On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, nada wrote:
> On Jul 30, 10:39 am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 7:37 am, dave.walt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, yes, no, maybe, no.
>>
>> Not sure how to line these up. Specifically, what does "maybe" apply
>> to?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, any opposition to NAFTA will seek to solidiarize with immigrant
>>> rights. It means rejecting anti-immigrant behavoir by the gov't and
>>> the unions (should that occur). the only internationalist approach is
>>> to veiw all workers as allies not opponents. Putting in coversly,
>>> there IS no fight against NAFTA that includes the "fight against
>>> immigrattion". Doesn't exist outside the Pat Bucahnan and CNN Lou
>>> Dobbs. So you are posting a non-existent juxtiposition of forces.
>>
>> You mean no tendency has taken the combined positions? Well, that's
>> the problem I'm pointing to. How is it a criticism of my view?
>>
>> You create an amalgam, to use O'Callaghan's favorite term, between an
>> anti-immigration position and an anti-immigrant position like
>> Buchanan's. To say that aboli****ng NAFTA will eliminate the root cause
>> of excessive immigration is not anti-immigrant. What you seem to fear
>> (giving you the benefit of the doubt) is that workers will create the
>> same amalgam that you have created. I don't dismiss that danger. Thus
>> in the initial implementation, the immigration-reduction arguments
>> should be stated softly, which is exactly what McKinney is doing. But
>> she openly recognizes (see my quote in earlier post) that excessive
>> immigration is bad for American workers, and she at least mentions
>> that aboli****ng NAFTA will ameliorate that _problem_.
>>
>> Do you sup****t the McKinley presidential candidacy (or "candidature,"
>> as the Lambertistes say).
>>
>> srd
>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>>>> srd
>
> SRD,
> I stand with McKinney on this question. This is a *working class*
> anaylsis she gives. Not sure where you see her even *imply* that
> "excessive immigration if bad for American workers" (she may of, I
> didn't see it) she said "globalization is bad for American workers"
> and I stand by her analysis of this. She got a good education in
> Mexico by militant trade unionists there that have been fighting
> NAFTA. She sup****ts the demand of "The right NOT to emigrate". She is
> against "scapegoating" immigrants. all correct.
>
> David
>
The SL commented recently in the Workers Vanguard that McKinney was
about as good as one could expect from a bourgeois politician who has
served a number of terms as a Democrat in Congress, including on the
House Armed Services Committee.
The statement that "globalization is bad for American workers" is a
nice sentiment, and true in an ultimate sense if you consider
globalism to be the contem****ary manifestation of capitalism, and the
only thing that is ultimately good for American workers is its
overthrow.
Somehow, I suspect that is not what she meant.
In the *immediate* economic sense, which is I assume what she meant,
it isn't really true. "Globalization" i.e. imperialism involves
transfer of wealth from countries like Mexico to America. Inevitably,
the upper crust at least of the American working class would get some
benefit, probably more in immediate economic terms than is lost by
factories moving south--not much comfort for the guys working there
naturally, but they are outnumbered by everyone else.
In the argument for example between Bill Clinton and Ross P***** in the
1992 elections, Clinton correctly if cynically pointed out that
Americans were the winners over NAFTA, and Mexicans the losers.
-jh-
|
