politics is to want something

mandag, september 04, 2006

labor day essay: buy american!




It’s labor day, the traditional start of the fall election cycle. While most of Santa Barbara’s progressive political community looks at today’s holiday as the two-months-to-go mark for the November midterm election, I’m thinking about the state of the nation’s unions. Despite many positive developments and an increasing commitment to new organizing, it would be foolhardy to argue that workers are in anything but a tough situation in 21st century America. The bulk of new and innovative organizing will doubtless be centered in the growing service sector. However, there are still millions of industrial and manufacturing jobs out there to be organized.
Those jobs are under constant threat from the forces we generally refer to as globalization. Millions of jobs have been scrapped throughout the country, not only in the so-called Rust Belt of the Midwest, but also here in California, throughout the South and Northeast, the cradle of American industry. This is a crisis not only for workers and their families who are thrown to the market wolves, but also for the nation as a whole. On this labor day, we should reflect on how important it is to make things in America.
There are many people and organizations in a community like Santa Barbara who are part of the growing movement toward organic, sustainable and locally-grown food. That’s a good thing. From the perspective of public health as well as ecological sanity, buying locally, when possible, is an important principle. Getting people to make a connection between their favorite produce and our dependence on fossil fuels is an important lesson. We shouldn’t stop at food, however. We are driving cars made from metal forged in China, minerals mined in Africa and assembled in pieces from Korea, Mexico and Japan. The same is true of our ipods, cell phones, computers and other hallmarks of the “new” “clean” economy. In fact, they are very, very dirty products.
Basing our economy on debt-fueled consumption, real estate, and a low-wage service sector invites a massive crash. It won’t be felt equally throughout American society, but where it is felt, it will be disastrous. In many respects, the consistent and horrific decline of our urban centers is a harbinger of a deiundustrialized America. Communities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago and Newark have been destroyed by the loss of manufacturing jobs. When this happens in the context of racialized patterns of opportunity, the results are easy to see.
The art of balancing trade policies which aid the development of poor countries while supporting a domestic industrial base is a difficult one- but it will never be achieved so long as our policy makers, and consumers, fail to see the importance of a domestic manufacturing base. Consumer preferences alone aren’t going to solve the problem, but they can go a long way. Consider again the case of organic produce.
Wal-Mart, a company that got its start stocking made-in-the-USA products and now leads the retail industry in plunder and devastation, has announced plans to step up its marketing of organic food. While this is a mixed blessing for organic food advocates, it demonstrates that rising demand has effected the behavior of a major U.S. corporation. It would be great if, in addition to shopping for local squash, progressive shoppers would also buy cars, electronics and washing-machines made in the United States.
Of course, organic buying also shows the limitations of consumer-based social action. Organic farms are not generally better than their pesticide-using counterparts when it comes to labor standards. In fact, many workers trade exposure to pesticides for increasingly intensive labor. There are attempts underway to find ways of labeling food as worker-friendly. Of course, as with anything from toasters to tomatoes, there is no better label than the union label.

Happy labor day!

Etiketter:

7 Comments:

Blogger Ben said...

You have made some good points here, but I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment:
Is it really REALISTIC for countries with high labor costs to have large industrial sectors? Germany, where I am studying now, has been hemmoraghing manufacturing jobs just like the U.S. I simply do not see how this trend will be reversed unless the labor movement manages to gain significant power in the developing countries where all of the production is moving to.

I am all in favor of buying American(when the products are well made, at least...I hate to say it, but I will probably never buy the cars made by your union!), but ultimately, the sad reality is that we are moving towards a service-oriented economy, and that will be difficult to change. in fact, we already ARE a service economy, for the most part.

i do not think that being a service economy is, in and of itself, a bad thing, as long as those jobs are unionized and pay a living wage. SEIU and UNITE HERE are right on the money in terms of where they are devoting their organizing energies, I think. unfortunately, unions like yours and the Steelworkers are going to have do organize outside of their industries to achieve real growth.

onsdag, september 06, 2006 12:28:00 p.m.

 
Blogger daraka kenric said...

Ben,

Of course the rules of the international economy need to change- we need a strong labor movement in developing countries, we need international finance/investment reform, we need to open US markets to agricultural products from developing countries...etc... I'm not arguing for autarky.

Just for common sense. An america based on a "service economy" will be a dangerous one for working people.

Even if we unionize walmart, the wages will never be as high as they are in the industrial sector. The profit margins at the retail end are simply not high enough. The reason that Walmart does so well is precicely because of low wages. Production can generate enough in terms of "surplus" to both pay high wages and reinvest. Retail cannot.

I'm sorry to hear that your taste in cars is more important to you than the jobs of your neighbors. Frankly, that's sad.

As for the industrial unions in the United States- sure they should be organizing new sectors. But there are thousands of plants, including auto plants, which are unorganized.

-d.

torsdag, september 07, 2006 2:25:00 p.m.

 
Blogger gkurtz said...

I'm skeptical, Daraka. (This might be the first time I disagree with one of your blog posts, by the way.) Why "buy American" rather than "buy union"?

You give two reasons why we should buy American:

1. A country (eg the US) ought to have a mix of manufacturing, service, etc, in its economy.

2. Buying things made in one's country makes ecological sense.

The first is a plausible economic strategy for a decent society, although I'm not convinced it's the only one. Even if you're right economically, I still don't see why that means I should buy American. Your argument, as I understand it, is that we need *unionized* manufacturing jobs in order to have a decent society. (Actually, you slip back and forth between saying "buy union" and "buy American", as if the two are equivalent. Your *argument*, however, is all about how we should buy American.) As you know well, not all American-made items are union made, and some (most) union-made items are made in other countries. So what do you have against, say, Japanese (or Canadian, or German) unionized autoworkers? (If I wanted to buy a car based on which car company best reflects a social model that I support, I'd be more likely to go with VW than with Ford!) You're trying to make a principled argument for economic nationalism, and it just doesn't hold. Nationalism is nationalism is nationalism. Yes, I have a moral obligation to think of the well-being of someone in Detroit - but I've also got a moral obligation to think of the well-being of someone in another country. I still haven't heard a good reason why one moral obligation ought to outweigh the other. (And don't try that "the jobs of my neighbors" thing on me: people on my block mainly work in the service sector, construction, and miscellaneous day labor. "Neighbors" is a word best used literally, and you're using it metaphorically.)

As for the second part of the argument (or was that just a rhetorical dash at the eco-left's lack of concern about economic justice?) - it doesn't hold either, unless all the raw materials come from the same country, which is unlikely.

To be blunt -- it sounds like you're straining to come up with an argument you can swallow that will allow you to stick to the UAW line on economic nationalism, and you're *really* straining. May I respectfully suggest that the problem here is partly that the labor movement, like any other set of social institutions, is sometimes shaped by institutional momentum (ie, the UAW doesn't want to fade away) at least as much as by actual human needs and sound principles? There has to be a way for members and allies of the labor movement (as with any other set of organizations) to distinguish between institutional self-interest, which is a means to an end, and the end(s) that we want our instiutions to serve, and to finesse the tension between the two. There has to be a way to criticize the manufacturing unions' nationalism without ending up being anti-union, and to be pro-union (or can I say "social democratic"?) while looking beyond the immediate institutional self-interest of the current institutional apparatus of the labor movement.

søndag, september 10, 2006 10:07:00 a.m.

 
Blogger daraka kenric said...

Geoff,

Yes, we *do* strongly disagree.

1. On buying union and buying American. This is not as complicated as you are making it out. If there isn't a manufacturing base, it can't be organized. If there aren't jobs, they can't be union.

2. Name a social democratic economic strategy that did not involve nurturing and supporting a domestic production base. Sweden? Austria? Britain? The (New Deal) United States?

3. I'm a bit insulted that you've accused me of "straining" to stick to the UAW line. I believe in a democratic left, not a theorized one- one that builds policy around the actual interests of actually existing people. You go try to sell your "well, I want to support the German social model" in Indiana. The U.S. Left has tried the strategy of abandoning the actually existing working class many times: it is both immoral and a failure strategically.

I'm for real political realignment, not theoretical realignment. You sound like the dot.com new new Democrats- the UAW and other industrial unions just have to wake up and realize that they are obsolete. With friends like that, who needs the neocons.

4. I have nothing against unionized German or Japanese workers. Nor do I have anything against the German or Canadian or Japanese labor movements, all of which work to create macroeconomic policy which keeps their members working.

5. You have a strange definition of nationalism. What left project doesn't seek to use institutions to help actual people for whom that institution has power?

mandag, september 11, 2006 4:01:00 p.m.

 
Blogger gkurtz said...

Sorry about the “straining” bit -- I was out of line there. I’m a bit ruffled myself, though, that you lined me up with the dotcom Dems. That’s pretty low.

I accept your point that the US needs a manufacturing base. Like Ben, I wonder how much we should rely on the economic strategy of protecting that base and how much we should rely on raising service sector wages, but obviously these aren’t mutually exclusive, and the second depends in part on the first, and the question in the end is one of the relative importance of two important things. Most importantly, this is for me really just a question, not an argument. My understanding of macroeconomic policy is too elementary for me to engage in a real debate on this point -- and I’m not sure we’d end up disagreeing if I knew enough to have that debate with you.

Here’s what really bothers me in your argument.

Historically, rhetoric about buying American has often -- not always, but often -- been associated with racism or ugly kinds of nationalism. (I think here of the anti-Japanese sentiment that was widespread in the 80s.) Calls to buy American are often linked to the idea that “they’re taking our jobs” -- which also just so happens to be the cry of the anti-immigrant people. So, here’s a question: How do you take a “buy American” stand in a way that doesn’t add fuel to those kinds of fires?

I’m with you when it comes to the idea of a real and democratic left. But I also know that we share a commitment to some kind of internationalism. You raise the example of how I’d make my case to the Indiana autoworker -- ok, then: how would you make your case to the German or Japanese autoworker? Politically and personally you’re probably more likely to have occasion to talk to the Indiana autoworker -- but does that make the Indiana autoworker’s interests more morally significant than the others’?

You wrote that I have a strange definition of nationalism. Here’s my definition, and I think it’s a pretty common one: Nationalism is the belief that the needs and interests of members of our own nation should matter to us more than the needs and interests of other people. That’s different from decent patriotism: the decent patriot says “I love my country” in the way that I might say “I have the best mother in the world” while meaning no disrespect to your mother, while the nationalist says “I love my country” in a way that says “go screw yourself” to everyone else. I know you mean your “buy American” position to be a kind of decent and democratic patriotism, not a kind of nationalism, but I think you end up more nationalist here than you intend. You say you have nothing against German or Japanese unionized autoworkers -- fine, but when you say “buy American” it sounds like you’re setting up a zero-sum game, and like you’ve decided we should root for the American autoworkers to win that game simply because we share a set of national borders with them. A macroeconomic strategy of protecting the US manufacturing base is not necessarily a zero-sum game on a world scale, although it surely has costs for some people in some places at some times. Why do you want to highlight the us-versus-them piece of that complex picture?

In your original post you mention “the limitations of consumer-based social action.” That may be the key here. It seems to me (and I think you agree) that calling consumers to consume one product rather than another isn’t very effective as an economic or political strategy, and that the main political purpose of consumer politics is to build consciousness. Ultimately, I object to the “buy American” call because it’s not about the kind of consciousness I think we need to raise. We have plenty of nationalism around us (although not enough decent patriotism). We don’t have enough pro-union consciousness or enough international solidarity. If you want to try to convince me that a “buy American” position can build decent patriotism rather than nationalism, or that it can be a roundabout way of building pro-union consciousness, I’m listening. Right now, I don’t see it.

Whether economic impact or consciousness-raising is the point: Given a choice between a foreign-made, union-made product and a comparable US-made, non-union-made product, it would seem to me to be better to pick the former. Why shouldn't "buy union" be the watchword on our consumer-politics banner, if we're going to have such a banner?

As for what I said about the UAW: There’s some history of US manufacturing unions relying heavily on appeals to economic nationalism. I’m not trying to reduce the UAW’s proud and honorable history to those moments, but they are there, and they are not your union’s best moments, and I thought I heard echoes of those moments in what you wrote. It’s in the immediate self-interest of a US autoworker for sales of US-made cars to rise, and so the UAW has an institutional self-interest in high sales of US-made cars. That’s no more significant, morally speaking, than the interest a German autoworker has in raising the sales of German-made cars. Yes, I care more, on a visceral and emotional level, about the person I’m likely to meet than about the person I’m not likely to meet -- but I’m not proud of that. A good answer to the question “Who is my neighbor?” is an answer that unsettles us, as I know you know. There’s a big picture here, and to my mind the point of having a self-consciously democratic-left politics is that it means we try to keep an eye on the big picture even though we participate in and feel a loyalty to democratic institutions that, like all democratic institutions, must be responsive first and foremost to their own members.

onsdag, september 13, 2006 10:55:00 a.m.

 
Blogger daraka kenric said...

Geoff,

Self-consciously democratic-left politics, again, should be rooted in appeals to real people. The nation-state is, despite the rhetoric of the flat worlders of the left or the right, still the decisive political entity of our time.

And the US is no ordinary nation-state. It's more than just the happenstance of sharing national borders. Working class Americans vote for the President of the United States. Germans don't. That alone means that building a progressive majority here is crucial- and it can't be built by telling peole that they don't get to have jobs because of the complex international economy or the coolness of the german social model.

That to me is the big picture. The biggest of pictures.

Also, the UAW's position is not economic nationalist. We do not tell people just to buy American- we tell people to buy UAW made vehicles. That sometimes means cars with Japanese labels- and there are plenty of GMs and Fords not made by UAW members. There are American-made Toyotas not made by UAW members.

We can debate the term "nationalist" elsewhere. I strictly disagree with your definition and analysis.

However, any notion of "local" is going to be somewhat arbitrary- (unless you are using some sort of strict bioregional demarcation). With that, given the fact that it is at the national level that trade and macroeconomic policy is set, and national economies that influence how people vote, we should be thinking about buying locally- meaning made in the United States.

onsdag, september 20, 2006 8:57:00 a.m.

 
Blogger gkurtz said...

Daraka, you write: "We do not tell people just to buy American- we tell people to buy UAW made vehicles." Ok then. But this is just what we were arguing about, I thought: your original position (the one I disagree with) was about just telling people to buy American, union made or not.

I'm down with your argument about building a left majority here by appealling to real people. "Solidarity begins at home," or something like that, right? We never disagreed there. My argument was that there are multiple ways to make those appeals, and some are better than others -- some help build a left majority and some build other kinds of majorities. And what you're saying here -- asking people to buy UAW cars -- is making sense to me. Or at least I'm far more interested in it than when we started this conversation, even though I still wonder if the old idea of international solidarity might need to play more of a role than you're allowing for in the kind of movement we want to build. But at any rate the position you take here is different (or seems different to me) from where you started, and I think that difference matters.

torsdag, september 21, 2006 12:51:00 p.m.

 

Legg inn en kommentar

<< Home