The Coverup Regarding Immigration & Wages
srd
What they deliberately ignore is that immigration has depressed wages.
Andrew Hacker writing in the liberal New York Review of Books, this week
states this obvious truth:
"That more people are being paid less is in large part a consequence of
the surge in immigration. Since 1970, the Hispanic portion of the
population has tripled in size, while Asians have increased by a factor of
five. Most recent arrivals are willing to accept low pay; indeed, many
come here hoping to find those positions.The statistics on the hotel
industry in "Low-Wage America" shows that between 1979 and 2000, the
proportion of Hispanics and Asians rose from one in ten to one in three of
their employees. This, it was explained, helped them to keep their room
rates from rising higher.
srd
Louis N Proyect
> David Walters and his ilk maintain that immigration does not cost jobs.
> What they deliberately ignore is that immigration has depressed wages.
> Andrew Hacker writing in the liberal New York Review of Books, this week
> states this obvious truth:
You are missing the point. What divides us is not the consequences of
immigration. Rather it is what attitude socialists should take toward
anti-immigration laws, such as the kind that were on the California ballot
a couple of years ago. For us to even give the slightest hint that we back
them would take us back to Samuel Gompers. Gompers backed such laws. The
IWW went out and organized immigrant workers against the bosses. We
identify with the IWW. As vangelis freely admits, he identifies with
Gompers.
srd
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, srd wrote:
>
>> David Walters and his ilk maintain that immigration does not cost jobs.
>> What they deliberately ignore is that immigration has depressed wages.
>> Andrew Hacker writing in the liberal New York Review of Books, this week
>> states this obvious truth:
>
>
> You are missing the point. What divides us is not the consequences of
> immigration. Rather it is what attitude socialists should take toward
> anti-immigration laws, such as the kind that were on the California
> ballot
> a couple of years ago. For us to even give the slightest hint that we
> back
> them would take us back to Samuel Gompers. Gompers backed such laws. The
> IWW went out and organized immigrant workers against the bosses. We
> identify with the IWW. As vangelis freely admits, he identifies with
> Gompers.
Indeed, the consequences of immigration don't _genuinely_ divide us.
Rather, you and Walters (even more so) lie about the facts to protect your
politics. If you acknowledged the effects of immigration, you would feel
intense pressure to do exactly what you accuse me--to support
anti-immigration laws.
I unequivocally oppose anti-immigration laws on their class
collaborationism.
srd
srd
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, srd wrote:
Since Proyect doesn't take issue with the fact as distilled by the liberal
Hacker, then how can Proyect justify avoiding confronting the ruling class
on its open-borders oppression? If Hacker is right, immigration is the
principal current weapon of the ruling class in the domestic class
struggle.
srd
Louis Proyect
wrote:
>
>Since Proyect doesn't take issue with the fact as distilled by the liberal
>Hacker, then how can Proyect justify avoiding confronting the ruling class
>on its open-borders oppression? If Hacker is right, immigration is the
>principal current weapon of the ruling class in the domestic class
>struggle.
Immigration into the USA is a consequence of imperialism. Mexicans,
Haitians, Chinese et al come to the USA to take low-wage jobs because
there are no jobs in their own country. Until countries such as these
can guarantee a job, a decent wage and the other necessities of life,
people will migrate to more prosperous countries--as they have for
over 150 years. There is nothing new about the role of immigration.
What is different today is the contraction of the capitalist
economies. In the late 1800s there was a shortage of labor in the USA,
so the bosses were happy to see immigrant labor.
Today the rules are much more stringent. Unless you are a Cuban
gusano, or were a Jew from the former Soviet Union in the 1970s,
becoming a US citizen is much more difficult. I can speak about this
from experience since my wife is Turkish and I have been out to the
INS offices with her for an interview.
Most undocumented workers are deeply oppressed. They pay taxes but do
not receive benefits. They live in fear of being deported. They are
forced to take the most miserable jobs, like dish-washers, janitors,
etc. In the traditional manufacturing sector, where most of the
well-paying jobs are, you simply cannot get a job unless you have a
green card. My wife was offered a part-time job a year ago with a NYC
agency but was eventually turned down because she did not have her
green card yet.
If this is true for her, it is doubly true for a Mexican without
papers, who speaks no English and lacks a formal education, who tries
to get a job with IBM, Exxon, GM or Chase Manhattan. They end up
working as unskilled day laborers. The thing that is so disgusting
about you and vangelis is that you are mounting a campaign of hate
against these people in the name of Marxism.
===
Newsday (New York)
September 29, 2003 Monday NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION
Farmingville: Why Here, Why Now? Probing the tension, fear and
violence
By Bart Jones. STAFF WRITER
The first time, it was two out-of-towners. Avowed white supremacists
with swastikas and other racist tattoos picked up two Mexican
immigrants in Farmingville under the guise of offering them work and
beat them nearly to death.
This time, it was the boys next door. Five local teenagers firebombed
the home of a Mexican family of five, Suffolk police said. As flames
devoured the dwelling, the family was awakened by neighbors and barely
escaped.
At least 20 communities across Long Island - from Montauk to Inwood -
have sizable populations of Latino day laborers, most of them
undocumented immigrants. But only Farmingville has been the site of
two major bias crimes against the workers, incidents that have
attracted national attention.
Now, the attacks and a growing firestorm of political debate are
prompting many community leaders, planning experts and immigrant
advocates to ask: Why Farmingville?
No simple explanation exists, but there are many contributing factors,
experts contend. They say a confluence of events created a
pressure-cooker: a rapid influx of Mexican immigrants into the
blue-collar community of 16,500, the incendiary rhetoric of a small
anti-immigration group and politicians who endorse its agenda, and the
failure of elected leaders to heed warnings that violence was
inevitable if they didn't intervene.
And, immigrant advocates warn, more attacks may follow if officials
don't act.
"Farmingville is a case study - when things go wrong, we do nothing,"
said David Ochoa, a Mexican-American who is a former vice president at
Dowling College and who worked with the legendary migrant farm worker
organizer Cesar Chavez.
On a larger plane, Farmingville may hold lessons for Long Island as a
whole and perhaps even the nation as it experiences a record influx of
immigrants from Latin America and Asia, Ochoa and others say.
They contend the "Farmingville problem" is a complex mix of legitimate
community complaints, failed immigration policies and enforcement,
historical rejection of new immigrants, and unfounded fears that
border on hysteria. Although America is known as a melting pot of
cultures, they say, in reality when different races live together they
don't always co-exist harmoniously. Language, lifestyle and
miseducation are some factors that contribute to the discord.
The tensions in Farmingville first boiled over in September 2000 when
two day laborers were lured to an abandoned warehouse in Shirley by
two men from Holtsville and Maspeth and attacked with shovels and a
knife. Then, just as the community was trying to heal from the
attempted murders, the firebombing this past Fourth of July weekend
shook it again.
Four teenage friends were arrested and charged in the attack a month
later. Their trials are expected to take place next year. A fifth
teenager who cooperated with police has not been charged.
Experts say residents have some legitimate grievances about the influx
of day laborers into Farmingville. Most sides agree that no one wants
large groups of men waiting on street corners for daily jobs in
landscaping and construction or filling single-family houses with 20
or more people.
One resident, Ted Petersen, 48, says out-of-town visitors are shocked
by the crowds. "The first thing they say when they get to your house
is, 'Why do you have a hundred men standing on the street corner?'" he
said. "It looks like a parade."
He and his wife, Dianne, fear their property value is plummeting and
are angry because many of the workers entered the country illegally.
They say their grown children are embarrassed to tell people they come
from Farmingville, which some locals have dubbed "Mexico-ville."
Elaine Gross, director of the Syosset-based nonprofit Education
Research Advocacy & Support to Eliminate Racism, said that while some
legitimate issues are at play in Farmingville, she also believes the
standoff illustrates how Long Islanders sometimes try to ignore
problems involving race.
She notes that the 2000 Census found Long Island to be the third most
segregated suburban region in the nation in terms of black and white
residents. "Part of what is shocking on Long Island ... is that people
think everything is fine here" even though segregation is blatant, she
said.
Farmingville went through what she calls "tipping" - a rapid influx in
the late 1990s of, in this case, Mexican immigrants into a mainly
white community. Today, an estimated 1,500 Mexicans live in
Farmingville and make up the largest contingent of day laborers on
Long Island.
Immigrants throughout U.S. history - including many who came illegally
- have not been accepted initially, Gross said, although "the lighter
your skin the easier it is. The immigrants who come who are brown,
they catch more flak."
Some law enforcement officials also believe race plays a role in the
Farmingville dispute. Insp. Kenneth Rau, head of the Suffolk County
Police Department's Sixth Precinct, said that while most residents are
accepting, some are driven by racial concerns. "We have to say, what
is the real motivation? Is it the man standing on the corner or is it
because it's a man of Latino descent standing on the corner?"
Rau, who starts each workday by visiting Farmingville for an hour or
more, added: "I think there are some people who probably would not be
as offended if you had girls standing on the corner every morning
doing Irish step dance."
For his part, Petersen, who lives on the same street as two of the
firebombing suspects, said his complaints have nothing to do with race
and everything to do with specific problems. "The main wish is you
could go to 7-Eleven without wading through a crowd of people to get a
quart of milk," he said.
The influx of Latino immigrants into Farmingville during the past five
years has highlighted a need for political, religious, education and
civic leaders to resolve the community problems and support diversity,
Gross said. "People do look to the leaders."
Instead, though, "we had the exact opposite. We had people who were
stoking the fires" and bringing in "national hate-mongers." She blamed
the Sachem Quality of Life Organization, a local group that has
garnered widespread media attention with its vehement opposition to
the presence of the day laborers. The group also has a weekly
Cablevision program devoted to the issue.
Sachem leader Ray Wysolmierski said his group is merely against
illegal immigration and other problems such as day laborers
overcrowding houses. He refers to the Mexicans as "low-level
terrorists" who have "invaded and occupied" Farmingville.
Patrick Young of the Long Island Immigrant Alliance, a coalition of 24
nonprofits, said that kind of language helped to create an atmosphere
that fostered the attacks. "When teenagers hear a message that
immigrants are terrorists ... that immigrants are invaders ... it
should not strike people as unusual that they might see it as a good
act, a patriotic act to try to kill some of these invaders," he said.
Without a strong voice of reason to counter militant anti-immigrant
rhetoric, "other people can get swept into the frenzy," Gross said.
"It's easy when you have an organized effort, which is what you had in
Farmingville, to stir up and misinform ... to do damage. ... Part of
it is hysteria."
Property values, for instance, have not plummeted throughout the
community the way some people fear, real estate experts say. The
median price of houses sold in Farmingville jumped from $170,000 in
2000 to $285,000 in the first half of this year, according to Multiple
Listing Service of Long Island Inc. That's similar to the increase
seen in many communities across Long Island.
With tensions rising, many critics blame public officials for not
mediating. Darren Sandow, program officer for the nonprofit Unitarian
Universalist Fund, said advocates warned Suffolk County Executive
Robert Gaffney as early as 1999 that violence was likely unless
government leaders intervened. For years the groups backed a proposal
to create a hiring site aimed at getting the day laborers off the
streets, but Gaffney vetoed it in 2001. This year, Farmingville has
become a major issue in the race to replace him as county executive.
Gaffney "is inciting vigilantism" by repeatedly stating that the day
laborers are here illegally and engaged in illegal activities, but
that he can do nothing about it because it's a federal immigration
issue, Sandow said.
Gaffney called the accusation "bizarre," and said he vetoed the hiring
site proposal because he is against using taxpayers' dollars for
illegal activities and it would not resolve the community's problems,
anyway. He said U.S. Justice Department officials have told him no
other small town in the United States has as many undocumented Latino
immigrants who work as day laborers as Farmingville.
"The problem is the numbers, basically," he said, and day laborers
overcrowding houses. He added that the county has hired an anti-bias
group to work in Farmingville and dispatched health workers to reach
out to immigrants.
Gaffney argues that federal officials have done little to resolve the
illegal immigration problem. Many experts agree that U.S. immigration
policies are in shambles. In decades past, millions of poor,
low-skilled immigrants who formed the backbone of the U.S. labor force
simply arrived at Ellis Island by boat and were admitted to the
country. Today, there is essentially no legal way for such workers to
immigrate to America, even though economists say the economy would
collapse without them. So they cross the border illegally.
Critics say that instead of devising a strategy to contain the growing
rage about undocumented immigrants in Farmingville, some local
politicians helped exacerbate it with incendiary public comments.
In 2000, Legis. Joseph Caracappa (R-Selden) publicly accused the
Mexican day laborers of creating a crime wave in Farmingville - an
assertion Suffolk County Police Commissioner John Gallagher said was
false. Two years later, then-Legis. Michael D'Andre (R-Smithtown)
stated that if large numbers of undocumented Mexican immigrants showed
up in his hometown, "we'll be out with baseball bats."
D'Andre, who later apologized for the statement and retired from the
legislature, said recently in an interview that "violence is never
right." Caracappa did not respond to telephone messages seeking
comment, but has said the information he possessed indicated
immigrants were committing a rash of crimes.
Beyond the rhetoric, Gross, Young and others say there is a "silent
majority" in Farmingville who simply want their community's problems
solved. They say other places such as Freeport, Glen Cove and
Huntington Station - which established day laborer hiring sites as a
first step - have avoided the tumult of Farmingville.
In Huntington Station, for instance, about 250 day laborers used to
wait on New York Avenue for work every morning, creating a traffic
hazard when contractors picked them up, said Dolores Thompson of the
Huntington Station Enrichment Center.
In 2000, her group, with help from the Town of Huntington, opened a
hiring site on Depot Road. Today it draws most of the day laborers in
the area.
Thompson said the site has not solved all the community's problems,
but has gone a long way toward easing tensions. Her center also offers
the day laborers ESL classes and job placement assistance. "You have
to do something," she said, since the workers are not going away.
In Farmingville, Ochoa said that beyond a hiring site, other moves
might be as simple as forming soccer leagues where Latinos and whites
intermingle.
Some signs of hope are emerging. Miguel Levy, a Mexican immigrant who
recently opened a money-wiring and telephone store called Hidalgo
Express, named after the Mexican state of Hidalgo, said he also plans
to open an outreach center where day laborers can study English and
discuss the housing issue.
It's one small step toward healing the community, he said.
"Farmingville is in turmoil. I hope it doesn't explode."
Louis Proyect, ln...@panix.com
The Marxism mailing list: www.marxmail.org
vngelis
> from experience since my wife is Turkish and I have been out to the
> INS offices with her for an interview.
Most undocumented workers are deeply oppressed. They pay taxes but do
not receive benefits. They live in fear of being deported.
Project
This explains more than everything I need to know about your politics.
A criticism of immigration per se, becomes a critique of all
immigrants, globalism in practice has erased class issues, for the
right to immigration is above and beyond the right for the working
class to have a decent standard of living, unionisation and workers
rights.
Hence a globalist who marries an immigrant feels in the same way that
a capitalist does in relation to his products. Why is it we cant
export jobs and import products as we see fit? Why is it we cant marry
who we want from wherever we want, (in particular if there is a 20 odd
year age gap) which in value terms is like bying a new imported car
for a less price than you would a domestically produced one, after all
it is well known that indigenous women cost more than... imported
ones.
Let me post another question, is the fact that Walters and Project
having immigrant wives blurs the argument in one way when confronting
this issue? For every journey Project makes to the INS, workers also
have to make when confronting their bosses, life is complicated, in an
ideal world no borders would exist and no INS, but in our world the
way one gets to abolish capitalist institutions isn't by promoting
capitalism, but aiding in its overthrow and that will not and cannot
happen by arguing that bosses should have labour mobility in the same
manner as they have capital mobility.
A very rich individual doesn't have to make any journeys to the INS
for he can import as many wives or products as he sees fit. An average
person on the other hand has to jump certain hurdles...
Is the personal political on this issue and has it been for so many
years?
vngelis
PS
I have to declare my interest on this issue. I am with indigenous
British.
Louis N Proyect
> A criticism of immigration per se, becomes a critique of all
> immigrants, globalism in practice has erased class issues, for the
> right to immigration is above and beyond the right for the working
> class to have a decent standard of living, unionisation and workers
> rights.
I don't know what it means to "criticize" immigration. Nobody would pay
attention if "criticizing" was the issue, although it seems like a sterile
exercise. One might as well criticize runaway shops or cheap goods at
Walmart. The reason people on apst despise you is that you represent the
same thing politically as LePen, Enoch Powell and Pat Buchanan. You seek a
nationalist solution--a ban on immigration--to the contradictions of
capitalism, while we seek socialist solutions in the long-term and
militant trade unionism in the short-term.
>
> Hence a globalist who marries an immigrant feels in the same way that
> a capitalist does in relation to his products. Why is it we cant
> export jobs and import products as we see fit? Why is it we cant marry
> who we want from wherever we want, (in particular if there is a 20 odd
> year age gap) which in value terms is like bying a new imported car
> for a less price than you would a domestically produced one, after all
> it is well known that indigenous women cost more than... imported
> ones.
Are you saying that marrying somebody from outside the USA is like opening
up a sweatshop in Mexico? You are even more deranged than I suspected.
>
> Let me post another question, is the fact that Walters and Project
> having immigrant wives blurs the argument in one way when confronting
> this issue?
Don't be an ass. I was answering your bourgeois nationalism here long
before I met my wife.
> PS
> I have to declare my interest on this issue. I am with indigenous
> British.
She must be a true masochist.
vngelis
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:24:50 GMT, srd <stephen...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >I can speak about this
> from experience since my wife is Turkish and I have been out to the
> INS offices with her for an interview.
Most undocumented workers are deeply oppressed. They pay taxes but do
not receive benefits. They live in fear of being deported.
Project
This explains more than everything I need to know about your politics.
A criticism of immigration per se, becomes a critique of all
immigrants, globalism in practice has erased class issues, for the
right to immigration is above and beyond the right for the working
class to have a decent standard of living, unionisation and workers
rights.
Hence a globalist who marries an immigrant feels in the same way that
a capitalist does in relation to his products. Why is it we cant
export jobs and import products as we see fit? Why is it we cant marry
who we want from wherever we want, (in particular if there is a 20 odd
year age gap) which in value terms is like bying a new imported car
for a less price than you would a domestically produced one, after all
it is well known that indigenous women cost more than... imported
ones.
Let me post another question, is the fact that Walters and Project
having immigrant wives blurs the argument in one way when confronting
this issue? For every journey Project makes to the INS, workers also
have to make when confronting their bosses, life is complicated, in an
ideal world no borders would exist and no INS, but in our world the
way one gets to abolish capitalist institutions isn't by promoting
capitalism, but aiding in its overthrow and that will not and cannot
happen by arguing that bosses should have labour mobility in the same
manner as they have capital mobility.
A very rich individual doesn't have to make any journeys to the INS
for he can import as many wives or products as he sees fit. An average
person on the other hand has to jump certain hurdles...
Is the personal political on this issue and has it been for so many
years?
vngelis
srd
wrote:
> I don't know what it means to "criticize" immigration. Nobody would pay
> attention if "criticizing" was the issue, although it seems like a
> sterile
> exercise. One might as well criticize runaway shops or cheap goods at
> Walmart. The reason people on apst despise you is that you represent the
> same thing politically as LePen, Enoch Powell and Pat Buchanan. You seek
> a
> nationalist solution--a ban on immigration--to the contradictions of
> capitalism, while we seek socialist solutions in the long-term and
> militant trade unionism in the short-term.
>
Please don't pretend to still more extraordinary obtuseness. Of course
Leninists "criticize" all matters affecting the living standards of the
working class. Its called a literature of exposure.
If immigration is the proximate cause of a decline in living standards,
then it must be addressed. You avoid the issue, and Walters denies it.
srd
srd
wrote:
>> Hence a globalist who marries an immigrant feels in the same way that
>> a capitalist does in relation to his products. Why is it we cant
>> export jobs and import products as we see fit? Why is it we cant marry
>> who we want from wherever we want, (in particular if there is a 20 odd
>> year age gap) which in value terms is like bying a new imported car
>> for a less price than you would a domestically produced one, after all
>> it is well known that indigenous women cost more than... imported
>> ones.
>
No, he's saying that the mentality produced may be the seem. In
particular, he's suggesting that you might not have gotten a young wife if
yours wasn't driven to marry "cheap" in the same manner that an immigrant
worker may have to accept low wages.
srd
Louis N Proyect
> Please don't pretend to still more extraordinary obtuseness. Of course
> Leninists "criticize" all matters affecting the living standards of the
> working class. Its called a literature of exposure.
So we should write articles attacking the Mexican day laborers in
Farmingdale from stealing the white man's job mowing lawns?
>
> If immigration is the proximate cause of a decline in living standards,
> then it must be addressed. You avoid the issue, and Walters denies it.
That is a big if. Living standards are declining because of attrition in
steel, auto, mining, rubber, glass, trucking and other core jobs of the
AFL-CIO sector. Because foreign workers never had access to these jobs to
begin with because of a lack of citizenship, they are not responsible for
depressing wages. Mexicans, Haitians, East Europeans take the shittiest
low-paying jobs that native Americans won't touch. That is the material
reality.
Louis N Proyect
> No, he's saying that the mentality produced may be the seem. In
> particular, he's suggesting that you might not have gotten a young wife if
> yours wasn't driven to marry "cheap" in the same manner that an immigrant
> worker may have to accept low wages.
Listening to you talk about marriage and relationships is like listening
to a Catholic priest talk about it.
srd
wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, srd wrote:
Even the bourgeois economists, like the quoted Hacker, understand the
economy more dialectically. If there's attrition in industry, it is in
large part because capital finds more profitable outlets. And it finds
other outlets in large part because low-wage labor is available.
There is nothing unprincipled in the demand to expropriate industries that
employ cheap foreign labor. At least Walters couldn't find a reason to
condemn it.
srd
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
David Walters
> economy more dialectically. If there's attrition in industry, it is in
> large part because capital finds more profitable outlets. And it finds
> other outlets in large part because low-wage labor is available.
>
> There is nothing unprincipled in the demand to expropriate industries that
> employ cheap foreign labor. At least Walters couldn't find a reason to
> condemn it.
>
You are correct that this is not unprincipaled to demand it, but its
not because of "Cheap foeign labor", rather, because it's a question
of exploitation. Wal-Mart, for example, in the news for hiring a few
hundred undocumented workers, is the largest employer in the US. It's
also the lowest paying in the US. The number of non-US citizens
working in Wal-Mart is fairly low...how do you explain this? I say it
has to do with the general rush to the bottom by union and non union
companies in general and the viscious anti-union policies of Wal-Mart.
Foreign workers, legal or illegal, play virtually no role in this low
wage company (over 1 million workers I think).
Your and Vgelis' focus on this issue of non-native labor is overblown.
With the exception of one industry which I've talked about extensively
here in the past (meat packing) the decline of the highly unionized
work forces both in terms of standard of living and in number of
unionized workers is almost wholly UNdependent of "cheap foreign
labor". It is almost irrelevant to the equazation. It's become
something of an issue in terms high tech now, especially at the
engineering and programing level, for sure, but this is a recent
issue, not historical.
A working class answer to the issue of highly exploited layers of the
US working class is unionization. Raising "expropriation" at this
point is in essense a completely maximalist demand with only some
propagandistic value at this point...which is my tactical assement of
it.
I'm not going near your view on marriage...it's toally bizarre...I
became attracted to my wife because she was a "fox", not because she
was related to a Sandinista...
David
vngelis
> > Even the bourgeois economists, like the quoted Hacker, understand the
> > economy more dialectically. If there's attrition in industry, it is in
> > large part because capital finds more profitable outlets. And it finds
> > other outlets in large part because low-wage labor is available.
> >
> > There is nothing unprincipled in the demand to expropriate industries that
> > employ cheap foreign labor. At least Walters couldn't find a reason to
> > condemn it.
> >
>
> You are correct that this is not unprincipaled to demand it, but its
> not because of "Cheap foeign labor", rather, because it's a question
> of exploitation. Wal-Mart, for example, in the news for hiring a few
> hundred undocumented workers, is the largest employer in the US. It's
> also the lowest paying in the US. The number of non-US citizens
> working in Wal-Mart is fairly low...how do you explain this? I say it
> has to do with the general rush to the bottom by union and non union
> companies in general and the viscious anti-union policies of Wal-Mart.
> Foreign workers, legal or illegal, play virtually no role in this low
> wage company (over 1 million workers I think).
>
> Your and Vgelis' focus on this issue of non-native labor is overblown.
> With the exception of one industry which I've talked about extensively
> here in the past (meat packing) the decline of the highly unionized
> work forces both in terms of standard of living and in number of
> unionized workers is almost wholly UNdependent of "cheap foreign
> labor". It is almost irrelevant to the equazation.
Sp imported labour has no bearing on the general issue of the working
class in the US...
This may be due to the fact that the US was a nation of immigrants
anyway so nothing ever has bearing on it anyway as it is the worlds
leading capitalist power.
But the same yardstisk and the same rules do not apply in Europe.
Immigration has wiped out the Greek labour movement- no amount of
dishonesty can hide that fact. The same rule applies to the London
labour movement.
vngelis
Louis Proyect
>Immigration has wiped out the Greek labour movement- no amount of
>dishonesty can hide that fact. The same rule applies to the London
>labour movement.
This is complete bullshit. The British labor movement was decimated
because of a deliberate policy of de-industrialization initiated by
Thatcher and maintained by "New Labour".
David Walters
including the almost-elimination of the basic Steel Industry in the
US, mining, etc., is the direct result of the capitalist class's
restructuring and 'downsizing' that began in the 1970s and conintues
to this day. By focusing on immigrants, you take the focus OFF of the
structural problems of capitalism...and the bosses...and place them on
'governmental policies' such as immigration. This is very much the
method of the nationalist right wing in the US.
You have to undestand HOW wages and working conditions, indeed
unionization in general, under capitalism in the US has occured.
David
Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix_nospam.com> wrote in message news:<mb0t101n5bgthb7mu...@4ax.com>...
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
>
> You have to undestand HOW wages and working conditions, indeed
> unionization in general, under capitalism in the US has occured.
>
The problem with Vangelis is that he is profoundly ignorant of the
history of the workers' movement in any country. He thinks in
impressionistic slogans and his ideas generally tend to reflect those of
the most backward elements in the working class and even of teh petty
bourgeoisie.
Einde O'Callaghan
vngelis
In your eyes. But your connection with the world of labour, is a...
university.
Greek bosses encouraged the break up of Yugoslavia and imported 2
million new labourers in a land where unemployment never dipped below
10%. By destroying the building workers the government and stalinists
destroyed the only arena of resistance to capital.
Some like yourself, a globalist consider this as enriching nations and
bringing peoples together, a position identical to the Greek COmmunist
Party whose personell became en masse the sub-contractors for the
illegal labourers, like the Irish ones have become in London, but this
would be lost on all of you as I have said before your connection with
the world of labour, is via ...teaching.
vngelis
Louis Proyect
>Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix_nospam.com> wrote in message news:<mb0t101n5bgthb7mu...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Feb 2004 07:22:32 -0800, mebe...@hotmail.com (vngelis) wrote:
>> >Immigration has wiped out the Greek labour movement- no amount of
>> >dishonesty can hide that fact. The same rule applies to the London
>> >labour movement.
>>
>> This is complete bullshit. The British labor movement was decimated
>> because of a deliberate policy of de-industrialization initiated by
>> Thatcher and maintained by "New Labour".
>>
>> Louis Proyect, ln...@panix.com
>>
>> The Marxism mailing list: www.marxmail.org
>
>In your eyes. But your connection with the world of labour, is a...
>university.
What difference does it make if I work for a university? I am a
computer programmer, not a professor.
>Greek bosses encouraged the break up of Yugoslavia and imported 2
>million new labourers in a land where unemployment never dipped below
>10%. By destroying the building workers the government and stalinists
>destroyed the only arena of resistance to capital.
When unemployment never dipped below 10 percent? Buh-hah-hah-hah!!!
Why call for socialism when you can push for such a heroic status quo
ante?
>Some like yourself, a globalist consider this as enriching nations and
>bringing peoples together, a position identical to the Greek COmmunist
>Party whose personell became en masse the sub-contractors for the
>illegal labourers, like the Irish ones have become in London, but this
>would be lost on all of you as I have said before your connection with
>the world of labour, is via ...teaching.
The Greek CP became subcontractors for illegal labourers? I am afraid
to ask what this means. It would be like asking a mental patient why
"they" are out to get him.
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
> Some like yourself, a globalist consider this as enriching nations and
> bringing peoples together, a position identical to the Greek COmmunist
> Party whose personell became en masse the sub-contractors for the
> illegal labourers, like the Irish ones have become in London,
This beggars belief. Are you saying that Irish sub-contractors are
providing illegal immigrants to work as scabs? and are these
sub-contractors the majority of the Irish residents in Britain. Even if
wem take a fairlyy low estimate of the number of Irish-born in Britain,
say 1 million, and then exclude pensioners and children, coming to say
500,000, it seems to me that 500,000 sub-contractors is a bit excessive.
Or are you, as I suspect, just babbling on?
Whatever it is what you're saying doesn't make sense.
Einde O'Callaghan
vngelis
Only concerned with the words immigrant/irish and nothing else you
have rushed to state I am babbling. But the SWP's love affair with
stalinism/union bureaucracies isn't a recent event one that has been
going over some time.
UCATT in London which had a lot of stalinist workers in the 1970's a
strong proportion of whom were Irish, due to the changing nature of
the market and the collapse of property building in the 1980's forced
many of these workers to become sub-contractors of illegal immigrants.
A walk down Cricklewood any monrning of the day sees small vans
turning up and picking up laboerers of the streets. I am of course
referring to the Irish stalinists involved in UCATT.
I also actually forgot to add on deeper analysis of this issue that
the process in Greece didn't actually start with building workers but
in the shipping industry. In the mid to late 1980's Greek ship owners
who had conceded some of the highest labour standards for shipping
workers anywhere started to globalise their labour force and use
foreigned owned crews for ships which started to use off shore flags.
A few demos occurred by the union Pemen in Athens which became quite
violent out of the blue. At the time the KKE stabbed them in the back
and a greek organisation was formed after being thrown out of the
COmmunist Party for defending the sailors.
vngelis
Einde O'Callaghan
workers in britain can't be illegal immigrants, by definition because
Irish workers have never been considered to be immigrants in teh sense
of the Immigrant Acts.
If you're referring to Irish workers on the lump, then this phenomenon
isn't restricted to immigrant workers - virtually all building workers,
English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh as well as immigrants, legal or
oterwise, were forced to become self-employed after the employers broke
UCATT in the private construction companies in a series of bitter
struggles at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s.
These are not so much illegal workers as casual workers who are employed
by the day - although their employment is technically illegal because
most of them don't pay tax or national insurance (or at least not
everything they should pay). This, unfortunately, is the position of
most building workers and has nothing to do with immigration as such,
but with class struggle - a struggle our side lost.
Einde O'Callaghan
vngelis
You have aproblem reading what I say because you have immigrant/irish
colour blindness. Irish citizens of London who have probably been here
donkeys years, not recent arrivals or recent immigrants, became
individual sub-contractors.
You state UCAT was broken, so was the NUM. Loe and behold, how
original. And the union tops were of which particular political
variety? Revolutionary marxism? Or stalinism? What I originally said.
Stalinist leaderships by sellling out resistance to the bosses
offensive, destroyed the London labour movement, then most of their
political followers became gangmasters in the new globalised economy
where Indian coolies were paid 20p an hour in Brent a few years ago.
UCATT tied hand and foot to labourism and stalinism politically aided
the bosses. Which bit dont you like and which bit is racist? That some
irish have become gangmasters? Or the fact that your political
followers campaigned for Livingstone in London, promoted him on Stop
the War Coalitions in London, and he now re-joins the labour party.
When I said the whole thing was a scam a few years ago between
Livingstone and Tony, Collier rushed to say I am... babbling. But the
proof of the pudding is in the eating.
vngelis
srd
> Indeed, the historic HUGE decline in high paying union jobs in the US,
> including the almost-elimination of the basic Steel Industry in the
> US, mining, etc., is the direct result of the capitalist class's
> restructuring and 'downsizing' that began in the 1970s and conintues
> to this day. By focusing on immigrants, you take the focus OFF of the
> structural problems of capitalism...and the bosses...and place them on
> 'governmental policies' such as immigration. This is very much the
> method of the nationalist right wing in the US.
> You have to undestand HOW wages and working conditions, indeed
> unionization in general, under capitalism in the US has occured.
>
_You_ have to understand how downsizing occurred. As I posted last week,
even the bourgeois liberals have a more dialectical understanding of this
process than you. Downsizing did not generally mean that industry employed
fewer workers, but that less is spend on labor power because of the
increased use of unskilled labor. Downsizing is profitable because cheap
unskilled labor is available abroad, whether by exporting capital or
importing labor power. Immigration and downsizing are inseparable.
Your argument against propaganda dealing with the role of immigration is
recycled Economism: the notion that exposure of the political policies of
the government is inherently reformist when compared with agitation at the
point of production.
srd
Louis N Proyect
> _You_ have to understand how downsizing occurred. As I posted last week,
> even the bourgeois liberals have a more dialectical understanding of this
> process than you. Downsizing did not generally mean that industry employed
> fewer workers, but that less is spend on labor power because of the
> increased use of unskilled labor. Downsizing is profitable because cheap
> unskilled labor is available abroad, whether by exporting capital or
> importing labor power. Immigration and downsizing are inseparable.
So what is the demand? Buy American? I suppose that makes sense if you
favor toughened immigration laws like Vangelis.
>
> Your argument against propaganda dealing with the role of immigration is
> recycled Economism: the notion that exposure of the political policies of
> the government is inherently reformist when compared with agitation at the
> point of production.
What would be our model for such propaganda? Jack London's "Yellow Peril"
novels?
vngelis
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, srd wrote:
>
> > _You_ have to understand how downsizing occurred. As I posted last week,
> > even the bourgeois liberals have a more dialectical understanding of this
> > process than you. Downsizing did not generally mean that industry employed
> > fewer workers, but that less is spend on labor power because of the
> > increased use of unskilled labor. Downsizing is profitable because cheap
> > unskilled labor is available abroad, whether by exporting capital or
> > importing labor power. Immigration and downsizing are inseparable.
>
> So what is the demand? Buy American? I suppose that makes sense if you
> favor toughened immigration laws like Vangelis.
Open the borders! Ensure WalMart dominates all. That is why we exist.
Its called globalism with a 'socialist' face, replacing stalinisms
'socialism' with a human face. You were a clown decades ago and you
are clown now. Grow up arsehole.
vngelis
David Walters
on apst ever argued in support of globalization? Yes or no? Everyone,
with the exception of a few pro-capitalist trolls, have come out
against globalization. Has anyone argued to open the borders to
capital? To support delocalization of capital from advanced developing
countries to underdeveloped ones? Yes or no. I've never seen any one
here argue in favor of any of this. Let us know when you find someone,
will you, who argues this way...
David
mebe...@hotmail.com (vngelis) wrote in message news:<35009f97.04020...@posting.google.com>...
vngelis
> on apst ever argued in support of globalization? Yes or no? Everyone,
> with the exception of a few pro-capitalist trolls, have come out
> against globalization. Has anyone argued to open the borders to
> capital? To support delocalization of capital from advanced developing
> countries to underdeveloped ones? Yes or no. I've never seen any one
> here argue in favor of any of this. Let us know when you find someone,
> will you, who argues this way...
>
> David
>
Sparts: Seattle protest is reactionary, boycott condemn it for being
anti-communist...
SWP-UK-: Open Borders slogans all over Genoa, as if they are closed,
expressed by O'Callaghan, Collier
Project: Ad nauseum
Rent@mob: Doesn't even believe in the existence of transnationals...
To name a few...
vngelis
David Walters
The issue of globalizating as I poised it, the free flow of goods and
capital (free trade but MAI) is the heart of globalization. . .
Vngelis:
> Let me just list a few:
> Sparts: Seattle protest is reactionary, boycott condemn it for being
> anti-communist...
Yes, but the sectarianly opposed to Seattle, but also attack
globalization and
they have positions that anyone who opposes globalizing imperialism
has. They took the position they have on Seattle for sectarian reasons
and nothing more. They opposed GATT and they oppose the WTO.They are
opposed to the free flow of capital.
> SWP-UK-: Open Borders slogans all over Genoa, as if they are closed,
> expressed by O'Callaghan, Collier
> Project: Ad nauseum
> Rent@mob: Doesn't even believe in the existence of transnationals...
> To name a few...
And add my name, but that's not the issue I asked you about. All the
above support some form of "Organize the Unorganized!" view on migrant
and immigrant workers but ALL of them oppose capitalist free trade and
the free movement of capital across boarders...and THIS is the heart
of the issue. Thus, more or less, the above list of APSTers opposes
globalization.
david
vngelis
> OK, thanks for at least answering. Let me show you how you are wrong.
> The issue of globalizating as I poised it, the free flow of goods and
> capital (free trade but MAI) is the heart of globalization. . .
>
> Vngelis:
> > Let me just list a few:
> > Sparts: Seattle protest is reactionary, boycott condemn it for being
> > anti-communist...
>
> Yes, but the sectarianly opposed to Seattle, but also attack
> globalization and
> they have positions that anyone who opposes globalizing imperialism
> has. They took the position they have on Seattle for sectarian reasons
> and nothing more. They opposed GATT and they oppose the WTO.They are
> opposed to the free flow of capital.
Abstaining from a labour protest is a sectarian issue. What next?
Calling for the bosses to put down strikes becomes what a sectarian
issue? Ever heard of the class line? They were against Seattle,
because they admire globalisation and have written theoretical
articles to prove its benefits and they condemn workers for trying to
defend their jobs. You call it sectarian, I call it reactionary.
> > SWP-UK-: Open Borders slogans all over Genoa, as if they are closed,
> > expressed by O'Callaghan, Collier
> > Project: Ad nauseum
> > Rent@mob: Doesn't even believe in the existence of transnationals...
> > To name a few...
>
> And add my name, but that's not the issue I asked you about. All the
> above support some form of "Organize the Unorganized!" view on migrant
> and immigrant workers but ALL of them oppose capitalist free trade and
> the free movement of capital across boarders...and THIS is the heart
> of the issue. Thus, more or less, the above list of APSTers opposes
> globalization.
I may support Jesus coming to save the world, but that is beside the
point. By arguing for Open Borders one isn't interested in the
unorganised being organised, its just lip service to the tradition
they come from and have departed. Even Tony Blair claims he is a
democratic socialist... so? In words reformists oppose globalisation,
as I posted a right wing union leader. In practice he knifed a solid
strike in the back. The above are no different, just a variation on
the theme.
vngelis
> david
David Walters
> Abstaining from a labour protest is a sectarian issue. What next?
> Calling for the bosses to put down strikes becomes what a sectarian
> issue? Ever heard of the class line? They were against Seattle,
> because they admire globalisation and have written theoretical
> articles to prove its benefits and they condemn workers for trying to
> defend their jobs. You call it sectarian, I call it reactionary.
All you've done is prove the sectarianism of the SL...big deal...they
still write against globalization...they do nothing about it. You
write against globalization, too, and also do nothing about it, that
I'm aware of, based on your own contributions here. On a NG like this,
we're looking a points of view. Actually, it seems the SL is closer to
you than me on immigration. At any rate...everyone here on the NG
that's discussed immigration and globalization supported Seattle,
built it, and like me, particapted in it, marching with the unions.
> I may support Jesus coming to save the world, but that is beside the
> point. By arguing for Open Borders one isn't interested in the
> unorganised being organised, its just lip service to the tradition
> they come from and have departed. Even Tony Blair claims he is a
> democratic socialist... so? In words reformists oppose globalisation,
> as I posted a right wing union leader. In practice he knifed a solid
> strike in the back. The above are no different, just a variation on
> the theme.
> vngelis
The right wing, class collaborationist and the 'most' reformist of the
union movements are indeed closer to your position on immigration, of
this there is not question. Few people I know of in the union movement
"argue for open borders" since no one here in the US even
propagandizes for this. What we oppose has been US gov't restrictions
and fake amnesty programs like Bush's, attacks on immigrants and more
repression against them. I've never seen a group actually take up the
"open borders" issue as such, except in the most abstract way.
Everyone concerned takes up the rights issues here as a function,
mostly, of union organizing.
David
vngelis
> > Calling for the bosses to put down strikes becomes what a sectarian
> > issue? Ever heard of the class line? They were against Seattle,
> > because they admire globalisation and have written theoretical
> > articles to prove its benefits and they condemn workers for trying to
> > defend their jobs. You call it sectarian, I call it reactionary.
>
> All you've done is prove the sectarianism of the SL...big deal...they
> still write against globalization...they do nothing about it. You
> write against globalization, too, and also do nothing about it, that
> I'm aware of, based on your own contributions here. On a NG like this,
> we're looking a points of view. Actually, it seems the SL is closer to
> you than me on immigration. At any rate...everyone here on the NG
> that's discussed immigration and globalization supported Seattle,
> built it, and like me, particapted in it, marching with the unions.
But this is just an argument I've heard all my life. The healyites
used to parade they had a daily paper- they still do - and shit
happened. The stalinists ran countries - and shit happened - they
still run the odd one. If we are going to point score saying who does
what, no one is doing shit, in the world order of things, bar the
Iraqui resistance, the Afghan one, the Palestians etc and I dont see
either your group represented in any of those parts of the world or
anyone else is....
>
> > I may support Jesus coming to save the world, but that is beside the
> > point. By arguing for Open Borders one isn't interested in the
> > unorganised being organised, its just lip service to the tradition
> > they come from and have departed. Even Tony Blair claims he is a
> > democratic socialist... so? In words reformists oppose globalisation,
> > as I posted a right wing union leader. In practice he knifed a solid
> > strike in the back. The above are no different, just a variation on
> > the theme.
> > vngelis
>
> The right wing, class collaborationist and the 'most' reformist of the
> union movements are indeed closer to your position on immigration, of
> this there is not question. Few people I know of in the union movement
> "argue for open borders" since no one here in the US even
> propagandizes for this. What we oppose has been US gov't restrictions
> and fake amnesty programs like Bush's, attacks on immigrants and more
> repression against them.
I've never seen a group actually take up the
> "open borders" issue as such,
In the land of immigrants they dont need to. The government does it
for them anyway. In Europe where we have had mass workers
organisations, the American way is leading to severe social conflicts,
and all leftist groups propagate the American path, open borders, in
banners, on leaflets, in their papers and on the streets. Hence their
influence is being marginalised and they are going politically to
where they belong. For instance the SWP-Greek sections are going into
Sinaspismos the old Eurostalinists, who have also had leading members
go into PASOK... Shit does flow to the top they say...
except in the most abstract way.
> Everyone concerned takes up the rights issues here as a function,
> mostly, of union organizing.
>
> David
In terms of world politcs the US left comes from a land of not even
having a reformist party. I dont say that to downlittle the attempts
of working people there, but when it comes to world politics talking
to an American is like talking to a Brit at the height of their
Empire. Good for a laugh and to test ones ideas, but nothing more.
That is my only purpose on being on here and always has been. It gives
me arguements against others in other countries with different
histories and traditions.
vngelis
Louis Proyect
>That is my only purpose on being on here and always has been. It gives
>me arguements against others in other countries with different
>histories and traditions.
Whatever you are, nobody could possibly mistake it for Marxism. It is
very interesting that you participate here, when your arguments for
throwing immigrants out of Great Britain nauseate the rest of us. It
is also very interesting that you have advanced these arguments in at
least 500 different posts without convincing anybody of their merit,
except the attorney. Some people would call you a troll. They are
right in my estimation.
David Walters
> But this is just an argument I've heard all my life. The healyites
> used to parade they had a daily paper- they still do - and shit
> happened. The stalinists ran countries - and shit happened - they
> still run the odd one. If we are going to point score saying who does
> what, no one is doing shit, in the world order of things, bar the
> Iraqui resistance, the Afghan one, the Palestians etc and I dont see
> either your group represented in any of those parts of the world or
> anyone else is....
Of course I don't have a group, and, in reality, neither do you. My
position is that you are in "favor" of "Seattle" yet Seattle
represents in large part a rejection of your point of view, on
immigration specifically and globalization in general. Everygroup
represented on THIS NG supported building the Seattle events in
various ways, some went. You didn't. So IN THE CONCRETE, your views
were represented by no one, either subjectively, or objectively. The
ISO, FSP, SA, SO etc all went to Seattle to build it. Yet you call
them "globalizers". This is why everyone (as in e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e)
thinks you are off kilter and a little nutty about this.
>
> > I've never seen a group actually take up the
> > "open borders" issue as such,
>
> In the land of immigrants they dont need to. The government does it
> for them anyway.
Really, so the million or so deportes and those that work illegally
under deplorable, relative to native legal workers, are working under
conditions of an "open border". You can say that to the 50,000 or so
deportes every month out of California, I'm sure they'd be pleased...
> In Europe where we have had mass workers
> organisations, the American way is leading to severe social conflicts,
> and all leftist groups propagate the American path, open borders, in
> banners, on leaflets, in their papers and on the streets. Hence their
> influence is being marginalised and they are going politically to
> where they belong. For instance the SWP-Greek sections are going into
> Sinaspismos the old Eurostalinists, who have also had leading members
> go into PASOK... Shit does flow to the top they say...
I have no idea what the last part of this means, but, it was American
leftists groups that helped steer Seattle into an internationalist
path, that built Seattle, etc...your contridiction, not the left here.
But the left, of any stripe, that defends workers wishing to emigrate
are following the tradition of Internatonalism and socialism, where
workers have no borders. To defend this most oppressed sector of the
class in the tradition of every current in the workers movement that
stands with Marx and Lenin. Your deviationism on this issue is already
established. Your inability to articlute a solution is to the problem
of immigration is a nice symetry to this nationalist position of
yours.
> In terms of world politcs the US left comes from a land of not even
> having a reformist party. I dont say that to downlittle the attempts
> of working people there, but when it comes to world politics talking
> to an American is like talking to a Brit at the height of their
> Empire. Good for a laugh and to test ones ideas, but nothing more.
> That is my only purpose on being on here and always has been. It gives
> me arguements against others in other countries with different
> histories and traditions.
Well, THE labor fightback that started this was in Seattle, not Paris
or Athens. If you reject the potential of the US Working class, you'd
be rejecting Trotsky's "American" orientation. The US labor movement,
unlike the 'reformist' European one, at least maintains it's
organizational independence from the corporatist schemes that are
enveloping the unions in Europe, like the European Trade Union
Confederation, which is not even a union but a mouth piece for the
liberal face of globalization. It is not that the workers here have
failed to build an independent political tradition....very true....but
that they havn't really used their massive potential *as a class* yet
to really confront capital, even on the economic plain, let alone the
political one. So to 'laugh' as you do at the North American workers,
is to laugh at history, and the potential of the coming socialist
revolution.
David
vngelis
>
> > But this is just an argument I've heard all my life. The healyites
> > used to parade they had a daily paper- they still do - and shit
> > happened. The stalinists ran countries - and shit happened - they
> > still run the odd one. If we are going to point score saying who does
> > what, no one is doing shit, in the world order of things, bar the
> > Iraqui resistance, the Afghan one, the Palestians etc and I dont see
> > either your group represented in any of those parts of the world or
> > anyone else is....
>
> Of course I don't have a group, and, in reality, neither do you. My
> position is that you are in "favor" of "Seattle" yet Seattle
> represents in large part a rejection of your point of view, on
> immigration specifically and globalization in general. Everygroup
> represented on THIS NG supported building the Seattle events in
> various ways, some went. You didn't. So IN THE CONCRETE, your views
> were represented by no one, either subjectively, or objectively. The
> ISO, FSP, SA, SO etc all went to Seattle to build it. Yet you call
> them "globalizers". This is why everyone (as in e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e)
> thinks you are off kilter and a little nutty about this.
You did have a group but desagreed with them as they are French. Whis
is de passe in the USA nowadays... Maleckis who used to be on this ng
dissappeared and did not support the mobilisation for Seattle or the
aftermath. Now the fact that people attended Genoa, doesn't belittle
their politics but it does sharpen the issues. The reformist left
seeks reforms, nothing more nothing less. It gets neither.
> >
> > > I've never seen a group actually take up the
> > > "open borders" issue as such,
> >
> > In the land of immigrants they dont need to. The government does it
> > for them anyway.
>
> Really, so the million or so deportes and those that work illegally
> under deplorable, relative to native legal workers, are working under
> conditions of an "open border". You can say that to the 50,000 or so
> deportes every month out of California, I'm sure they'd be pleased...
Out of 30million new immigrants in 30 years you came up with 50,000.
Wow. Lets thingk if it was a real percentage. Or is this a case of mys
sisters long lost realtive never managed to get in and get married to
a Yank hence the borders are really closed...
> > In Europe where we have had mass workers
> > organisations, the American way is leading to severe social conflicts,
> > and all leftist groups propagate the American path, open borders, in
> > banners, on leaflets, in their papers and on the streets. Hence their
> > influence is being marginalised and they are going politically to
> > where they belong. For instance the SWP-Greek sections are going into
> > Sinaspismos the old Eurostalinists, who have also had leading members
> > go into PASOK... Shit does flow to the top they say...
>
> I have no idea what the last part of this means, but, it was American
> leftists groups that helped steer Seattle into an internationalist
> path, that built Seattle, etc...your contridiction, not the left here.
> But the left, of any stripe, that defends workers wishing to emigrate
> are following the tradition of Internatonalism and socialism, where
> workers have no borders. To defend this most oppressed sector of the
> class in the tradition of every current in the workers movement that
> stands with Marx and Lenin. Your deviationism on this issue is already
> established. Your inability to articlute a solution is to the problem
> of immigration is a nice symetry to this nationalist position of
> yours.
YOu wouldn't understand the final bit, cos you dont understand the
first bit. Understanding isn't one of your strong points. Your
globalist line is that the borders are closed and the bosses are
against immigrants. Works well as a chat up line, or if you are
seeking a new wife, but the reality is the opposite. Go argue with
workers that Bush is against immigration, now he is legalising them.
Dont try and convince an anti-american its impossible. Its like trying
to convince a vegetarian on the merits of meat eating. Impossible in
this day and age.
vngelis
David Walters
> is de passe in the USA nowadays... Maleckis who used to be on this ng
> dissappeared and did not support the mobilisation for Seattle or the
> aftermath. Now the fact that people attended Genoa, doesn't belittle
> their politics but it does sharpen the issues. The reformist left
> seeks reforms, nothing more nothing less. It gets neither.
My differences with the French PT and their international wasn't
around Seattle...we all built it. Yo didn't answer the question about
the other groups all of whom have had representation here. You focus
on the Sparts, the one group that attacked Seattle AND, as it happens,
has a position on immigration like yours. "The left" broadly,
speaking, supported Seattle. Sectarians on the left did not. I was
there and I continue to engage in anti-globalization activities,
especially with the IWLU and other unions opposed to globalist
initiaitves like FTAA, the current application of it...what would you
do? Abstain?
> > Really, so the million or so deportes and those that work illegally
> > under deplorable, relative to native legal workers, are working under
> > conditions of an "open border". You can say that to the 50,000 or so
> > deportes every month out of California, I'm sure they'd be pleased...
>
> Out of 30million new immigrants in 30 years you came up with 50,000.
> Wow. Lets thingk if it was a real percentage. Or is this a case of mys
> sisters long lost realtive never managed to get in and get married to
> a Yank hence the borders are really closed...
30 million didn't emigrate to the California last year, about 100
thousand did. No telling how many went back on their own. 10s of
thousands deported. If it's so open, why the quadrupiling of the
Border Patrol budget last year? Why ANY deportations?
> > I have no idea what the last part of this means, but, it was American
> > leftists groups that helped steer Seattle into an internationalist
> > path, that built Seattle, etc...your contridiction, not the left here.
> > But the left, of any stripe, that defends workers wishing to emigrate
> > are following the tradition of Internatonalism and socialism, where
> > workers have no borders. To defend this most oppressed sector of the
> > class in the tradition of every current in the workers movement that
> > stands with Marx and Lenin. Your deviationism on this issue is already
> > established. Your inability to articlute a solution is to the problem
> > of immigration is a nice symetry to this nationalist position of
> > yours.
>
> YOu wouldn't understand the final bit, cos you dont understand the
> first bit. Understanding isn't one of your strong points. Your
> globalist line is that the borders are closed and the bosses are
> against immigrants. Works well as a chat up line, or if you are
> seeking a new wife, but the reality is the opposite. Go argue with
> workers that Bush is against immigration, now he is legalising them.
> Dont try and convince an anti-american its impossible. Its like trying
> to convince a vegetarian on the merits of meat eating. Impossible in
> this day and age.
I don't have a globalist line, unlike you I actually participate in
anti-globalist events...you don't. I work with unions who try to
oppose privatization and 'free trade' zones. You don't. Every group
here supports the struggle of the dockers to prevent their jobs from
being 'militarized' and the ports opened up to non-union labor. You
don't. You don't really do much, I assume. Bush is not legalizing
anyone. Read the legislation and find our why almost every immigrant
rights group OPPOSES the Bush plan. The far right opposed it because
it throws a "kind of legality" on workers who are born in other
countries, which is too much even for them. You're views are
irrelevant to the working class here, or anywhere except among the
most extreme zenophobic and racist. Large groups of workers do oppose
any immigration, they are usually the same ones that advocate war in
Iraq. I'm sure you'd join them waving American flags and screamng
'bash immigrants'.
David
vngelis
> > You did have a group but desagreed with them as they are French. Whis
> > is de passe in the USA nowadays... Maleckis who used to be on this ng
> > dissappeared and did not support the mobilisation for Seattle or the
> > aftermath. Now the fact that people attended Genoa, doesn't belittle
> > their politics but it does sharpen the issues. The reformist left
> > seeks reforms, nothing more nothing less. It gets neither.
>
> My differences with the French PT and their international wasn't
> around Seattle...we all built it. Yo didn't answer the question about
> the other groups all of whom have had representation here. You focus
> on the Sparts, the one group that attacked Seattle AND, as it happens,
> has a position on immigration like yours. "The left" broadly,
> speaking, supported Seattle. Sectarians on the left did not. I was
> there and I continue to engage in anti-globalization activities,
> especially with the IWLU and other unions opposed to globalist
> initiaitves like FTAA, the current application of it...what would you
> do? Abstain?
Sparts rep Malecki who was on here for a couple of times around
Seattle argued constantly for Open Borders, now he has dissapeared I
dont know his positions. As for the rest of the Sparts, their paper is
only mostly about immigrants...
> > > Really, so the million or so deportes and those that work illegally
> > > under deplorable, relative to native legal workers, are working under
> > > conditions of an "open border". You can say that to the 50,000 or so
> > > deportes every month out of California, I'm sure they'd be pleased...
> >
> > Out of 30million new immigrants in 30 years you came up with 50,000.
> > Wow. Lets thingk if it was a real percentage. Or is this a case of mys
> > sisters long lost realtive never managed to get in and get married to
> > a Yank hence the borders are really closed...
>
> 30 million didn't emigrate to the California last year, about 100
> thousand did. No telling how many went back on their own. 10s of
> thousands deported. If it's so open, why the quadrupiling of the
> Border Patrol budget last year? Why ANY deportations?
30 million new immigrants over a 30 year period. The largest wave of
immigration according to the capitalist press since the 19th century.
If the borders are so closed how come so many got in? As for the
Border patrol budget being quadrupled that doesn't imply because the
title of the job means that is their real job. Theres a lot of drugs
that need to be delivered and sorted and various other activities of a
dubious nature that might make their task harder, hence require more
money...
America doesn't as yet have a working class which is politically
aware. it remains stuck in the 19th century, before the creation of
socialdemocratic parties and stalinist parties yet it has modern
facilities. So before you preach about who does what where and when.
go back to the drawing board. For all the talk about struggles, they
can have no outcome beneficial to those involved when you have an
oversupply of labour. Even the Knights of Labour back in the 19th
century and Marx personally knew that one...
To an american anything coming from outside America is racist and
xenophobic, only because racialism and segregation are part of the dna
structure of the state there which obvioulsy has an effect on tis
people. Hence your differences with the PT are linked precisely with
the above and its no coincidence they are French and youre an
American. The nation state culture still bears weight on political
developments.
vngelis
> David