. Protectionism is a MYTH. U.S. bourgeoisie
does not associate its long term interests with protectionism. In the final
analysis, the GENERAL trend in American mercantalism is minor. Any standard
Marxist analysis of U.S. capitalism points out this fact.

David Lake notes:

"Despite the increased pressures for protection and the large number of
trade restrictive issues (non-tarrif barriers for example, my emphasis), the
level of pretection in the United States has increased only MARGINALLY over
the past decade. Through the Kennedy and Tokyo rounds of of the general
agreement on tarrifs and trade (GATT), the avarage tarriff in the  United
States declined to 3% on all imports and %5 on duitable imports in 1982.
Tarrifs in the U.S. are currently at their lowest levels in history" (Lake,
International Studies Quarterly, "Beneath the commerce of nations," volume
28,  1984).

Take a look at Hawley's excellent book on "Dollars and Borders:
U.S.Government Attempts to Restrict Capital Flows, 1960-1980." Hawley lays
out the record of protectionism in the U.S. Who did the restrictions apply?
How effective were they? Briefly, Hawley argues that each single capital
control (ie., taxes on foreign securities sold in the U.S, credit
restrictions, entery requirements, etc.) ended in more capital flight from
the U.S. Not only government controls failed; they were opposed by U.S.
business interests. Indeed Hawley argues that Kennedy's protectionist
measures were DIRECTED at European bourgeoisie (in the form of IET tax on
foreign bonds and securities), whereas "less developed countries" were
EXEMPT from the tax. Indeed, what the  IET did was to close the U.S.
long-term capital market to "European" borrowers. As Hawley says:

".. the global power of the TNC (transnational corportions) and the
necessity for a domestically powerful nation state are fundementally
contradictory: the TNC needs a strong state and a stable social order, but
this is impeded by TNCs themselves which at a certain point undermine the
state. From the point of view of the nation state , governments are
confronted with a dilemma" (p.5)

The BOTTOM LINE  is that the U.S. cannot afford to be protectionist. When
was the last time that the U.S. seriosly proposed restrictions? Lake
mentions the Automative Products Act in 1982, which passed the House of
Representatives but killed in the Senate. The act required foreingers to
produce a 90 percent of vehicles in the U.S. (if they sold 500 000).

Further, do you think that third world capitalists really care to enter U.S.
markets? If there are other outlets to exploit, who cares U.S. markets?
Capitalism is an expanding system. You need to make "item" by "item"
analysis. For example, my cousins (who produce erosion machines), say that
that there is no market for them in the U.S.. So they exploit European
markets. And they are the best in their field! You don't really have to rely
on U.S. markets to do business..


******************************************************
Xxxx A. Xxxxxx
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Political Science
Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany, S.U.N.Y.
135 Western Avenue, Milne Hall
Albany, NY 12222
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx
******************************************************
"Frequently the only possible answer is a critique of the
question and the only solution is to negate the question."
Grundrisse, "The Chapter on Money"
******************************************************


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism