On Apr 28, 7:33=A0am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:16 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 11:11 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > On Apr 27, 2:44 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > Someone may be brought there initially as a slave but then if they
> > > > become the foreman they cease to be a slave.
> > > > It happens amongst workers every so often when they seek
management
> > > > positions. The cease to be in the class they started out in or
were
> > > > born into.
> > > > vngelis- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > I had missed this posting, which largely answers my last question. I
> > > think you are saying they become settlers upon their integration
into
> > > the settler social stratum. That makes more sense than others are
> > > ready to grant, although it requires that there _be_ a distinct
> > > settler stratum, as in South Africa.
> > > srd
>
> > It makes no sense what so ever. YOu are letting V use his "settler
> > smoke and mirrors" on you and you are falling for it. First, the
> > overwhelming majority of Indian immigrants became working class. There
> > was a small stratum that became..."foreman" as V puts it, mostly this
> > stratum were petty-bourgeois and at not point in S. Africa were they
> > ever 'ruling class', which is the real issue, like the Boers, who
> > became grafted onto the Anglo ruling class with the rise of the
> > national party after WWII.
>
> > The idea that you are brought over, a whole people, =A0as workers,
then
> > you 'become a settler' defies logic and history.
>
> > David
>
> I gave an example of two-three countries in Africa none of which were
> mentioned in any counterreply apart from S. Africa.
>
> The post-colonial period which went from direct colonialism to
> indirect led to the expulsion of settlers in countries ranging from
> Egypt, Zimbabwe, Congo, Algeria etc. This is a natural evolutionary
> process whereby the newly independent state seeks to survive in
> hostile conditions whereby the old rules of control and rule have
> changed. When the British left Africa directly (not indirectly) a
> vacuum was created and the Indians became defacto prominent in many
> roles. Idi Amin following on from Kemal, Nasser expelled them. That is
> the correct thing to do as they played the role of the transmission
> belt for imperialist control.
>
> If Morales means anything he has to expel the Santa Cruz descendants
> of Europeans, send them to Argentina at least if not back to Europe.
> They have to leave the political scene.
>
> Now the PAC used to have a slogan One Settler One Bullet. This will
> eventually be actualised as whites will end up leaving S Africa as
> they have been Zimbabwe. They aint African even if they have been
> there 10 generations. Black Athena is a book it aint real, like Rambo
> and one cant justify their presence because we allegedly all descend
> from ...Africa hence we are all Africans. Masking over the class role
> of settlers and their descendants is justifying the role of 'divide
> and rule' which creates pseudo-nations ie Prots in N. Ireland and then
> all the left does is spend time justifying their continued presence in
> those areas. A boat, a ****p, a plane can move any descendant anywhere
> on earth to anywhere again and back again if so desired. But they have
> to go. Like the zionists in Israel have to leave, the Arabs have to
> unite for any problems to be solved. These are necessary steps which
> all oppressed countries have to go through, if the revolution doesn't
> occur prior to it. How many Brits, French, ****tuguese remained in
> China after WW2? Waiting for the numbers? They were there for around
> 100 years, 2/3 less than their presence in S Africa. They were given
> the boot though. Anyone who defends their presence in these ex-
> colonial countries, is an imperialist lapdog, ie Sparts, Walters, SWP-
> UK etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
First, thanks for reposting this stuff under a different thread.
Well, to start with your last rather upsurd, a-historical explative is
quite unique. To discuss this means departing from standard Marxist
and workers methodology which of course, rejects this. I can't say it
rejects this "specifically" but it's never been a demand of any
revolutionary movement, at least not as generally expressed by Vngels'
disive and non-Marxist view. Also, this perspective would leave the
tiny "Group Vngelis" as a group of 1 or 2 in entire world.
Generally, the reason "expusulions" are not carried out is because it
has little to do with the Democratic revolution or democratic demands,
let alone class demands. Perhaps Vngelis can square this with either
Permenent Revolution or the Transitional Program, or, perhaps, with
the either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Internationals. I'm saying this
out of curiosity because I know this is going to be his unique
cotnribution to some discusion someplace (although probably just
here).
The big issue of course is his definition of "settler" which he's now
using transparently as a standy-in for "immigrant", his real bugaboo.
But, on the history. First, WHAT settlers were expelled from Egypt? I
really don't know or didn't know that it was settler-targeted by
either the French or the British. Algeria: the French colons, who
viewed themselvs as *French* and not Algerian were
expelled...except...the small minority that opted for Algerian
citizen****p. Same is true in Morocco.(itself an interesting example
as, per Vngelis, ALL Arabs in the Meghrab are "settlers" over the
indigenous berber majorities--Morocco/Tunisia and minorities--
Algeria).
In S. Africa there hasn't been any expulsions. There is not such nice
tidy bourgeois term as "indirect expulsion" of whites there. Many left
because the *refused* to live under the aborted form of Black rule,
others are going no place, for now. The PAC's slogan was quite sort
lived, and, please note, no longer in usage. The slogan divided AZAPO
(Steve Biko's party) and hasn't been taken up again since Marxists (as
in the case of SAPO) are interested in the REAL issues, which are
Black Majority Rule, Land to the peasant, factories to the workers and
socialism. If anyone agrees with this they are can be members of
either SAPO or AZAPO. Correctly IMO.
The Palestinians have forever accepted Jews who ditch their Zionism as
acceptable to stay in Palestine. The history of the FI was one of
unity between Jewish and Arab workers against colonialism and
settlerism. "Settlerism" is NOT the same as immigration: it is a form
of foreign *conquest* designed to give *power* over the lives,
property and politics of the (reletively) more indigenous people of a
region.
It makes a lot of sense for Vngelis' anti-immigration pov to suggest
anyone ever who has moved from one place to another is a 'settler' for
"10 generations". My view, the anti-imperialism one, rejects this
point of view as racially reductionist and, politically irrelevant.
For example, he cites Uganda when Amin expelled the Ugandans of Indian
decent. What made the Indian's at least partially "settlers" was that
they continued, after independence, to hold UK pass****ts. As such,
they were in a way described by Vngelis as 'transmission' belts for
imperialism. But this was not *really* the case. The real transmission
belts are often NOT the 'richest' ethnic or religeous group...the
*ruling class* was often the native Blacks in an ex-colonial country.
This is true, for example, historically in places like the English
speaking Carribean...decendents of Indians often (but not always) the
'richest groups' in these islands. But this was based often on narrow
trading and im****t businesses...the real capitalists were the land
owners and tran****tion owners, most of whom were Black. (and of
course, Blacks are "settlers" too per his definition) Thus there was a
huge 'fake' Black Power movement against Indians by the Black
bourgeoisie who were quite jealous of the wealth ac***ulated by a
minority of Indians (or Chinese) in these islands.
Of course in places like Guyana, half the working class is Indian, the
other half Black. It was, historically, the Indians (brought there
like their S. African cousins to farm the land) were the most anti-
imperialist and any repository of Marxism in the independence movement
found it's strongest calling among Indian "settlers". And of course
Indians only arrived shortly after the Blacks did.
David
|
