Bringing back jobs to the USA... Sounds nice! But possible?

[R_P_A_S]

I always hear people talking about how the USA always ships jobs overseas and how this really hurts people here in the states.



How can the USA bring manufacturing jobs back from China, India and other countries?



By unionizing these jobs will it help bring up the standard of living or is it harder to do so since we are now competing with China, Germany, Brazil and Japan to name a few strong economies that weren't strong during the 1950 to 1980?

Is this even possible any more in the current state that capitalism is in?

I'm not sure what jobs exactly "need to come back". I hope someone here knows more and can also answer this question.

Times are different so I'm not quite sure if this act alone will even last or if it will make our goods more expensive and harder to export?

[Igor]

I don't even want to think about what kind of measures one would have to go through to get "the jobs back"; most businesses are not exactly after livable wages and good labour legislation, you know.

But also I really really don't give a fuck about ~~American/British/w/e jobs~~ and don't know why any commie would

[R_P_A_S]

I don't even want to think about what kind of measures one would have to go through to get "the jobs back"; most businesses are not exactly after livable wages and good labour legislation, you know.

But also I really really don't give a fuck about ~~American/British/w/e jobs~~ and don't know why any commie would

Oh well I don't know because they are jobs for working class people? I know it might sound "patriotic". But everyone knows that a strong working class that's united and in position to make demands and gains is also a class conscious working class or at least one that will eventually get there. What's wrong with that?

[Clarion]

The cause of jobs going overseas is the cheaper (and often ununionised) labour overseas. Bureaucratic and authoritarian state methods can create friction for the motion of capital, but in the long-run the only way you can really stop it happening would be wage decreases in the US or wage increases in the third world.

The statist measures mentioned above, while carrying considerable nationalistic and populist appeal among much of the working class, would hurt workers in the US more than help them. Cheap labour overseas helps keep costs of consumer goods down and protectionist measures increase prices. Further, the need to keep traditional manufacturing jobs in the US would increase the pressure for wages to be driven down domestically.

These problems are in addition to a more fundamental political objection: a campaign to do anything of this kind would be pursuing the sectional interests of American workers over the interests of non-American workers.

So here listed are my objections in brief: it won't really work, if it did it would do more harm than good and even if it didn't it would lead workers down a national-chauvanistic blind alley.

[Igor]

Oh well I don't know because they are jobs for working class people? I know it might sound "patriotic". But everyone knows that a strong working class that's united and in position to make demands and gains is also a class conscious working class or at least one that will eventually get there. What's wrong with that?

So the factory jobs people get in Bangladesh are not jobs for working class people, am I getting this right?

[R_P_A_S]

So the factory jobs people get in Bangladesh are not jobs for working class people, am I getting this right?

They are jobs.. yes but they are jobs in sweatshop like conditions. Probably less regulated and with no overtime pay or wage increase. This is if we are talking about Levis jeans.. and American company "creating jobs" for Bangladeshi people...

[fug]

Question is, is it better for the Third World to have sweatshops or no industry created by foreign capital at all?

[Clarion]

They are jobs.. yes but they are jobs in sweatshop like conditions. Probably less regulated and with no overtime pay or wage increase. This is if we are talking about Levis jeans.. and American company "creating jobs" for Bangladeshi people...

What you should ask is why do Bangladeshi workers choose to work in such horrid conditions? It's because it's preferable to the alternative.

[Igor]

They are jobs.. yes but they are jobs in sweatshop like conditions. Probably less regulated and with no overtime pay or wage increase. This is if we are talking about Levis jeans.. and American company "creating jobs" for Bangladeshi people...

Still, the businesses exactly don't have a difficult time recruiting there. You know why? Because those sweat shop jobs are still better than the alternative, people don't leave countryside and go looking for a sweat shop job in the city for nothing, they do it because even though the conditions are still horrible, it beats dwelling in rural poverty, but I guess you'd rather just fuck that because your American jobs are at risk.

Sweat shops present very clearly the ugly reality of wage slavery and exploitation under capitalism and we should fight against those conditions, but opposing industrialization in the developing world is just winding back the clock and has nothing to do with communism.

[R_P_A_S]

Still, the businesses exactly don't have a difficult time recruiting there. You know why? Because those sweat shop jobs are still better than the alternative, people don't leave countryside and go looking for a sweat shop job in the city for nothing, they do it because even though the conditions are still horrible, it beats dwelling in rural poverty, but I guess you'd rather just fuck that because your American jobs are at risk.

Sweat shops present very clearly the ugly reality of wage slavery and exploitation under capitalism and we should fight against those conditions, but opposing industrialization in the developing world is just winding back the clock and has nothing to do with communism.

First of STOP IT. Stop trying to ridicule me and assuming things about me. Your sentence; " it beats dwelling in rural poverty, but I guess you'd rather just fuck that because your American jobs are at risk"

I was asking a question that I keep hearing and I wanted to know if it was even possible in the present conditions and the state capitalism is in.

I was not aware the sweatshop labor was KEY to industrializing a third world country. I'm not being sarcastic... It seems that you think so and if is true I had no idea that this was a require step.

[R_P_A_S]

With what "Igor" is bringing into the conversation I now add to this question...

As a working class person that lives in the USA and under this current system what's my position then? In wanting better paying jobs with more chances of advancement and growth. Should I now want this? Because I'm saying "fuck the Bangladeshi workers, I'm denying them of their sweatshop labor that they need in order to become industrialized?"

[Igor]

I was not aware the sweatshop labor was KEY to industrializing a third world country. I'm not being sarcastic... It seems that you think so and if is true I had no idea that this was a require step.

I really don't see how 'I seem to think so', I don't think I said anything implying that it's key, or a required step, sweat shops are fucking horrible but hey, that's why we're in this opposing capitalism business in the first place.


As a working class person that lives in the USA and under this current system what's my position then? In wanting better paying jobs with more chances of advancement and growth. Should I now want this? Because I'm saying "fuck the Bangladeshi workers, I'm denying them of their sweatshop labor that they need in order to become industrialized?"

Our goal as communists should be to end capitalism, not gaining yourself a comfortable enough position with it, at expense of other people. Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting a good job, but getting some people good jobs isn't really what we as a movement should consider relevant.

[Clarion]

As a working class person that lives in the USA and under this current system what's my position then? In wanting better paying jobs with more chances of advancement and growth. Should I now want this?

Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting that. But as communists we should always speak for the interests of the working class as a whole and speak against taking nationalist lines.

[R_P_A_S]

Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting that. But as communists we should always speak for the interests of the working class as a whole and speak against taking nationalist lines.

I understand that we should speak for the entire working class and I also understand the whole internationalist concept and the class concept. However I'm talking baby steps. I'm being realistic here because this is the city where I live and where I'd like to stay for a while and it just so happens to the inside the USA.

My questions was just about "bring back jobs to the USA"... I hear this rhetoric all the time but I don't see it being possible for the stuff I mentioned in my main post and some of the stuff people added here by CLARION

[R_P_A_S]

Now correct me if I'm WAY OFF base here.. But wouldn't it benefit the world if the United States had a highly organized working class as being that they are the most or one of the most industrialized countries in the world?

[Hermes]

I don't think you're understanding, though. The whole 'bring back american jobs' rhetoric is just an attempt to explain why our economy is shit. It's really just because of the unsustainable nature of capitalism.

I personally don't really think it would help the world if the US was any more industrialized. We want the entire world to be industrialized so that we can have a universal revolution (or, as close to it as we can get).

This is just my opinion, and I'm still learning, so I might be 100% wrong.

[Comrade Samuel]

The discussion shouldn't be "how to bring jobs back to America and other 1st world countries?" but "how do we better combat sweatshops and the exploitation of workers in 3rd world countries?"

I have to say I fully agree with Hermes' assessment that the "bring back American jobs" rhetoric is a pathetic excuse for capitalism being unsustainable.

[Psy]

The discussion shouldn't be "how to bring jobs back to America and other 1st world countries?" but "how do we better combat sweatshops and the exploitation of workers in 3rd world countries?"

I have to say I fully agree with Hermes' assessment that the "bring back American jobs" rhetoric is a pathetic excuse for capitalism being unsustainable.
Within in Capitalism that is easy it has been done it is basically economic nationalism like Japan followed from the Meiji Restoration where the bourgeoisie basically become the sole capitalists running the state as a monopoly internally and a normal corporation externally.

Now this doesn't get us any closer to communism as that just opens a whole new cans of worms as the law of value still means capitalist relation applies regardless if the capitalist is a corporation or a state. Yet it was the path the late imperialist powers took to rapidly industrialize, on the other hand that didn't end well since the late bloomers were Japan, Germany China and Russia and the USSR also did this (just for different reasons and for a different end goal as the USSR wanted to rapidly industrialize like Japan and Germany to catch up with their productive capabilities) and the law of value still applied to the USSR which brings up failing of the Russian revolution in terms of overthrowing capitalism within the USSR.

So it is not a easy question, as the solution is the 3rd world following in the footsteps of the USSR or Japan save for a global workers revolution liberating the 3rd world and just subsidizing their industrialization.

[RebelDog]

We should look at the interests of the working class as a global whole, of course we should, but the situation where jobs are shipped to the poorest countries really is not doing anybody any good but the corporations. If you are losing your job, not because the work doesn't need done anymore, but through a process whereapon another worker in another country is easier to exploit, it isn't as simple as saying bringing back american jobs is nationalist bullshit or whatever else. From the viewpoint of the worker he/she has lost their living and also the community is poorer. From an environmental point of view its lunacy if a functioning factory is abandoned and rebuilt elsewhere and most of the goods then shipped back to US markets simply because it benefits profit. Corporations are locating to low tax, environmentally unregulated, authoritarian regimes with some terrible labour laws. Thats what attracts them obviously, but jobs in the US should be argued to stay in the US, especially if they are producing for consumption in the US. I think 'off-shoring' ultimately has a negative effect for the planet and its people. In the end it hurts us all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The statist measures mentioned above, while carrying considerable nationalistic and populist appeal among much of the working class, would hurt workers in the US more than help them. Cheap labour overseas helps keep costs of consumer goods down and protectionist measures increase prices. Further, the need to keep traditional manufacturing jobs in the US would increase the pressure for wages to be driven down domestically.

Hello? Cheap labour overseas already drives down wages.

For countries with sufficient geology and demographics, what's wrong with self-sufficiency specifically in manufacturing, construction, and other "Secondary" industries?

Comparative advantage: what kinds of autarky are positive? [Possible SIOC links] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-advantage-kinds-t163400/index.html)


These problems are in addition to a more fundamental political objection: a campaign to do anything of this kind would be pursuing the sectional interests of American workers over the interests of non-American workers.

Not really. There's a difference between promoting "secondary" self-sufficiency across the board globally for the same of "producing what one consumes," and trying to return to the old industrial imperialism.

Please note the "producing for domestic consumption" part, in particular:


Thats what attracts them obviously, but jobs in the US should be argued to stay in the US, especially if they are producing for consumption in the US. I think 'off-shoring' ultimately has a negative effect for the planet and its people. In the end it hurts us all.

[Clarion]

Hello?

Hello.


Cheap labour overseas already drives down wages.

Indeed it does.


For countries with sufficient geology and demographics, what's wrong with self-sufficiency specifically in manufacturing, construction, and other "Secondary" industries?

It would keep prices artificially high, by producing in the US what could be produced more cheaply elsewhere.

Those industries in need of cheap unskilled labour, instead of seeking it abroad, would have to force down the wages they pay US workers instead.


There's a difference between promoting "secondary" self-sufficiency across the board globally for the same of "producing what one consumes," and trying to return to the old industrial imperialism.

This whole Autarky justification of yours doesn't change the fact that workers in Bangladesh who would have benefited from the outsourcing are now getting screwed over in the supposed (and wrongfully so) interest of American workers.

[R_P_A_S]

I really appreciate all the feed back. Thanks!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Hello.



Indeed it does.



It would keep prices artificially high, by producing in the US what could be produced more cheaply elsewhere.

Those industries in need of cheap unskilled labour, instead of seeking it abroad, would have to force down the wages they pay US workers instead.



This whole Autarky justification of yours doesn't change the fact that workers in Bangladesh who would have benefited from the outsourcing are now getting screwed over in the supposed (and wrongfully so) interest of American workers.

That's an idiotic argument for a revolutionary leftist to make. Working people in Bangladesh were way better off without any industry, before their country was regularly flash flooded by global warming and peasants produced enough food for their families from their crops. The point we should face is that there is no more positive aspect to capitalism at all. Since 4 decades american workers wages have been stagnating to keep jobs in the US, workplaces have not been "outsourced" from the US in any massive way (but they soon will! Hint: Jobs are only "outsourced" when there is low profitability, a crisis and ensuing massive unemployment), neither would reforming labor laws for US workers stop growing wage slavery in Bangladesh.

While you ignorantly think that cutting US/western workers benefits would hurt the growth of wage slavery in Bangladesh, the fact is that your glorious "job growth", proletarianisation in Bangladesh is inevitable, regardless of how much workers benefits in the US are cut or protectionist measures taken. In the end, there are only two possible future scenarios for Capitalism, either falling western workers' wages or protectionism and constant instability. But both scenarios are only possible after a deterioration of the neo-liberal model, after a large depression which bourgeois Economist (and contributor to The Economist) Richard Duncan says might be able to be put off for "another three to five year" with inflationary measures, but will last, quote "decades".

The bottom line is that the noose is tightening around Capital's throat, the only viable and workers' rising living standard option for the future is Socialism. So i might actually agree that we shouldn't be calling for "jobs!" but "higher wages!" along rising productivity. This needs to be made clear, that there is no more stable and social economic option within the framework of Capitalism, the future is Socialism and Communism.

[R_P_A_S]

One of the reason I guess I sometimes "drift away" from the "Big Picture" is because I don't see immediate change near when we talk about "world wide" working class stuff. It's so easy to just sit on the net and discuss it and throw theory back and forth but in my community I actually see a handful of activist who are fight daily for working people within the community and I actually see how their hard work pays off.. There are set backs too but I really admire some of these people and it just seems more tangible for the time being.

[RedSonRising]

Question is, is it better for the Third World to have sweatshops or no industry created by foreign capital at all?

No my friend; the question is, "how can we take steps to empower both workers in the Third World and workers in the Industrial West so that they may take control of their own lives and communities?"

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed it does.

It would keep prices artificially high, by producing in the US what could be produced more cheaply elsewhere.

Those industries in need of cheap unskilled labour, instead of seeking it abroad, would have to force down the wages they pay US workers instead.

You really need to read more about something called "labour arbitrage."

You also need to read more about product quality. The lower the costs, typically the lower the quality. Anyway, retail workers in the US would face upward wage "pressure" instead of downward wage pressure, so you need to reconsider.


This whole Autarky justification of yours doesn't change the fact that workers in Bangladesh who would have benefited from the outsourcing are now getting screwed over in the supposed (and wrongfully so) interest of American workers.

No they're not. Specialization in primary industry should be encouraged. Ricardo's comparative advantage, resource-based division of labour, etc. all apply for primary industry.

As for "secondary" industries, the Indian subcontinent as a whole, from Pakistan to Bangladesh and from Sri Lanka to Nepal, should be self-sufficient. That would allay your concerns.

[fug]

Obviously industry won't return to the US any time soon. The question is whether there's room for additional hundreds of thousands of new job opportunities opening up in the service sector. I don't think that we'll be seeing a spectacular increase of such jobs. There's also the fact perhaps a million unemployed young people with higher education already can't find employment.

[fug]

The other thing I'm interested in is how is the EU for example and the West in general going to solve the chronic unemployment, especially among the youth...

[RebelDog]

The other thing I'm interested in is how is the EU for example and the West in general going to solve the chronic unemployment, especially among the youth...

Probably by building more prisons.

[Psy]

No my friend; the question is, "how can we take steps to empower both workers in the Third World and workers in the Industrial West so that they may take control of their own lives and communities?"

Organize workers both in the west and in the 3rd world to synchronize strikes around the world so for example when worker in China strike making the commodities for Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart workers go on strike in support along with all the workers that transport commodities to Wal-Mart stores, plus utility workers cut power to Wal-Mart stores to force Wal-Mart to stay on strike (so even if Wal-Mart hires scab they won't have any electricity to utilize the labor of the scabs).

[GoddessCleoLover]

Capitalism is a universal mode of production and a great deal of industrial production shifted to countries where wages are low and unions either ineffective of non-existent. We seek to revolutionize this mode of production, but as long as the capitalist mode of production exists it seems highly unlikely that jobs will be brought back to the United States by the capitalists who shifted them to other countries in the first place. The concerns of the OP are very understandable but I seriously doubt that the capitalists can be lobbied to reverse these longstanding practices.

[Geiseric]

Comrades the fundamental base we need to express to the working class is that they're working more for less wages than 30 years ago. that's all we need to mobilize them! We need to express that idea, which is step one, and instigate a mass movement to demand the dues that capitalists are holding away.

Higher wages is the key to the first steps for communist revolution, namely the mobilization of the masses. It's impossible to argue with facts. People are working more for less. That's what we need to express to the rest of the working class.

We will break it down and explain how nationalities come into the equation, but the fundamental message, what Trotsky called a Transitional Demand, is to demand for wages corresponding with inflation. It's impossible to argue against that, which is key!!!!

[Ocean Seal]

We should look at the interests of the working class as a global whole, of course we should, but the situation where jobs are shipped to the poorest countries really is not doing anybody any good but the corporations. If you are losing your job, not because the work doesn't need done anymore, but through a process whereapon another worker in another country is easier to exploit, it isn't as simple as saying bringing back american jobs is nationalist bullshit or whatever else. From the viewpoint of the worker he/she has lost their living and also the community is poorer. From an environmental point of view its lunacy if a functioning factory is abandoned and rebuilt elsewhere and most of the goods then shipped back to US markets simply because it benefits profit. Corporations are locating to low tax, environmentally unregulated, authoritarian regimes with some terrible labour laws. Thats what attracts them obviously, but jobs in the US should be argued to stay in the US, especially if they are producing for consumption in the US. I think 'off-shoring' ultimately has a negative effect for the planet and its people. In the end it hurts us all.
Hit the nail on the head. Its a simple idea that production would turn out much better without profit being the motive and exploitation being the mode.

[fug]

We should look at the interests of the working class as a global whole, of course we should, but the situation where jobs are shipped to the poorest countries really is not doing anybody any good but the corporations.
That's nonsense. Developing nations where jobs are outsourced to obviously see the rise of the numbers of proletarians, industry grows and so on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrades the fundamental base we need to express to the working class is that they're working more for less wages than 30 years ago. that's all we need to mobilize them! We need to express that idea, which is step one, and instigate a mass movement to demand the dues that capitalists are holding away.

Higher wages is the key to the first steps for communist revolution, namely the mobilization of the masses. It's impossible to argue with facts. People are working more for less. That's what we need to express to the rest of the working class.

We will break it down and explain how nationalities come into the equation, but the fundamental message, what Trotsky called a Transitional Demand, is to demand for wages corresponding with inflation. It's impossible to argue against that, which is key!!!!

That is an exhibition of economistic thinking, I'm afraid. I have proposed such before and again on this board, but under a proper political framework. Nonetheless, this public policy really is radical reform, not a transitional measure proper.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I always hear people talking about how the USA always ships jobs overseas and how this really hurts people here in the states.This has been a trend and so has moving production to "right-to-work" states, probably even more immediately impacting wages and conditions in the US rust-belt over the last generation. "Off-shoring" is a convenient concept and bogyman for the bosses and politicians though - and as I said, it's not a total lie either. Often the threat of "off-shoring" has been used as a stick to beat workers into accepting worse contracts (implicitly, since it's illegal technically to do this) "just to keep the plant here".


How can the USA bring manufacturing jobs back from China, India and other countries? Again, I think it's important to state that a lot of this off-shoring concept obfuscates what's been happening to US manufacturing. As a percentage of National Product, manufacturing is a few percentage points from what it was before off-shoring: around 1/4. So what's happened to the jobs? Some, like I said, moved to Southern "right-to-work" states or to special economic zones on the border, but a lot has just been reduced through more automation and privatization. So a lot of work that used to be done by the factory itself is now done by subcontractors which has weakened unionization and driven down some wages. Call centered could be moved over seas or to domestic areas with less labor rights or weaker unions.


I'm not sure what jobs exactly "need to come back". I hope someone here knows more and can also answer this question.

Times are different so I'm not quite sure if this act alone will even last or if it will make our goods more expensive and harder to export?
The last thing on this topic of off-shoring that I think is important right now is that "re-shoring" is already happening. Obama talks this up, both parties hype "re-shoring" schemes and policies. But what is actually going on is that if current trends continue, US and Chinese labor will be neutral as far as cost for US companies. Chinese labor costs have increased while US labor costs have been increasingly depressed. So Obama champions stories of rust-belt companies which moved overseas and have now relocated to the US: the part he glosses over is that the old US jobs were well-paid union jobs and the new ones are probably more like half the old wage with no benefits.

http://deltafarmpress.com/blog/lure-china-s-cheap-labor-dims-more-jobs-may-be-returning-us
http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2012/08/20/daily32-More-companies-bring-manufacturing-back-to-US.html


Referred to as reshoring or onshoring, the movement has been gathering steam lately as a result of the rising cost of manufacturing overseas, particularly in China. In several recent studies (http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2012/08/20/daily32-More-companies-bring-manufacturing-back-to-US.html#), including MIT’s “Made in America: Rethinking the Future of US Manufacturing,” and the Boston Consulting Group’s similarly titled “Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the US”, researchers make the case that the conventional wisdom for the past number of years - that it’s always less expensive to build stuff overseas - ain’t what it used to be. Several factors, including rising labor and energy costs and the increase in manufacturing automation, are all contributing to a fundamental rethink by US manufacturing companies about where to make their products.

[Psy]

That's nonsense. Developing nations where jobs are outsourced to obviously see the rise of the numbers of proletarians, industry grows and so on.
Developing nations also have less opposition from labor thus get away with more risks. We also don't have the Bolshevik revolution in Russia anymore that created class consciousness and caused worker to demand better safety for workers in industrial regions around the world during the 1920's.

[fug]

If you don't have the proletariat you can't have revolutionary class consciousness. I mean you had Mao in China and the Naxals in India but we know how that ended up...

[Psy]

If you don't have the proletariat you can't have revolutionary class consciousness. I mean you had Mao in China and the Naxals in India but we know how that ended up...
There is no reason why a industrial workers state can't just industrialize underdeveloped nations once the revolution has dealt with capitalism.

Also there is no revolutionary need to have proletariat in these underdeveloped nations as they have zero strategic value in a revolutionary war against global capitalism due to their primitive and sparse means of production.

[fug]

There is no reason why a industrial workers state can't just industrialize underdeveloped nations once the revolution has dealt with capitalism.
How could Uganda or Moldova industrialize itself after a revolution of some sort?
Russia was a peculiar case, not every country can pull off a Stalin-type industrialization.

[Psy]

How could Uganda or Moldova industrialize itself after a revolution of some sort?
Russia was a peculiar case, not every country can pull off a Stalin-type industrialization.
What I'm saying is once we have a industrial workers state it can then send industrial aid to nations like Uganda or Moldova regardless of if there was revolutions in these countries or not.

[fug]

That's true. But of course we first have to have a revolution in the First World...

[Psy]

That's true. But of course we first have to have a revolution in the First World...
Yes, there is no way the underdeveloped world can hope to win against capitalist. The only way to defeat the bourgeoisie is through industrial might, our strength is that we the proletariat operates the means of production and even the mighty US Army can't even feed its soldiers without the labor of workers.

[cyu]

I always hear people talking about how the USA always ships jobs overseas

What they are really talking about is the movement of finance capital overseas. The dirty little secret they try not to let out is that finance capital is just bits of paper and numbers on computers - nothing actually needed in the production of material objects. As to how to react to this kind of "capital flight" - from http://web.archive.org/web/20010417014827/http://infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html

You have just overthrown the government, your far left party has just won a landslide election, or your vast coalition of civic, labor, and religious institutions have simply decided to come together and ignore the existing government. Capitalists are fleeing your country in their private jets. Investors have pulled out all their money. Foreign banks run by capitalists suddenly decide they are no longer willing to make any loans to your "rogue" nation. The former dictator has packed up all his suitcases full of gold, jewels, and cash from your national treasury, and is now nowhere to be found.

Now what?

Economic collapse? Mass unemployment? Depression and starvation? No, of course not.

Wealth is not to be found in currency, in the so-called "precious" metals, in paintings by long-dead painters. None of those are needed to survive. Wealth is found in food, in warmth, in health care, and in the things necessary to produce them. All the land is still yours. All the labor is still yours. Even factory equipment remains, despite the flight of "capital" - that is, the loss of things that represent wealth, but are not wealth themselves. In fact, very little has been lost and virtually all of the productive capacity of your nation remains. All that has changed is the accounting.

Your nation may still have in its treasury the remnants of the capitalist financial structure - gold, other precious metals, paper money from nations around the world. Spend it - as soon as possible. Buy commodities - those things you need to survive and buy any equipment you need to produce the goods you need. That is the real wealth to people who actually have to do the work.

What happens in the rest of the world as the people of your nation are suddenly flooding it with various currencies and "precious" metals, while snapping up real goods? The supply of those currencies and "precious" metals go up, while the supply of real goods go down. These goods become more and more expensive, while "money" becomes more and more worthless. Thus, there is all the more reason to exchange your money as soon as possible for real goods you will need.

When all the old money has been spent, you are free to live, work, and produce the things you need. Self-reliance is the only secure form of wealth. Trade with other nations can still be conducted, but do not hold on to their money - money is mere promise of future wealth, promises that can be broken whether from malice or from inability to fulfill them. Exchange any money for real wealth as soon as you can.

Money within your own economy should be based on real wealth. When farmers produce a bushel of grain, let them issue a paper note representing that bushel of grain. Since that paper note can be redeemed for precisely that amount of grain, there is no inflation between the notes and the grain. These paper notes can be collected by larger farmer organizations that then reissue new notes based on a diversified index of what they produce. While the value of money issued in this way may fluctuate with respect to goods not on the index, it will not change with respect to the goods that back these paper notes. This is the first step to currency stability.

However, be warned that these notes are still only as good as the institutions that issue them. Either you trust that they can always be redeemed, or you redeem them as soon as it is convenient. This is especially true of money you receive from other nations that is supposedly backed in the same way. Distance makes people bolder and less hesitant to break promises. Ultimately, however, convenience would probably mean you will place your trust in an organization of like minded people who will help each other ensure that what you have is really what you have - although you should make sure there are alternatives should you decide to change your mind.

People can probably be trusted when times are easy and when prosperity reigns, but when times are tough, promises are much easier to break than the laws of survival. This is what makes self-reliance of an economy important. This is why local industry and agriculture should be protected. Productively ability is the real source of wealth of the nation.

However, natural disasters also occur. While the world as a whole may be fairly stable, the area around you is much more prone to random fluctuations of climate and geology. Thus self-reliance is not the entirety of a secure economy, but merely the supporting structure. The secondary source of security is prosperity in other geographical locations. The more prosperous others are, the more likely they will come to your aid in times of trouble. The more they have to thank you for their prosperity, the more likely they will come to your aid. Again, merely being creditors to their debt is not enough. Nations are sovereign, whether anarchist or authoritarian. They can break their promises - they can ignore any legalistic claims to debt. It is the general goodwill that can be fostered between two nations or people that will be your salvation in case your own self-reliance fails.

In the end, captial flight isn't really capital flight. Real capital - the people, natural resources, and equipment needed to produce real goods - cannot be packed up in a bag when the capitalist skips town. They will require a lot of labor if they truly want to escape with real capital. What remains when the capitalists are gone are merely the people who are doing the work, and the means to do it.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I understand that we should speak for the entire working class and I also understand the whole internationalist concept and the class concept. However I'm talking baby steps. I'm being realistic here because this is the city where I live and where I'd like to stay for a while and it just so happens to the inside the USA.

My questions was just about "bring back jobs to the USA"... I hear this rhetoric all the time but I don't see it being possible for the stuff I mentioned in my main post and some of the stuff people added here by CLARION
The "keep jobs in the US" is patriotic crap that typically has been raised by the Steel and Auto industries in the US to get the government to put up tariffs and restrict imported goods. It is about making profit for the industrialists, not about improving the lot of the workers. And this protectionist poison pits US workers against foreign workers. Communists say "Workers of the world unite." Rather than fight against imports -- how about a fight to unionize labor in other parts of the world. Certainly the UAW had the wherewithal to do this in the past.

Nationalism is antithetical to being a Marxist/Leninist/Communist.

[RebelDog]

The "keep jobs in the US" is patriotic crap that typically has been raised by the Steel and Auto industries in the US to get the government to put up tariffs and restrict imported goods. It is about making profit for the industrialists, not about improving the lot of the workers. And this protectionist poison pits US workers against foreign workers. Communists say "Workers of the world unite." Rather than fight against imports -- how about a fight to unionize labor in other parts of the world. Certainly the UAW had the wherewithal to do this in the past.

Nationalism is antithetical to being a Marxist/Leninist/Communist.

So when workers in NY are facing the closure of their plant and fighting for their jobs you presumably take nothing to do with their struggle?

[#FF0000]

So when workers in NY are facing the closure of their plant and fighting for their jobs you presumably take nothing to do with their struggle?

Nah? Just point out that the "KEEP AMERICAN JOBS AMERICAN" is a shitty slogan which should be, uh, obvious enough to everyone here (but I guess some people have nativist friends to impress or something so).

But yeah, putting an end to outsourcing jobs is a p. good idea, I think. Let's just try to avoid the patriotic/nationalistic nonsense that comes along with it.

[#FF0000]

Oh and outsourced jobs don't help "industrialize" third world countries. If anything they keep them subservient by making it even more difficult for industries from that particular country to thrive and develop.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So when workers in NY are facing the closure of their plant and fighting for their jobs you presumably take nothing to do with their struggle?
No. I would support their struggle wholeheartedly. But the protectionist poison is fool's gold. It will only serve to drive prices up and cause workers elsewhere to be in a worse position. Surely there are other ways of fighting plant closures?

[Solidarity]

I don't think so.

Most American bourgeoisie companies are shipping out to go to China because of their lack of care for the worker over there. And, thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement, they can also go to Mexico. In Mexico, like the PRC, little is earned and the workers are treated terribly. But the bourgeois don't care. They only care about the money they're saving by practically enslaving Chinese workers.

[Psy]

No. I would support their struggle wholeheartedly. But the protectionist poison is fool's gold. It will only serve to drive prices up and cause workers elsewhere to be in a worse position. Surely there are other ways of fighting plant closures?
The late industrial powers become major powers through protectionism and really Japan's problem now is that protectionism has worked far too well for the Japanese capitalist class and they have a huge crisis of over production and diminishing returns on investments.

Japan's central planners doesn't know how to continue to plan for accumulation of surplus value for the Japanese ruling class yet they are not stupid and know free markets would just allow the wolves (other capitalists) in to steal their (Japanese ruling class) surplus value.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Japan's central planners doesn't know how to continue to plan for accumulation of surplus value for the Japanese ruling class yet they are not stupid and know free markets would just allow the wolves (other capitalists) in to steal their (Japanese ruling class) surplus value.

You mean Japan's indicative planners? There's no directive planning in Japan.

[Psy]

You mean Japan's indicative planners? There's no directive planning in Japan.
Japan has planned its economy since the Meijing Restoration, that had always planned in the interest of its capitalist class for example Japan subsidized its automakers for decades before they started to really take off world wide.

[mew]

the outsourcing and "buy only made in america" rhetoric is used by the bourgeoisie to pit workers against each other, confuse them, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Japan has planned its economy since the Meijing Restoration, that had always planned in the interest of its capitalist class for example Japan subsidized its automakers for decades before they started to really take off world wide.

I made the specific distinction, comrade, between indicative planning and directive planning. Even central planning can be one or the other. Directive planning was pioneered by the Stalin regime.

[RebelDog]

the outsourcing and "buy only made in america" rhetoric is used by the bourgeoisie to pit workers against each other, confuse them, etc.

I don't believe anyone here believes otherwise. This isn't about advertising slogans. Its about US workers survival, their communities and what revolutionaries should be doing. What I am saying is when US workers are fighting to keep their jobs revolutionaries should be in the thick of that struggle. One must fight capitalism where one can have the greatest impact on it, at home. US workers can best affect change by struggling at home, I can have the greatest effect in my country and so on.

[Fire]

What you should ask is why do Bangladeshi workers choose to work in such horrid conditions? It's because it's preferable to the alternative.

They work in those conditions because global capital along with dictatorial governments deny them any alternative.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't believe anyone here believes otherwise. This isn't about advertising slogans. Its about US workers survival, their communities and what revolutionaries should be doing. What I am saying is when US workers are fighting to keep their jobs revolutionaries should be in the thick of that struggle. One must fight capitalism where one can have the greatest impact on it, at home. US workers can best affect change by struggling at home, I can have the greatest effect in my country and so on.

Sure, but the key to this is building up class fight-back and organization because as I said in my last post, in many ways these jobs ARE coming back, but just in "right-to-work" states for much less that their "rust-belt" equivalent. When our bosses and politicians like Obama say, "bring jobs back" what they are really talking about is lowering worker's wages and eliminating unions in order to make American labor cheaper than alternative labor pools.

The percentage of the US economy that's in manufacturing is the same as in the post WWII boom: about 25%. So while "off-shoring" has happened, it's not the main cause of a crisis for working class jobs - consolidation, downsizing, or just moving from the unionized North to anti-union states in the South and South-West have probably contributed to this process more than off-shoring.

In the trade-union movement the "threat of off-shoring" has often been the cover for union leaders to sell concessions and bad contracts and promote the idea of cooperation and gaining in the long term by helping the company out in the short-term. It also is easily accommodated to xenophobic and sentiments which help take the bosses off the hook while workers blame each-other and the company exploits people on both sides of the border or ocean.

[Smash Capitalism]

Yes it is possible we must first get rid of nafta and nationalize our companies

[Die Neue Zeit]

The last thing on this topic of off-shoring that I think is important right now is that "re-shoring" is already happening. Obama talks this up, both parties hype "re-shoring" schemes and policies. But what is actually going on is that if current trends continue, US and Chinese labor will be neutral as far as cost for US companies. Chinese labor costs have increased while US labor costs have been increasingly depressed. So Obama champions stories of rust-belt companies which moved overseas and have now relocated to the US: the part he glosses over is that the old US jobs were well-paid union jobs and the new ones are probably more like half the old wage with no benefits.

It's not a conspiracy, though. What you need to consider is the impact this will have on the tertiary industry's labour market.


Yes it is possible we must first get rid of nafta and nationalize our companies

Have you thought in detail how to do the latter?