-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>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.
I consider Ken's response to be a textbook example of what happens when one
attempts "socialist" theorizing while ignoring the fact that in order to
actually change the world, rather than merely interpret it, one has to go
out and mobilize among the actual working class, that is, actual people with
life histories and homes and relatives and actual struggles with La Migra.
>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.
Arrggh. In the first place, MOST of the working class in the U.S. is not in
the unions right now and does not have collective bargaining agreements. In
the second place, collective bargaining agreements are often made locally,
not nationally. Ken, do you believe I am merely trying to smear and slander
you when I compare your argument to Klan type arguments, apartheid South
Africa, and so on? I'm not. I'm saying that in the real actual material
world of workers, your arguments are exactly the ones these agents of
capital use.
The only difference is that you want to develop a 'national consciousness
defined by the current boundary line of the United States. You want to
develop a 'national' working-class consciousness within this line. You want
to say 'all of us in the U.S., of all colors and languages, are going to be
united, as long as we just agree to ignore all our relatives who are on the
other side of the Rio Grande.' But the Klan is going to say, "Well, Ken has
conceded the fact that we have to protect our jobs against poor unskilled
Mexicans. But he doesn't go far enough - we white workers have to go on and
protect our jobs against poor unskilled Mexicans and Blacks from the other
side of Western Avenue or Belmont Avenue", to mention a couple very real
boundary lines here in Chicago.
As a practical example, during World War II, U.S. railroad workers went on
strike against plans by the U.S. government to desegregate the crafts and
hire Black workers because it suited the immediate needs of the war effort.
The white workers, aside from being motivated by "pure" racism, argued that
by hiring workers from poorer communities who were more desperate for money,
it would depress their wage rate.
As for the Mexican workers, Ken believes they will say, "I accept the
dialectical necessity to fight for more bread and butter on the basis of
national collective bargaining arrangements." But in fact, they will say,
"Ken supports the efforts of the bourgeois state to deport members of my
community and my family. If this is socialism, to hell with it."
>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,
I am still at a loss to understand why he does not believe that the desire
of Mexican workers not to be imprisoned and deported, or to see this happen
to others from their community, is not a 'bread and butter' question, unless
you define it very very narrowly. Marxism is not only about calories, for
god's sake.
> 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.
I believe that as a scientific matter, the rate of acceptance of progress
toward socialist organization among a group of wage workers will be
inversely proportional to the proportion of that group who state on a survey
instrument that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with Ken's arguments.
However, I also don't believe in wasting my time (or the list's) in a
conflict between the irrefutable and the impermeable.
Lou Paulsen
_______________________________________________
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
