Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Foot Soldiers & Loyal Opposition(was Re: anarchism)

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Doug,
      Who brings those goofball anti-dumping
suits?  I think it is the Department of Commerce,
under orders of the US Congress (backed by
the president) with the support of both capital
and labor in import-competing industries.
       Who brings sanctions against countries
for violating the US endangered species act?
Well, it is the Fish and Wildlife Service that declares
a species endangered, not an international body,
and it is either the Dept. of Commerce of the US
Trade Rep (not sure which) who brings the suits.
       Sorry, Doug, but the answers to your questions
are quite specific and the interests behind them are
very well defined and well known (even if I don't have
them fully down pat).
        BTW, where's the Doug Henwood who used to
tell people that globalization is no more advanced than
it used to be, especially if one measures trade by percent
of GDP, or who sneered at the national culture of Canada?
Actually you are wrong about globalization, but right about
the trade part.  What has changed since 1913 is mass
instant communications and mass humongous capital
movements, exemplified by the $2 trillion/day of forex
transactions.  I am for limiting international capital movements
and for shutting down the IMF.  This is where the action is,
and contrary to Jim Devine, trade and capital movements
can be separated.   But, of course, this is too fine a point
for all those people chanting nifty slogans in Seattle.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 10:11 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:14522] Re: Re: Re: Re: Foot Soldiers & Loyal Opposition(was
Re: anarchism)


>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>>I continue to see the problem as one of the US attempting
>>to assert itself against more general efforts to make and
>>carry out mutually agreeable multilateral agreements.
>>We are going to put trade sanctions on other countries
>>for violating human rights even though we have Leonard
>>Peltier in jail and vigorously practice capital punishment.
>
>Yeah, you continue to see the problem that way, but you have no
>evidence for the  view. Clinton typically proposed making labor
>rights violations sanctionable under the WTO in a newspaper interview
>early in the WTO week, either knowing that it'd go nowhere or
>consciously lying (the guy has been known to do that, right?). The
>very next day his negotiators were saying that the president
>"misspoke." While there's no risk the AFL-CIO will work against Gore,
>there is some risk they will sit on their hands, and an even greater
>risk that union members will stay home on election day.
>
>Who is this US that's going to do these things? John Sweeney? Ha.
>Bill Clinton? Ha. The Fortune 500? Ha.
>
>Doug
>
>