Briefing Paper

 

Merle Ratner

 

        LABOR AND GLOBALIZATION – CUNY SLU

Professor Stephanie Luce

 

October 12, 2022

Introduction – The Concept of Globalization

        This briefing paper is intended as an introduction to a longer paper offering a left view of current issues in globalization for Vietnamese policymakers, whether in the mass organizations, the Party or the government.  

The purpose of this initial paper is twofold.  First, I make a distinction between the popular use of globalization as a class neutral process whereby regulations for trade (in goods and services), financial transactions, investment, credit, grants/loans and labor flows provide a competitive, relatively level playing field for most nations and people and the view I hold that globalization is essentially the playing out of capitalist interests in the age of imperialism – both at the national level, and with the growth of transnational capital.  Second, I distinguish the anti-globalization protectionism favored by sectors in the US, even among some labor and progressive circles, from the politics of anti-global capital international solidarity held by the left^[1] in the US (and internationally.)

Finally, I will offer some beginning recommendations about how Vietnam can discuss trade and investment in the context of developing people to people relations and a positive relationship with the US.  

A future paper would discuss the implications of building a massive manufacturing plant in the Southern part of the US and the attendant labor and community relations necessary to take a “high road” approach.

What is Globalization

I believe that the term “globalization” is a descriptive rather than a scientific or materialist concept.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines globalization as “The increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through the movement of goods, services, and capital across borders.^[2]  This is also known colloquially as free trade.  However, this view flattens out what is a dialectical process that goes on economically and politically in different historical periods between ruling and subordinate classes (in this era, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.)  Thus, “globalization” for the US or England today means something very different from what it meant for countries like Mexico in the 1960’s or ^[a]what it means for Haiti today. Thus, the definition I would use for what is called “globalization” today would be neoliberal global capitalism (or neoliberal globalization.)^[3]

Despite the relatively recent development of the term anti-globalization, what is called globalization is not new. Its first phase was mercantilism, from 1492 to the industrial era, followed by industrial capitalism, from the mid-1800’s through the First World War and regulated capitalism from World War II to the 1970’s.^[4]  Both Marx and Lenin detailed the history of global capital which has always been steeped in the blood of colonialist and imperialist conquest, slavery, war, racism and genocide.^[5]  The late, great Ellen Meiksins Wood points out that, “globalization is not a new epoch but a long-term process, not a new kind of capitalism but the logic of capitalism as it has been from the start.”^[6]  It is also true that “free trade” was free mainly for developed capitalist nations ^[b]for most of the history of globalization, particularly from the mid 1800’s to the early 20th century as Ha-Joon Chang notes: “While they were imposing free trade on weaker nations through colonialism and unequal treaties, rich countries maintained rather high tariffs, especially industrial tariffs for themselves.”^[7]

Today many assume that global capital since the WWII era has always meant the current structural adjustment regimes, particularly the denial of trade barriers and tariffs to protect economies in the developing world.  However, the post-World War II period of both national independence and cold war ironically offered some developing countries the opportunity to protect their fledgling economies, within the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by relying on import substitution strategies that allowed their economies to grow, protected by tariffs against imported goods. ^[c] After World War II, countries like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico were able to utilize import substitution industrialization with its “infant industry protections” which allowed countries to “move up the economic ladder.”^[8] 

In contrast, other countries pursued an export led growth model to direct their economies towards manufacturing or providing raw materials for international markets.  Some countries like Singapore and South Korea (ROK) had relative success using a form of this model. However Ha-Joon Chang points out that South Korea maintained a combination of export-led growth and rather strong state subsidies of industries combined with tariffs against foreign products and credits from state owned banks.^[9]  Other countries pursuing an export growth model, like Haiti, have been the victim of vicious looting and underdevelopment by capitalist countries (heaped upon the depredations of French colonialism and its debt in the case of Haiti.)^[10]

That changed in the late 20th century to the present, with the ruling class’s reliance on neoliberalism as the form of capitalist rule.  There was an emphasis on developing countries’ focusing on World Bank or IMF enforced export led strategies for development, later underlined by the trade regulations of the WTO. Neoliberalism (also called structural adjustment)^[d] comprises lower taxes and deregulation of the rich/corporations/banks, liberalized financial markets, privatization of state assets, cuts in public services and employment, attacks on labor rights, financialization, and freedom of capitalist trade but limitations on movement of workers.^[11]  It also includes a doubling down of western capitalist countries protecting their properties in former colonies/neo colonies through economic sanctions and threats as well as military means and overthrows of non-compliant governments. ^[12]  The GATT was replaced by much more complex and onerous regimes like the WTO, World Bank and IMF and numerous bilateral trade agreements which included all-encompassing trade regulations as well as increased regulations on capital flows.  These eliminated many of the development options that were previously used by third world economies.

The increase in international financialization that accompanied neoliberalism, particularly in the core capitalist countries, also led to more frequent financial crises and ones in which a crisis in the US, such as the subprime mortgage crisis, can rapidly impact the economies of countries across the globe.  T^[e]hese phenomena have led to increased global instability and to a capitalist crisis of accumulation in which, while corporate profits are skyrocketing, it is more difficult for the capitalists to realize these profits.

Despite theories positing the existence of a global ruling class and the dominance of transnational companies, the recent period seems to offer conflicting evidence. The supply chain and other economic breakdowns associated with the global Covid pandemic, along with growing cold war and outright military hostilities and wars, have mitigated ^[f]towards growing competition among the core capitalist nations and with some subsidiary capitalist nations, rather than the growing economic unity that had been predicted.  

Coupled with this is a growing gap between rich and poor nations and peoples and growing inequality within many developing countries and notably among some of the capitalist core nations (particularly the US.)  The stark poverty among millions around the world has led to a crisis of political legitimacy for capitalist governments, with resulting right (Trump, Orban, Marcos, Bolsonaro, Modi) and left expressions (Lula, Boric and the pink tide in Latin America, generally.)  Given this instability and the escalating climate crisis, major sectors of the bourgeoisie in the US (and likely globally) are setting up think tanks to attempt to resolve these contradictions by looking to replace neoliberalism with a new form of capital management. Likewise, even longtime supporters of globalization have begun the question its current efficacy.^[13]

What they will settle on and what the implications are for the regimes of global capitalism remains to be seen. However, the growth of extreme right wing, proto fascist forces in the ruling classes with popular expressions at the base risks an extremely dangerous future.

Capitalist Globalization vs Internationalism

        Leftists have never been opposed to globalization.  What we have been against is capitalist globalization. Proletarian internationalism has always been the watchword of the left since the time of Marx, Engels and Lenin!  In today’s common parlance, the left speaks of freedom of movement for workers not capital, and reparations for countries like Haiti whose economy has been long decimated by the French colonialism and US imperialism.  The left speaks of workers’ unity across borders; for seeking the high road for workers in all countries and eschewing the low road.

        This has been the logic behind increased cross-border labor organizing and solidarity as well as material assistance from socialist countries like Cuba and Vietnam to developing countries.^[14] 

Proletarian Internationalism v. National Chauvinist Protectionism

        Some socialist and progressive developing countries are wary of the US left’s concerns about “globalization” because they don’t distinguish between the protectionism of the liberals and the internationalism of the left. Capitalist protectionism is a national chauvinist politic that places the interests of one’s own country (and its working class) above the interests of other, particularly developing countries and working classes.  This happens, for example, when the US tries to protect its own industries from tariffs while imposing high tariffs on other countries’ products.  Sectors of capital, the government and the labor movement also seek to ban immigrant workers from the US, boycott foreign made goods and protect “American jobs.”

        The US labor movement, with its mix of political views, has begun to adjust to reality and change its approach, especially regarding immigrant workers, but there is still a significant degree of national chauvinism and a history of cold war collaboration with US imperialism to overcome. Stephanie Luce points out that, “Many union leaders assumed their interests were aligned with their employer, rather than workers overseas, leading them to see globalization as…country versus country, rather than worker and union versus corporation.  They then blame globalization for declining union power, rather than neoliberalism.”^[15] This is also complicated because most of the free trade regimes like NAFTA, WTO, ^[g]etc. and the activities of US manufacturers who close factories in the US only to open sweatshops in places like Bangladesh are harmful to both US and foreign workers – hollowing out the industrial center of the US and killing thousands of foreign workers in industrial “accidents” in unsafe factories, mines and mills.

        The left, however, is clear that our principle is workers internationalism, not reactionary nationalism or chauvinism!  The idea of pitting US workers against foreign workers is a self-defeating path to ruin for all of us.  Instead, raising the standards of work and living for all workers is the path forward to sustainable development and more. While relatively few politicians in the US are left enough to embrace these views, increasing numbers of labor unions are making the journey from protectionism to mutualism and solidarity.  Some of the historically left unions like the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the United Electrical union (UE) have made this clear in word and action.  Michael Galant, writing in Foreign Policy in Focus, makes the point that, “While other unions have fallen into the self-defeating trap of responding to neoliberal globalization with a return to nationalist protectionism, UE remains committed to building an alternative internationalist model,” opposing the Trump administration’s imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs, saying they, “firmly oppose using [tariffs] as a cudgel to extract concessions from trading partners and allies, and to bolster corporate profits at the expense of workers’ living standards and the health and safety of our communities.”^[16]  Other more mainstream unions are moving towards cross border organizing if not the full scope of internationalism.

Recommendations Regarding Vietnam’s Approach to Global Trade Issues in the US

        As Vietnamese private companies begin to open production, marketing and sales facilities in the US, at a time of growing labor militancy among US workers, it is crucial that Vietnam engage with the left and especially left labor to assure that Vietnam’s longstanding relations with significant sectors of the US people are strengthened rather than diminished by these new trade/production relations.

        Rather than lumping the left/labor in with the liberal (or illiberal) protectionist forces, Vietnam can see left/labor as an ally in assuring that labor rights are protected in the US^[h], as they are legally bound to be by Vietnamese law in Vietnam, and that solidarity between US and Vietnamese workers and their broader communities is fostered through exchanges, media and education.  

        This could include labor exchanges between Vietnamese unions and the more left US unions to share discussions of each other’s situation and lessons in organizing, health and safety, etc.  Both labor movements could also share experiences in dealing with the increasing precariatization of labor.^[17] (The precariat is defined…as work that is ‘uncertain, unstable and insecure.’” ^[18])  

        It is also crucial not to conflate the activities of private Vietnamese companies operating in the US with those of the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, in media and public relations work, even where there are some overlapping interests.

Conclusion

        While global capitalism is a confusing and always shifting relation, it is important to be clear that what is referred to as globalization usually obscures the real class relations involved and provides cover for all manner of reactionary protectionism along with so called free markets, (and “human rights” imperialism) masquerading as support for development and workers.  Some of this is unfortunately done under the banner of what is a generally left/progressive anti-globalization movement. ^[i]

        On the other hand, real opposition to global capitalism is based on an understanding of imperialism and the class nature of today’s international relations.  It requires real solidarity between peoples and nations (including structurally remedying the massive inequities existing between the core capitalist nations and developing nations) and a genuine proletarian internationalism.

        

---