On May 9, 8:00 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 11:01 am, "Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So what's your point with this distinction, demand versus task?
Workers
> > councils are part of the TP. It is a demand, it just isn't agitational
> > right now. Essentially, you are saying it would be tactically
ultra-left
> > to raise the demand agitationally in the U.S., right now. I can't see
how
> > vngelis misrepresents your position by saying it is Open Borders, when
you
> > are for it, will even raise it eventually, but you just don't think
the
> > m***** receptive at the moment. This is a tactical issue, within the
Open
> > Borders camp. Maybe you all can peacefully co-exist, by using the
> > political backwardness of the U.S. compared with G.B.
>
> > (I use the demand/task distinction differently. Abolition of the
family is
> > a revolutionary task, not a demand. This means you don't fight for it
> > directly; it is a byproduct. Daniele probably disagrees.
>
> > It's im****tant to see the qualitative distinction, which you ignore,
> > between tasks, that is, non-programmatic goals, and demands that you
> > merely deem premature.)
>
> > As to what's implicit in the communist vision--this is no answer to a
> > question such as, why doesn't Open Borders appear in the TP? I suspect
> > your demand/task rumination serves to avoid this question as well. If
Open
> > Borders so obviously follows from the communist concept, you would
expect
> > to find it stated just once somewhere. Sorry, your position on this is
no
> > more orthodox than mine, perhaps less, because you dismiss national
rights
> > in imperialist countries.
>
> > srd
>
> > On Thu, 08 May 2008 12:33:44 -0700, <dave.walt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On May 8, 11:21 am, "Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 07 May 2008 08:28:45 -0700, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > >> > Well, in the US I don't know of any group that *agitates for open
> > >> > borders*.
>
> > >> You keep making this point, and John Holmes apparently sees it as
> > >> sufficiently im****tant to clarify. The problem is, you proceed
> > >> immediately
> > >> to imply that "open borders" is a proper democratic demand, when
> > >> properly
> > >> subordinated to the socialist program. So what's your problem with
"Open
> > >> Borders." Seems to me there is none, and you'd probably be raising
it
> > >> where the populace was more receptive.
>
> > >> --
> > >> srd
>
> > > It is not now, here, a proper "democratic demand"...it's a
democratic
> > > task, for sure. Land Reform (land to the peasant/farmer) in the US
is
> > > probably a democratic task now that big capitalist almost
feudal-like
> > > factory farms are dominant in the US agricultural economy in
> > > California...yet no one seriously would raise this (that I know of).
> > > I'm saying that the Open Borders perspective...that workers have no
> > > land, that IS reflected in every statement on the issue of
immigration
> > > by the socialist movement...doesn't mean we "agitate" for this any
> > > more than I would agitate for "workers councils" since no sector of
> > > the working class makes this their pov or, for that matter, is at
all
> > > tactically being poised. But our agitation comes from this analysis.
> > > And it's analysis that dictates we welcome all workers, that workers
> > > become part of the working class where they *live* and *work*.
>
> > > Additionally, there is plenty of historical evidence that our
movement
> > > *defends* immigrants without any qualification. No "but..." or
> > > "...if...". They are out class, we express solidarity.
>
> > > Don't forget, really, here on the abstracting APST, it has ONLY been
> > > Vngelis that has raised "open borders' as part of his analysis of
> > > globalization. While the *issue* of immigration in the US is a big
> > > one, still it's only him that has tried to revise history. Like his
> > > hatred of the MIA (along with some Stalinists), it's totally
> > > abstracted from the context he raises.
>
> > > So..."Open Borders" is not a "democratic demand" in that it is
poised
> > > now, it's a democratic TASK. At some point in the future we can
raise
> > > it. It would take a much higher level of class consiousness to
achieve
> > > this. Right now, we are against *repression* of foriegn born workers
> > > here in the US and opposition to being forced to emigrate in Mexico.
> > > Both are aimed at our respective gov'ts. Internationalism in action.
> > > David
>
> > --
> > srd
>
> I have a position that one of the tasks is to do away with borders,
> along with the State. It is at that level. Ergo, it is not a 'demand'
> which for me is something dynamic, used less as a noun and more as
> verb. The TP has many positions that can be used as demands. There is
> no real "open borders camp", basically there is a section of the
> workers movement that opposed immigration controls and/or restrictions
> on immigration and/or attacking immigrants (which is the modus
> operanda of US bourgeois politics right now). So our demand is "stop
> attacking immigrants".
>
> The tactics of raising this or that 'demand' is just that: a tactic.
> It's based on the level of class consciousness. The perspective should
> be around uniting our class *as a class* around demands that appeal to
> the consciousness of the class and with which they are willing to be
> mobilized around in a confrontation w/The Boss.
>
> David
So has the EU and NAFTA. IN fact since the proponents of Open Borders
took their cue from Soros funded programmes the world over the borders
have been axed in 27 EU countries. So in practice your policies are
being implemented.
Which implies it is no longer a demand but a reality. Now because they
haven't as yet been abolished all the way to Asia has probably to do
with the opposition to the EU Constitution which wanted expansion to
occur in that direction as well but was stopped by the majority of
French people.
vngelis
|
