On Aug 13, 7:17=A0pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:55 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 4:21 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > You tend to pick nits.
>
> > =A0>I have been saying, in response to our resident> Euro-chuavinist,
t=
he EXACT same thing...look at the root causes of
> > > emigration (as opposed to "immigration"). Of course it benefits the
> > > U.S.working class...Also, I oppose any imperialist "program" for
> > > immigration...guest worker programs should be opposed. Not sure
where
> > > I differ with Sister McKinney..or your latest statements.
>
> > As a point of general method when dealing with centrist positions, one
> > cannot *****s them by saying: A implies B; the centrist embraces A;
> > therefore, the centrist cannot be criticized as failing to sup****t B,
> > because logically, the centrist has taken a position that logically
> > impels B. The failure to follow his thinking to its logical
> > conclusions is just a description of the malady of centrism.
>
> > So you say, A - "Look to the root causes of emigration." I say, you
> > fail to sup****t B- opposing NAFTA in the U.S. with propaganda about
> > how NAFTA creates the immigration boom. But you counter (in effect)
> > with: I call for examining the root causes of emigration. Emigration
> > from Mexico and immigration to the U.S. from Mexico are two names for
> > one process. Thus, the criticism is at best a nit.
>
> > But what makes you an incorrigible centrist is that you are entirely
> > capable of sup****ting the premises while opposing the conclusion. The
> > equivalence between immigration and emigration rates is exactly what
> > you resist, _in practice_. My objection would indeed be a nit, were it
> > not your act of conscious subterfuge and obfuscation.
>
> > You can't seriously call my criticism national chauvinist one minute
> > and nit picking the next.
>
> > srd
>
> Srd...how many times do I have to restate my opposition to NAFTA?
How many times must I restate that my objection is not to your
position on NAFTA--I acknowledge you oppose it. In fact, I freely
admit that you perceived the great im****tance of opposing it before I
did. My objection is that you fail to oppose it *effectively* in the
U.S. by omitting any refererence to the problem of excessive
immigration.
> helped organize one of the first workers conferences against NAFTA
> back in the 1990s. I'm probably one of the few people on this NG that
> is active against NAFTA. How can anyone be FOR NAFTA and claim to be a
> socialist? I've never even hinted that I sup****t NAFTA.
Nor have I ever hinted you sup****ted it.
Maybe an analogy will help. I'm running out of ways to make this
obvious point. What was wrong with the Stalinist approach to opposing
fascism in Spain? Nobody could truthfully claim the Stalinists failed
to oppose fascism. Rather, they failed to fight it effectively, by
limiting the demands to the bourgeois democratic. RememberTrotsky's
argument about the ineffectualness of the least common denominator
approach to anti-fascism. A fight against fascism had to appeal to the
deepest class interests of the Spanish workers to be effective.
Analogously, I say you oppose NAFTA but fail to oppose it effectively
by failing to link the struggle to the immediate material needs of
U.S. workers, most im****tantly as regards NAFTA, the baleful economic
and social consequences of the immigration boom. Got the point now????
>
> Secondly, we disagree in part on Immigration/Emigration or it's
> effects in quantity for the US.
True, but your position is irrational. As Holmes conceded--and you
didn't challenge him--recognizing that excess immigration is bad for
wages is "simply good economics." Your position isn't the result of an
objective study of the facts but rather--in my opinion--an appetite
for alliance with bourgeois liberals. In essence, you substitute bad
economics for confrontation with national chauvinism. Even Holmes
recognized the appetite behind your disingenuousness regarding the
economic facts concerning immigration.
But I was AT the conference in Mexico
> (organized...against NAFTA!) where the slogan arose about fighting
> emigration. Again, the *root causes* of immigration and it's effects.
> No one proposed *restricting* immigration to the US. Period. This is
> the dif.
No it isn't. Having thoroughly considered the restriction option, I
rejected it, because I concluded that there was no method to
accomplish restriction that was at once effective and principled.
This isn't complicated. Our difference, as I've said, is this. I would
say to American workers (not before laying the groundwork, to avoid
misperception): "Immigration has been a scourge, but immigrants are
your allies, not your enemy. To stop this economic, cultural, and
social scourge, you must unite to defeat NAFTA, the source of the
immigration problem facing U.S. workers and the emigration problem
facing Mexican workers.
Whereas, you, ostrichlike, would deny an immigration problem exists in
the U.S.
You have to make up your mind as to whether my position is nitpicking
or chauvinist. It certainly cannot be both, and I maintain it is
neither.
srd
|
