On Jul 22, 12:52 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:41 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > "Right centrist"? Kettle, black.
>
> Actually, I had the Cliffites in mind. I'd call you a dead center
> centrist. Myself? Theoretically, left-centrist is my best guess.
>
>
>
> > At any rate, I don't think even the SL claims to *influence* the
> > struggle against globalization. Real currents that have *prioritized*
> > and actually *initiated* actions against globalization, as opposed to
> > just raising idle theoretical ping-pong matches about it, all have
> > defense of immigrants in the forefront or central place in their
> > campaigns.
>
> And they have no hope of enlisting mass sup****t among U.S. workers, in
> the case of NAFTA, because most workers are concerned about losing
> jobs to Mexico, and would be concerned about losing jobs to Mexicans,
> if they understood NAFTA's affect on migration. Being a parochial
> Yank, II know much less about Maastricht.
>
> That's because they know that globalization forces workers
>
> > to immigran
>
> Yes, but they (you) refuse to address the question from the
> perspective of workers in the receiving countries, who could be
> brought to oppose NAFTA militantly, if they understood that it drives
> workers to immigrate. This is, of course, for the obvious reason that
> the workers in the receiving countries don't _want_ them to immigrate.
>
> t which has been proven by the onslaught of structural
>
> > adjustment programs everywhere, even internally, like China, which has
> > 150 million internal migrants.
>
> > These groups are the only ones struggling against Maastricht, etc.
> > And, even this is narrowed because many groups want a 'better' NAFTA
> > or a 'better' Maastrict as oppose to a real struggle against it.
>
> And because they cripple the struggle by willfully omitting any
> slogans opposed to the excessive immigration that NAFTA and Maastricht
> spawn.
>
> srd
>
>
>
> > David
Actually most of my own activities vis-a-vis "gloablization" have come
under the banner of fighting NAFTA and it's fighting NAFTA that bring
just about all workers in the US together.
Maastrict and NAFTA accomplish the same thing but with a higher degree
of political integration for the former. All of this falls under the
aegis of the WTO, but the older 'free trade' pacts still stand.
Neither had much to do or effect up immigrations from a legal stand
point, but both encourage immigration as they dislocate local
economies in favor of profit, which is why the ONLY way to address an
influx of immigrants is to fight back against this form of 'forced'
emigration when economies collapse. Everything, and anything else, is
plain ol' jingoism.
David
|
