Michigan Mayor vs. Minion of Rupert Murdoch

[cyu]

No way I would've expected this out of mainstream politicians - much less on Fox News:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/18/15119/2121/695/699003


(Is America not a lost cause after all? =)

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh, it looks like Chavez has a competitor on the populism field.

[BobKKKindle$]

It makes for good listening, but it's clear that the Mayor is simply representing one faction of the bourgeoisie (the productive sector) in its struggle to control the surplus value created by the working class. He repeatedly refers to the generosity GM has shown in choosing to give their workers good wages and a comprehensive health program, but by framing the issue in these terms he is totally ignoring the fact that the interests of GM are ultimately opposed to those of the workers it hires, given that GM is owned and run by the bourgeoisie, and the concessions which currently exist have been gained only through struggle and shop floor militancy, not because the managers of GM were spontaneously inspired to acknowledge the rights of their workforce and offer them improved conditions. In addition, the Mayor identifies China as the cause of unemployment on the basis that China's entry into the WTO has led to American jobs being exported overseas because firms are able to obtain lower wage costs if they situate production in the global periphery, and towards the end of his speech, he calls for "fair trade" - the implication of this argument is that the government should enforce protectionism in order to maintain American jobs. Socialists do not support this response, as it merely serves to create division within the working class and force workers into conflict with each other over the scraps offered by capitalism - unemployment is an inherent feature of capitalism, and the only way to abolish it once and for all is through a multinational class struggle and the creation of a planned economy, based on production for need and not profit.

No to bourgeois populism - Yes to international socialism.

[Pawn Power]

Here is an interesting comparison between between what bobkindles calls the productive sector of bourgeois populism and the financial sector of bourgeois populism. Market Populism vs. Grassroots Populism: Which Side Are You On? (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/128010/market_populism_vs._grassroots_populism%3A_which_s ide_are_you_on/)

Here is the other video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA&eurl=http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/128010/market_populism_vs._grassroots_populism%3A_which_s ide_are_you_on/

So we have these two options portrayed in the media. A socialist option is not even considered an option.

[cyu]

the Mayor identifies China as the cause of unemployment on the basis that China's entry into the WTO has led to American jobs being exported overseas because firms are able to obtain lower wage costs if they situate production in the global periphery

Maybe he doesn't care about Chinese workers, maybe he does, but the point can still be made by leftists that competing against anything close to slave labor is not a good idea. What then is the response to competing companies that use conditions close to slavery? Well, you can either hold up trade barriers and not compete - or (preferably) free the slaves.



the implication of this argument is that the government should enforce protectionism in order to maintain American jobs.


I don't see protectionism as such a bad thing, but I guess it depends on your definition of protectionism. Maybe I should rephrase that to "I don't think it's a bad thing to ensure your local economy can produce as much as possible." Even for internationalists, having a productive local economy just means you will be more able to help out the people of other nations if they ever need help.

Here's an example: You have a house. The local power company produces your electricity and sends it to your house. One day, a winter storm knocks out the electricity in your town. You go out and buy a generator. While the electric company is busy trying to repair power lines, you are nice and toasty in your house and the pump in your basement can still keep it from getting flooded. Eventually, the power company restores service to your house, so you turn off your generator, since the generator is not as efficient at generating electricity as the power company. Over the years, however, you maintain your generator - making sure it's in working condition and doesn't become a lump of rust. Is that "protectionism"? Is it an inefficient use of your time and labor, when you should be accepting "comparative advantage" instead? The thing is, you've recognized that the generator has value, even if you are not currently using it to produce anything - even if you have no "demand" for its output at the moment. It is a source of wealth that you have maintained, even if you've chosen not to tap that wealth at this time.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't see protectionism as such a bad thing, but I guess it depends on your definition of protectionismIn the context of a capitalist economy, protectionism simply means a capitalist state discriminating against goods produced in other countries by means of tariffs and other such devices with the aim of encouraging consumers to switch to goods that are being produced domestically, in the hope that this will diminish unemployment and support domestic firms, which might otherwise encounter falling profits and even go bankrupt, damaging the national economy. It is not the same as having your own generator for times of need, or living in a cute anarchist commune based on local production. The most obvious reason why we should not support protectionism is that there is no evidence showing that protectionist measures actually save jobs or sustain wages - during the 1970s and early 1980s, when Britain endured a long economic crisis, the coverage of tariffs was raised from 13% of all manufactured goods imported from other countries in 1974 to 30% in 1982, and this policy received extensive support from trade union leaders, and yet, unemployment rose from one million in 1975 to its post-war peak of more than three million in 1986. Similar lessons can be drawn from the Great Depression. In addition to not being effective in economic terms, protectionism also divides workers along national lines, and encourages them to accept the notion that intervention conducted by the bourgeois state and directed against the economies of other countries is a legitimate way to respond to a crisis - and this notion, once accepted, can easily lead to attacks on foreign workers, and calls for immigration restrictions. As activists who want to destroy all divisions within the working class, we oppose protectionism.

[cyu]

It is not the same as having your own generator for times of need

OK, then let's just agree on supporting "having your own generator for times of need" and not on preventing your own people from using "foreign" products when they are more readily available. However, if you have the kind of economy in which companies that have no revenue are allowed to fail, then you will lose "your own generator for times of need" - in other words, even if "foreign" producers are more efficient and you encourage everyone to use the more readily available stuff, you should still maintain your ability to produce the same stuff, even if it's less efficient.

Also, what do you propose be done about "foreign" companies that employ what amounts to slave labor? If your nation is much weaker than them and can't risk direct confrontation, then tariffs / embargoes may be your only option... although I'd personally try more clandestine stuff, like secretly funding revolutionaries - kind of like what the CIA does, except supporting the oppressed instead of the oppressors.

[Dr.Claw]

Michigan is an excellent example of where the bourgeoisie is trying to keep the common man down, and this video further proves it.