On May 1, 5:32 pm, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 2, 7:18 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 9:37 pm, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > From someone who sup****ts the imperialist-globalist programme of
> > > flooding labour markets with immigrants this is rich indeed.
>
> > Unlike you Dusty, I actually work against globalization and guess
> > worker programs. Did you even READ the post on the Mexican demand for
> > "The right NOT emigrate"? Guess not. Do you actually do anything
> > against globalization?
>
> > David
>
> I read the articles on the site you URL'd.
>
> It reads as a rationalisation for mass migration to the USA (and by
> implication anywhere else). When hasn't Mexico, and Latin America in
> general been impoverished compared with the USA? The same applies for
> Asia vis a vis Australia, Africa relative to Europe and so on? You
> provide a cover for one of the great capitalist-globalist neo-liberal
> "freedoms" - freedom of mass movement of people.
The you clearly don't understand the difference between pre-NAFTA
Mexico and current-NAFTA Mexico. It was never an issue of relative
poverty. It is a question of a *dislocation* in the *national* economy
of Mexico caused by one of the world's first globalization schemes:
NAFTA. If you don't understand how this effected the class struggle,
you don't get it. It's why you could never build *any* tendency in
Mexico, you simply don't get it. Secondly, what the West once is guest
worker programs that cut down on rights. AT least in the US the
movement is to crack down, de****t more (500,000 last year) and
restrict even basic rights for both the legal immigrant and illegal
immigrant sections of the working class. This is why hundreds of
thousands of workers were marching today.
> The serious negative consequences of this for the working class of the
> target country has been continually denied by you on apst. In fact
> you, like all the bourgeois media everywhere, deny its role in driving
> down wages, conditions and bargaining power of working people, their
> marginalisation as a social force and the massive enhancement of the
> power and wealth of the bourgeoisie and layers of the petty
> bourgeoisie. What happened to Marx's idea of the reserve army?
First, you'd have to show evidence that overall wages have dropped
because of immigration (legal or illegal). You'd have to show where
this is. You haven't done this. You only assert it. Immigration in
fact stagnates wages at the bottom. I've mentioned this dozens of
times. And, the other point I've tried to make is "immigration is a
bad thing". The Mexican working class *as a class* understands this.
This is why the most militant unions and sectors of the peasantry in
Mexico want get rid of NAFTA, preserve PEMEX and stop all
privatization since they know this leads to massive unemployment. You
don't seem to understand this. That massive unemployment leads to
emigration. It disrupts families. It causes a weakening of both
economies.
What we are arguing about is how to prevent the economic dislocation
caused by NAFTA, CAFTA, Mercusol, and dozens of globalization
agreements. You can't do this by DIVIDING the working class between
"native" and "foreign born". This is what the capitalists want and
it's why you, Dutry, are more a pawn in the eyes of imperialism than
*anyone* advocating open borders (which few actually agitate for, let
alone propagandize for). You are playing into the hands of our "Minute
Men", KKK etc all of whom point to THE WORKER as the problem and not
the system of decay caused by globalization in places like Latin
America on the one hand and he failure of the union reformists to
effectively organize even the native born working class. You are on
the wrong side of the class line Dusty.
David
|
