|
|
|
|
  |
 |
|
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
|
|
|
||
 |
|
||
|
|
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
Letters And Justice for All “A
New Age of Activism” (Spring 2002) perhaps inadvertently makes
an important point about the relative effectiveness of different
types of social activism by Oberlin alums. The most successful efforts
are those that connect directly with local issues; the goals and
the impact are clear, and the theory, as the article states, is
good, even if the results often get little public attention. The
“carnival against capitalism” in Seattle was something
altogether different. This media event was all about puerile slogans,
street theater, and street violence—with television cameras
to record the spectacle. No one in your article was able to articulate
a coherent agenda of social justice based on the dismantling of
trade liberalization. Instead we read mumbo jumbo about the World
Trade Organization as the “corporate-military-government-oppressive
power.” Oberlin students and alums who participated in this
event may want to ponder the fact that it received clandestine support
from the likes of textile magnate and union-basher Roger Milliken,
as well as ultranationalist Pat Buchanan and other proponents of
protectionist corporate welfare. The simple truth is that these
political opportunists and the corporations they represent stand
to benefit greatly from the trade restrictions that would result
from a weakened WTO. Where is the social justice in that proposition?
On the other hand, did the Seattle protesters seriously believe
that Third-World workers would benefit from “social chapter”
tariffs against their exports? Or how about the millions of poor
and working-class Americans who pay higher prices for everything
from clothing to cars to food when corporate lobbyists succeed in
getting the government to defy WTO rules? On this point, the activist
“theory” was deficient. But it is on the theory that I
would expect Oberlin students to rise above the Seattle crowd. There
is a wide gap between seeking to protect Third-World workers from
dangerous and exploitative working conditions and pure, old-fashioned
protectionism, seeking to keep out of U.S. stores goods at prices
that poor people can afford made by Third-World workers who are
delighted to have the opportunity for factory employment. Unfortunately,
the anti-globalization activists have joined the textile industry
bigwigs and their union allies firmly on the latter side of the
gap. The interviews with Liz Guy and Josh Raisler-Cohn would have
been more interesting if author Sara Marcus had asked them how they
felt when it was revealed that their vegan meals were being paid
for by South Carolina textile magnate Roger Milliken. Milliken is
not known for his devotion to empowering the poor, but he does have
a faithful habit of using whatever political means are available
to prevent an increase in exports to the U.S. of textiles and textile
products manufactured by Third-World workers, since this might hurt
his profits. Most recently, textile lobby pressure caused the administration
to back away from proposals to allow increased textile imports from
Pakistan, an action that cost an estimated 48,000 Pakistanis their
jobs. For this, Oberlin alums get arrested? |
|
back to top |