Re: On the Settler Question

On May 7, 8:12 pm, "Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Contrary to what I wrote below, the perspective focusing on the sending
> countries doesn't say necessarily that the rate of emigration predicts
> revolutionary op****tunity. The economic pressures for emigration roughly
> predicts it, but the actual rate of emigration responds also to a
> countervailing factor. If as I suggest an unwillingness to emigrate
> expresses class consciousness--not merely for the reason given--the
actual
> emigration rate is an inverted function of class consciousness. I could
be
> wrong, but it looks to me that today Albanians, for example, are pretty
> generally reactionary.
>
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:37:07 -0700, Stephen R. Diamond
>
>
>
> <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:10:40 -0700, nada <dwalters...@[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
>
> --
> srd

Stephen, there is no evidence to sup****t your statement. You view:

"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"

.... is a-historical and never was a position of the workers movement.
So how do you justifiy it now and why is the situation different for
workers leaving one region, one city, one country now as in the past
that you justifiy your abandoning an internationalist position?

The fact that the higher level of class consciousness among immigrant
workers in the US attests to the contrary position you state.
Secondly, and more im****tantly, it was never the position in the lat
150 years or longer of any section of the workers movement that
workers should "eschew emigration". It's just not there. The reason
workers emigrate is to avoid absolute impoverishment in the immediate
sense. Impover****ment brought on by globalizing capitalisms chase for
profits and control.

You ought to rethink this.

D.