It is now well over a century since Frederick Engels wrote Anti-Duhring, his famous polemic against Eugen Duhring. In it, Engels described how the bourgeoisie utilized the revolutionary slogans of the French Revolution--Liberty, Equality and Fraternity--to put across its own program.
The cry for freedom by the bourgeoisie, Engels explained, meant nothing more than freedom of trade. All else was mere window dressing.
In the struggle with feudalism, the bourgeoisie was tireless in not only denouncing but demolishing the many restrictions on trade and commerce which inhibited the development of the capitalist system. Having triumphed over feudalism, however, and overturned the many archaic restrictions against capitalist trade and commerce, the bourgeoisie soon went to work in force to introduce its own restrictions. It reduced the newly born working class to no more than an appendage of its system of capitalist exploitation and oppression.
Freedom or free trade?
In the contemporary world struggle, the bourgeoisie still postures as the champion of free trade. But it is not the free trade of the old, competitive stage of capitalism. It is the free trade of giant imperialist monopolies.
Free trade as it existed before the middle of the 19th century has virtually disappeared. Its replacement by giant, marauding imperialist monopolies has meant an increasingly restricted role for the smaller nations of the world and increased domination by the most powerful imperialist monopolies throughout the globe.
Small-scale production, which had a more or less stable role in the epoch of the classical competitive stage of capitalism, has an altogether unstable and precarious existence in the epoch of the imperialist monopolies. What has given it an extension of life, so to speak, is the growth of the service sector. But that is dependent on the stability of the capitalist monopolies. A serious economic crisis would almost certainly result in a catastrophic situation for small business as well as the service sector.
Most important, monopoly capitalism has meant a restricted role for the working classes, given the virtual omnipotence of the monopolies that control the imperialist governments of the world lock, stock and barrel. It is in this contemporary context that we should view the attempt by the U.S. to create a sort of "free trade zone" between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
Labor and NAFTA
A great deal of importance has been attached to the North American Free Trade Agreement, originally negotiated by the Bush administration. The Clinton administration, after making a few changes of its own, is pushing hard for the U.S. government to adopt this agreement.
The organized labor movement, as exemplified by the AFL-CIO labor federation, is opposed to it. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration is moving swiftly to get the agreement adopted, although divisions in the ruling class regarding certain aspects may delay the agreement for a considerable period of time.
It is important, however, to consider it from the viewpoint of the interests of the working class, not only in the U.S. and Canada, but most particularly in Mexico.
Trade between Mexico and the U.S. has increased sharply since 1986, when the Mexican government began to lift what the U.S. considered restrictions against U.S. exports. Thus, says a piece by U.S. trade representative Mickey Kantor in the Aug. 17 Wall Street Journal, "exports from the U.S. to Mexico grew to $40.6 billion in 1992 from $12.4 billion in 1986. Our $5.7-billion trade deficit with Mexico in 1987," says Kantor, "was transformed into a $5.4-billion surplus in 1992."
What all this means is that the Mexican government opened up its economy in a big way to the penetration of U.S. capital.
Attitude of workers in U.S.
What should be the attitude of the U.S. working class? From a class point of view, neither the agreement nor any of its side or supplemental agreements should be supported. We should not support the expansion of U.S. capitalism anywhere--north, south, east or west.
The task of the U.S. working class is to increase its role in the struggle against monopoly and not to conduct a struggle on behalf of monopoly capitalism to extend it to any part of the world. It was good that the AFL-CIO opposes the NAFTA agreement.
But the trade unions oppose it on very narrow grounds--how it affects their particular unions. In discussing relations among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, however, the unions are inevitably drawn into the vortex of world politics. They are obliged to take a position on the role that U.S. imperialism is playing in the contemporary world.
While it is correct to point out that the NAFTA agreement almost entirely neglects a role for the unions in the negotiations, it is more important to demonstrate to the Mexican workers, and also to the Canadian workers, that the U.S. trade union movement can play a thoroughly independent and progressive role as regards the expansion of U.S. finance capital abroad.
The issue is a difficult one, if we consider it from the point of view of principle. But if we abandon this position, then what follows is that we willingly or unwillingly become an instrument for the support of U.S. capitalist exploitation abroad.
No chance of tranquil development
All the talk that NAFTA will inevitably create jobs in the U.S. and Mexico as a result of Mexico lifting restrictions against U.S. corporations is unwarranted. It leaves entirely out of consideration the nature of capitalist development, which is marked by inevitable capitalist crisis.
Capitalism not only moves upward; it can also decline to abysmal levels. That's only one aspect of it. Another is that the capitalist class will abandon one market for its products, no matter how lucrative, in the interest of another market which is far more lucrative, where the rate of profit is even higher.
The objective of imperialist diplomacy, and of U.S. diplomacy in particular, is to aid the capitalist monopolies wherever they seek to broaden their influence. It is in their nature to pull out of Australia and go to New Zealand, or go from New Zealand to Nicaragua or Mexico if the rate of profit is higher. This is the motive force of capitalist development.
It was good for the AFL-CIO and all its affiliated unions to at least oppose the agreement, even if only on narrow trade union grounds. But that is inadequate, considering the dimensions of the agreement. To go along is to become a silent partner to the devastating role of U.S. finance capital abroad--and at home.
The real objective of the unions should be to forge a solidarity agreement among the trade unions of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It must take into consideration, first and foremost, that Mexico is an oppressed country and that the U.S. and Canada are imperialists, notwithstanding that Canada is a junior partner in the struggle.
Agreements come and go
NAFTA is not unique as an instrument for the expansion of finance capital. Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, all of the imperialist countries have over time made similar agreements. They lasted until the relationship of forces changed, at which time the agreements were abandoned. Witness the attempt of Europe to create a common market soon after the Second World War. At the present time they are seeking a means to unite all Europe within their net. But they are constrained by the sharp contradictions among the European imperialist countries--and by the domineering role of the U.S.
From all this it should follow that the only salvation for the working class and the oppressed countries, as Marx pointed out in the Communist Manifesto, is "Workers of the world, unite!" Lenin added "oppressed people and workers of the world, unite" to bring this slogan into the imperialist epoch.