He argues that I failed to set the record straight on the Militant's coverage of pacts such as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Militant's stance, Annis contends, was "neutral." The paper, he says, "argued why workers should reject any opposition to these pacts that would be based on a nationalist, pro- capitalist attitude. But it stopped short of arguing that workers should oppose these pacts and along what lines."

I don't intend to defend every jot and tittle the Militant has ever written on this in the 69 years it has been published, or dispute whether there have been articles that weren't totally clear. But I disagree that the general orientation of the Militant on imperialist trade deals has been neutral. That would be an unpardonable departure from 150 years' experience of the working-class vanguard since Karl Marx and Frederick Engels first got involved in the workers' movement and began writing on this question.

Even the three articles Annis cites to make his case refute him. For example, the Dec. 12, 1994, editorial points out that GATT will greatly benefit "a majority of the U.S. employing class." It punctured the myth propagated by the ruling rich that GATT would solve unemployment and other evils facing working people. It further argued that President Clinton "promoted the deal as a great `liberalization' of world trade. But like all trade agreements it contains a multitude of protectionist measures and contains the seeds of future trade wars between Washington and its competitors in Europe and Asia."

Following this denouncement of the GATT agreement, the Militant editors sharply criticized both the ultra-rightist and liberal opposition to GATT, both of which were "draped in the same nationalist cloth."

The other two pieces Annis refers to make similar points.

I would also refer Annis and other readers to two articles that appeared in the September 27 and October 4, 1991, Militant. Both were later reprinted as the final two parts of the Pathfinder pamphlet Farmers Face the Crisis of the 1990s. The first article focused on why workers and working farmers should reject the ruling class' "free trade" campaigns and pacts. The second centered on what's wrong with the rulers efforts to construct a "protectionist fortress" and the treachery of labor officials and farm leaders joining this campaign. Articles by Marx and Engels were quoted to help ground the arguments on trade in the continuity of the revolutionary workers movement. The conclusion of the 1991 articles: "Neither capitalist protectionism nor free trade offers a solution to the price-cost squeeze facing the big majority of working farmers. Moreover, both perspectives draw working farmers into tying their fate to either `free trade' capitalists or the `protectionist capitalists - all in the name of defending `American' interests." Had there been representatives of the working class in Congress when GATT, NAFTA, or any other trade pact came before the body for ratification, what conclusion would they have drawn from the Militant articles referred to here as well as many other similar pieces? Would they think they should abstain and not vote on the proposed trade deal? Or would they cast their votes against it? It seems to me that the Militant's stance would clearly indicate taking the latter course.

There's no question that the preponderance of the Militant's coverage has been to explain what was wrong with the chauvinist campaign conducted by the labor officialdom in opposition to NAFTA and other such trade accords. This is where the greatest confusion is to be found among workers and working farmers. It's where there is the most pressure to get caught up in supporting one wing of the capitalist rulers and their politicians.

Part of explaining the need for the working class to chart a course independent of the capitalist parties and present its own alternatives to the deepening crisis of capitalism requires refuting in detail the erroneous course of attempting to protect "American jobs." This also means taking on progressives, including some who call themselves socialist, who argue that class-conscious and revolutionary- minded workers should become the left-wing, the internationalist voice of the opposition movement to NAFTA and other accords.

Admittedly, it is a challenge to oppose imperialist trade deals from the framework of projecting an independent, working-class political course and not get sucked into or tail end the labor officials' nationalist campaign. Rather than tackling this task with the vigor and thoroughness required, it may be easier to take refuge in the notion that the trade pacts are of no concern to workers and argue for neutrality. This, however, is not the course the Militant has followed. - DOUG JENNESS  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home