this injunction, which was out of character with U.S. free enterprise
( 95 ). Alas, foreign governments did not applaud but instead used this
opportunity to denounce the United States. Politicians in France, Spain,
and Japan were among the first to castigate Washington for halting the
exploitation of foreign nations by U.S. capitalists. Australia and Canada,
previously among the more virulent opponents of the activities of U.S.
MNCs on their terrorities, now bellowed that President Johnson was
about to damage their economies. In a letter to the president, Australia's
prime minister uttered veiled threats about what he would instigate if
the inflow of U.S. capital into Australia were reduced. Ottawa was out-
raged at Washington's instructions to U.S. MNCs (with Canadian sub-
sidiaries), which would effectively prevent them from expanding in
Canada by injecting additional resources. The restrictions were described
perversely as "interfering in our internal affairs."

Chrysler's British subsidiary was frequently mentioned in the press
of North America because of the antics of its bloody-minded union
representatives. Slogans such as "Yankees, go home" adorned the fac-
tory walls. In 1975 the chief shop steward publicly threw down the
gauntlet to John Ricardo, Chrysler's CEO, who was told to "pay up or
get out." The world media were informed that UK workers would rather
become unemployed than be the poor relations of Chrysler: "We are
not going to be the puppets of a multinational corporation." A few
months later the parent in Detroit announced its complete withdrawal
from manufacturing in Britain. Once again the shop stewards manifested
their revolutionary fervor on the television screens; this time they
scorned the Yankee MNC for the impertinent declaration that it was
going home.

Four men, all from North America, stood at the cradle of the MNC
legend. The leftist Stephen Hymer, of MIT and Yale, traced the evolution
of capitalist businesses from one-product workshops to multidivisional
international corporations. He shared the view of Howard Perlmutter,
MIT and Wharton School, that the centralized head offices of MNCs
demand subservience from their subsidiaries. Hymer opined that private
sector MNCs were bad for mankind (especially for the host countries),
while Perlmutter thought they would be a blessing all round. These two
theoreticians were joined by two "practical" individuals: Charles Lev-
inson and Eldridge Haynes. Levinson, a devout socialist, accepted that
MNCs are here to stay. Their evil impact could be warded off when
trade unions were organized to bargain globally. According to Haynes's
credo, MNCs were marvellous creatures. By supporting them, one ad-
vanced the cause of world government. Haynes aimed at organizing
TNCs of different countries into a global association.

With hindsight it is now known that the four founding fathers had
exaggerated the influence of the international companies. Thus Haynes

-xii-