On 2008-05-08 01:10 +0100, nada allegedly wrote:
> On May 7, 3:42 pm, Daniele Futtorovic
> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I pretty much agree with the definition of "settler" you have
>> elaborated throughout this thread, that the decisive criteria is
>> whether they consider themselves part of a foreign nation, or
>> instead of the nation they're dwelling in. I don't necessarily
>> agree with the practical consequences you've spoken of, but neither
>> do I disagree -- in my view they're essentially dependent on the
>> specific situations and my knowledge of those which were discussed
>> is too limited for me to take any specific position.
>>
>> At any rate, in my opinion the aspect of settler or not is mostly
>> irrelevant, or rather ought to be from a point of view of class
>> struggle. What in this context matters is not whither some person
>> came but whether his an exploiteur or not. In the same way, while I
>> hold the view that control of immigration (meaning, in practice, a
>> stop to immigration) would be in the interest of workers in
>> developed industrial countries, I hold it that such a policy should
>> involve accepting, integrating those who've already immigrated
>> into such a country.
>>
>> I also agree that Vngelis' posts, in this thread as well as in the
>> "MIA" thread, are a far cry from rational for the most of them, and
>> that he seems to be frantically aiming, or should I say "throwing
>> dirt" at you personally. I've been off a while, but reading up some
>> of the post of the last months, I found myself more often than not
>> wondering, and not being able to decide, whether I was drunk or
>> the posters (not limited to Vngelis).
>>
>> Still, there have been enough situations where I was agreeing with
>> Vngelis, seeing more truth/sense in his positions than in his
>> contendents', for me to know that he is not "fundementally
>> irrational", even least "not even political". So I could probably
>> spend my time pondering whether he popped a fuse or got replaced by
>> an MI6 bot -- only that I won't, simply taking what's written as
>> it is written, regardless of the author, to some extent at least.
>>
>> In that sense, please allow me to counter rationally (according to
>> your qualification) such arguments as I deem fit to be countered.
>> After all, there isn't like an oversupply of rationality in our
>> world, so it shouldn't hurt too much.
>>
>> -- DF.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure, of course I wasn't really respondng to you Daniele, but to
> Vngelis, perhaps unfairly treating you as a 'foil' against Vngel's
> non- Marxist world view. Like you I place the class struggle first
> and couldn't care less what someones 'race' is...I suppose this
> Vngelis' latest incantation as a demigogich 'red-brown' cadre he
> dreams of becoming.
>
> It would be interesting, from afar, to see a group develop around his
> ideas, as politically scatological as they appear.
Indeed (and I do mean that without prejudice).
> I have yet to see him, for example, address the issue of the class
> struggle in Mexico and how to stop emigration (as opposed to stopping
> immigration) to the US. He seems not to sup****t, by ignoring, the
> most advanced layers of the Mexican working class who are demanding
> the right NOT to emigrate, seeing as NAFTA has made the decision for
> them.
That's a very interesting issue. Could you maybe give a short overview,
or point me to an appropriate do***ent (you may have mentioned one
before and me missed it -- if that's the case, sorry) describing what
kind of policies pressure workers to emigrate, other than basic economic
ones? Or maybe I should ask before that, are there ANY policies
pressuring them to leave on a vector other than the economic one?
> I think, having said that, that this issue of "settlerism" may be the
> first time he's even addressed developing countries under
> globalizing capitalism.
>
> Ah..he did ask what it meant for workers to increase 50% their
> numbers from other countries.
I meant to address that earlier, but didn't in the end.
This example is contrived to a point where it's unrealistic. If, say one
hundred million workers came to the US, they surely wouldn't be
"settlers". They'd be seeking lunches from garbage bins, like a great
deal of the former US-workers.
For an immigrant population to establish itself as a distinct settler
population, there needs to be a significant gradient, that is a
difference in height, of productivity, of culture (there is such a thing
-- though it's not necessarily good) between the nation they come from
and the destination in the first place (or they'd all have to be loaded
with cash, but why would they leave, then?). That's not a thing which
happens to ever-so-slightly developped and reasonably populated
countries. It surely is something which HAS happened, but I don't think
it's something for which one would have to have a political policy
ready, today.
> My response is that this represents a *disaster*...I say this
> generally, )it would have to mean an increasin of 100 million in the
> US to make this a fact) of great pro****tion. But how to address it.
> He chimes in with "Close the borders" (meaning tighter immigration
> laws). 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.
Nevertheless I think it's a bit fairytaleish. Emigration these days
happens in poor, overpopulated (that a synonym), underdeveloped
countries, towards richer, less-overpopulated countries. This difference
in national developement which is at the root of the
emigration/immigration will also be reflected in the state of workers'
organizations and parties etc. on each side. Consequently, while
workers' representatives on both sides will probably be able to AGREE to
address social crisis, the organisation on the emigrating side will most
probably be too weak to do anything much about it.
Or let me state this differently. To single most im****tant reason why
poor countries are poor, or remain poor, is the rich countries'
pressure. Consequently, to address the social crisis in the poor
countries, you'd have to get rid of the rich countries' pressure. This
would presuppose socialist or communist rule in those latter countries.
Which we are quite far from. But: which we are ever FARTHER from BECAUSE
OF immigration.
So it's kind of a vicious circle, and surely the internationalist
perspective you drew is of no help in the short term. I agree that it
would be the right thing in the (very) long term, or rather in a world
of federated socialist republics. But that's not the world we live in.
--
DF.
|
