On May 8, 6:34 am, Daniele Futtorovic
<da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Of course, without politcially weakening the Metropolis, the success
of the neo-colonial country to free itself...to address the social
problems caused by imperialism, is that much harder. No argument from
me on this.
david
|
