Nader's Olive Branch

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at
Sat Apr 7 08:32:39 MDT 2001

> From: Brian James <hillbily at>
> To: marxism at
> Subject: Re: Nader's Olive Branch
> Date: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:40 PM
> Louis Proyect wrote:
> > Fighting NAFTA is reactionary? Since when? This was not a campaign to
> > Mexican truck drivers from crossing the border.
> A provision in NAFTA that would allow Mexican truck drivers to enter the
> US and Canada was vigorously opposed by Pat and Ralphy.

Free trade nonsense. The logical conclusion of your argument is that since
both Path and Ralp oppose Nafta, we Marxists should support Nafta. what a you really believe in the provisions of Nafta? those provisions
are there to exploit Mexican labor force, not to help them or allow Mexican
truck drivers to really enjoy the fruits of Nafta.. Progressive and
conservatives oppose NAFTA for entirely _different reasons_. If you don't
think Nafta is an instrument of imperialism pressing the LIE of free
movement of labor, there is no reason to be on Marxism list.

> > It was a campaign to
> > prevent the imperialist ruling class from driving down the wages,
> > occupational safety, environmental standards of this country to boost
> > corporate profits. The rivers of Mexico are open cesspools and children
> > maquilas suffer from all sorts of horrible environmentally related
> > illnesses, including cancer. What should Marxists have done? Called for
> > vote for NAFTA as the postmodernist Doug Henwood did? Because Marx
wrote in
> > favor of free trade in in 1848?
> Marx wrote in a time when the working class had little if anything to
> lose. Today, as a consequence of the struggles since Marx's time, and
> some of the internal dynamics of capitalism, workers of the developed
> world have quite a lot to lose from free trade. Of course they should
> oppose it. But at the same time they must have solidarity with the
> workers of the South. The Mexican truck driver issue has been one that's
> fanned the flames of reactionary chauvenism among workers in America,
> like opposition to China entering the WTO. That needs to be talked about.
> Brian

You are wrong here. As a matter of fact,  in the Seattle demonstrations,
many groups of workers and protestors expressed their solidarity with the
workers of other countries. The idea was to _oppose_ sweat shops, NAFTA
and WTO' s unfair labor practices in other places. This has nothing to do
with chauvanism. American workers  do not oppose NAFTA  because they are
chauvanistic. They simply beleive globalization, NAFTA and free trade won't
improve the status of  workers in third world countries. So what? we
Marxists should not oppose NAFTA because conservative Pat opposes it?
American power holders and Washington policy makers. such as Greenspan,
said the same thing yesterday: "we should resist every attempt trying to
eradicate free trade" (ridiculing Seattle protestors!!)

After all, which segments of  the working class does support Part? do you
have any evidence for that? or are you relying on conspiracy theories?


More information about the Marxism mailing list