Re: On the Settler Question

On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:10:40 -0700, nada <dwaltersMIA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> The Marxist and Trotskyist perspective
> would be to organize on both sides of the border to address the social
> crisis that PUSHES these workers out of their country. It's the only
> internationalist perspective.

I once advanced this position here, without your customary e***enicalness.
 
The thesis, to be exact, was that when immigration became a threat to the 

receiving country, that meant social contradictions were objectively  
centered in the countries emigrated from. The response, I contended,  
required  more international centralization, so that revolutionary  
resources could be ****fted globally, in response to the globalist  
resources of imperialism.

This is a distinct perspective from vngelis's, and I don't immediately see
 
a way of resolving which of the two, if either, is correct. Mine is the  
more orthodox, which all else equal, counts in its favor, but all else  
isn't equal. Lacking knowledge of the countries involved in sufficient  
depth, I think this position entails that Mexico and Albania should  
present revolutionary op****tunities, and 50% isn't' good enough.

Vngelis's perspective and this one are in tension but not mutually  
exclusive. In fact, they two positions are in broad consistency, because  
it is easier to argue for eliminating forced emigration if you start from 

the premise that voluntary emigration is not an option meriting  
consideration. For reasons of class solidarity, the labor movement in the 

backward country should affirm as principle that its workers should eschew
 
emigration to countries where the laboring m***** don't want to receive  
them.

srd