On Apr 28, 8:01 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
>
If size were an issue in discussing politics then marxism would have
had no chance in its history as I dont recall it ever being a mass
movement apart from a few brief periods in history and for a short
time as well. Although this obsession you have with size is unhealthy
living in LA as well...
> 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?
Jews (your favorite topic and you didn't even know!) as well as Greeks
were chucked out by Nasser
http://www.country-studies.com/egypt/nasser-and-arab-socialism.html
I met people who were booted out years ago...
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).
Weren't the Vietnamese boat people essentially collaborators of US
imperialism?
Wont Iraquis be expelled when the Yanks lose totally?
White French citizens who lived in Algeria were expelled weren't they?
> 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.
White farmers in S Africa are attacked daily. More than a million
white youth have left.
The law which states indiginous have to be given jobs is leading to
white flight.
What has happened in Zimbabwe that you ignore will happen in S Africa,
is happening in S. Africa hence the interest of the West in Zimbabwe.
History though will go through its black phase for the South African
continent.
The slogan 'One Settler One Bullet' is being implemented on the ground
irrespective what the politicians are doing or what they dream will
happen in the so-called 'Rainbow Nation'.
> 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.
Whatever you say is that the Indians were expelled from Uganda. You
cant square the circle explaining to us why they were expelled if they
were not settlers but indentured slaves. Their role was to run the
country on behalf of the British who departed. They did. Idi Amin
wasn't naturally anti-Indian after all his CV was fighting the Mau Mau
in Kenyas war of independece on behalf of the British much in the same
way as Saddam fought Iran on behalf of the Yanks. He was forced to
expel them because of the pressure from below.
> 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
Guyana like Argentina if populated by all races other than indigenous
are special cases. The settler issue does not apply internally but
from the outside in, much in the same was as in the USA as the true
Americans have been wiped out and are left on some casino
reservations...
|
