I think Lou is right that this issue is too important to ignore. On the other hand, I
consider his response a textbook example of what happens when one attempts "socialist"
theorizing while ignoring the central dialectic of the class struggle. This, as
readers of "Capital" know, has to do with capital's incessant struggle to accumulate
surplus value ("profit") at the expense of labor. One unchanging aspect of this
dialectic is the desire of capitalists for a surfeit of employable labor; they and
their allies have found a variety of means to this end, from the dastard "primitive
accumulation,":the historic "enclosures" of the common land, which jettisoned the
depopulated peasantry into throngs of unskilled laborers bourgeoning capitalist
industry in the cities and depressing the price of labor below subsistence level, to
the present-day attempt to glut the labor market with foreign unskilled labor. Of
course, the struggle of the working class is inevitably an international !
one, but its intermediate turf battles with capital are fought locally, on national
grounds, which is where collective bargaining agreements take place. A
pseudo-internationalism that thwarts the immediate needs of the national working class
(yes, this certainly includes Native American workers too, Lou's tart rejoinder
notwithstanding)to keep its labor marketable at better than a mere subsistence wage,
is not progressive at all. It is the insinuation of the capitalist desire for
acccumalation into labor's discourse, however inadvertent.
I ask that any response to this message by Lou or anyone else please address the issue
the issue I am presenting, the dialectical one, the bread and butter question, and
avoid extraneous appeals to internationalist rhetoric and anti-racist sentiment. .
This is not, except incidentally, and sometimes instrumentally, a racial question.
I would hope that the scholarly tone which has done much to make crashlist a good
place to discourse can be maintained, and that the question, like any other, can be
discussed among scientific socialists as a scientific one. My exposition is certainly
open to criticism, but not to rhetorical attack and unproductive polemics, please
Peace,.
Ken
>From: "Lou Paulsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: Communist Internationalist Position on Immigration and
>Travel
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:16:32 -0500
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Abdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>(Quoting: Ken)
>
>
>Someone PLEASE tell me that the paragraphs below are some sort of parody or
>sarcasm! I cannot BELIEVE that anyone is putting them forward as a
>socialist position!!
>
>(a) In the first place, the whole difference between socialists and narrow
>trade-unionists is that we are fighting for the WHOLE working class, NOT the
>economic interests of some one section of it. Of course "every nation's
>working class" is encouraged by capitalism to engage in a cut-throat
>struggle with every other nation's working class to keep OUR wages high by
>keeping THEIR wages low. We are supposed to be FIGHTING this reality, not
>EMBRACING IT.
>
>If you are going to say that it's ok for U.S. workers to fight to keep
>Mexican workers out of the US because they might "depress our wages", then
>you might as well argue that the Nazis and Klan are being progressive when
>they try to keep Mexicans and Blacks out of some particular industry or
>plant WITHIN the U.S. because they might work for less and depress the white
>workers' wages.
>
>For that matter you might as well argue that it's in the interest of the
>working class of the U.S. to go and wage imperialist war against an
>oil-producing nation so we can have cheap gasoline.
>
>Or that apartheid was progressive from the point of view of socialist South
>African whites. SERIOUSLY. It's the same thing. You're making Mexico into
>a Bantustan.
>
>(b) In the second place, trying to avoid the depression of U.S. workers
>wages by building a fence along the Mexican border is NOT WORKING. It's a
>dead-end failed strategy, because the capitalists have complete freedom to
>move their capital and commodities across all the borders in any direction.
>The Mexican workers are going to be employed by the capitalists one way or
>the other. If they don't come to the U.S. and "depress wages", if that's
>what you're afraid of, then they will work in a maquiladora plant in Mexico
>and "depress wages" when the U.S. plant is closed or threatened to be
>closed. It's a global economy, damn it! Within the global capitalist wage
>market, U.S. workers and Mexican workers are in competition with each other
>regardless of what you or God or Ross Perot want to say about it.
>
>The capitalists are going to exploit Mexican workers either here or in
>Mexico, and they don't much care which. But given the choice, most of them
>would RATHER imprison them in Mexico, because that makes their whole racist
>strategy of division work better.
>
>(c) Getting back to the narrow interests of the U.S. working class for a
>minute, I don't know how things are where you are, but here in Chicago there
>are more Latino workers in manufacturing than EITHER Blacks or whites. Do
>you want to come out here to a plant gate and try to tell the workers how La
>Migra is working in their interest as U.S. workers?
>
>(d) I can't let this reference to the "indigenous working class" pass. Are
>you really arguing in the interest of the Dine and Mohawk and Cherokee
>workers here?
>
>(e) If immigrant workers are "unorganized", the thing for labor to do is to
>get the hell busy and organize them. But in fact my experience is that
>immigrants from Mexico have MORE class-consciousness and even MORE
>experience with labor organizing than U.S.-born workers.
>
>I know that back in 1905 or so there were some early socialists who were
>writing this way, for example in California, trying to exclude Chinese
>workers from the U.S. But I was hoping this national-socialist line had
>gone extinct.
>
>I know I have plunged into this argument in the middle, and maybe I'm
>missing some nuance of it, but I would do the same thing if I heard two
>people arguing about it on the street corner. It's just too important an
>issue.
>
>Lou Paulsen
>Chicago
>
>
>>Tony, As many times as you and I have had this out, I cannot believe
>>that you cannot see the issue from the socialist perspective, which is
>>not, I repeat, as you present it. So long as capitalism exists, that is,
>>so long as labor is considered a marketable commodity, the self-interest
>>of EVERY nation's working class consists of doing whatever is necessary
>>to uphold a reasonable price for the commodity of labor power. Yes,
>>certainly, we as socialists look beyond this to a happier day when labor
>>will no longer be commodified, but will be the master of capital. IN THE
>>MEAN WHILE, however, we use such tactics as collective bargaining to
>>keep the price of labor above the subsistence level. When unskilled
>>foreign labor, with the unconscionable goad of the employer's sword of
>>Damocles (turning them in to the INS if they begin to militate for
>>better wages or conditions, especially in sweatshop situations), and in
>>any case being willing (perforce) to work under nonuninon conditions
>>that ! UNDERMINE the historic gains of organized labor, it is
>>deleterious to the interests of the indigenous working class. This is
>>all a given.
>
>>You are quite right that leftists must repect and support equal rights
>>for immigrant labor and indigenous labor. This is one way of
>>countervailing the "two-tier" approach of the capitalists. But it is one
>>thing to support the rights of existing immigrant labor (whether "legal"
>>or not), and quite another to advocate the elimination of immigration
>>restrictions. These restrictions, if well enforced, serve as a prop on
>>the price of human labor power for all those in the US labor market. The
>>massive influx of unskilled labor, occasioned by the inevitable impact
>>of your policy proposal, would lead to an immediate and irreversible
>>depression of wages in the United States, and this would not bode well
>>for the future of labor, and hence for socialist advance. You really
>>need to rethink your position on this question. Marx said that we cannot
>>entirely put a brake on the pauperization of the proletariat, but could
>>put an effective brake on the process through organization of labor.!
>>The importation of masses of unskilled labor would take away even that
>>thin reed on which the working class is able to lean for support.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Crashlist mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Crashlist mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
------------------------------------------------------------
Nettaxi.com in the News ((( Video by ON24 )))
http://vuwin.on24.com/vuwindow/scripts/vuwin.asp?id=30279&type=av&ref=NTX&cb=NTX
_______________________________________________
Crashlist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crashlist webpage: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
