>In the following post Jim Oconnor has made an eloquent statement to the
>effect that an independent anti-capitalist (and not merely
>anti-globalist) organization is needed.
One more locus for petty fights for power? Did the depressing history of the two
last "Internationals" teach us nothing?
As to eloquence...
>First because "democracy" as we practice it is a procedural question not a
>substantive one.
Who's "we" here?
>Second. once you get into substance, the different, clashing interests
>at work in world economy will force splits, schools of thought, opposed
>political groups, etc.
Of course. So what? That's healthy. As long as there's no powerful global
organization for the control of which those different people will have to fight
against each other, that is. Why should people with different interests fake
unity?
>These splits have already happened, largely without
>debate and behind closed doors.
Then how is Mr.O'Connor aware?
>Labor isn't against the corporations, which feed the workers.
Forward Mr.O'Connor this adress, Carrol: marxists.org There he will learn who
feeds who.
>Big green is also not
>against corporations as such: they depend on big money for their grants
>etc.
Who's "big green"? Who cares for "ecologists" getting big money from
corporations anyway?
>Meanwhile, labor is for globalization, to the degree that globalization
>expands US exports especially by unionized employers, e.g., Boeing.
One question for Mr.O'Connor: What does "trade deficit" mean? Where do the
jobs come from?
>And
>the big unions here are more or less deaf to the demands of the
>antigloblist movement in the South, e.g., technology transfer and market
>opening in the north.
An antiglobalist movement who wants market opening? This is becoming
stranger by the minute!
>... South farmers therefore are objectively
>against (or on the other side of the food export issue) compared with
>small European farming and also small US farms which are highly
>capitalized hence highly productive. The problem with Ian's approach is that,
>so long as the issues are constructed the way they are today, small farmers
>in the US and EU would benefit from trade rules that would ruin many small
>farmers in the South.
What I know if the issue is a bit outdated but... Obviously trade rules are a
minor issue compared to productivist subsidies. I don't know whether US and
European exports would be competitive without them. Are there many small
EU or US farmers left anyway? The agricultural policies have not been firendly
to them.
And the effect of the future oil shock on the competitiveness of agricultural
exports has to be take into account. It's likely to put an end to the problem.
Anyway, it seems that small farmers from both North and South can agree on
many things. Did Mr O'Connor miss the stuff which happened recently, notably
on genetic engeneering issues? Maybe he should look at:
http://www.agp.org/agp/en/ and explain me how comes that these folks were
supported by European farmers.
If Mr.O'Connor wants to build an organization uniting anti-globalists who want to
open markets, trade unionists who support their bosses, greens who are paid
by big business, and agricultural export lobbies from both North and South, he
should take a look at the WTO. This might be the organization he's looking for.
He should also voice his concerns at the Davos conference. Maybe Norvartis
will have a position for him. And if all else fails, he can still become a
Simultaneous Policy militant. :-)
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
