Macdonald Stainsby: Your analysis is plausible, but suffers from a kind of utopian bias. IF, yes IF, the workers in the First World were being asked to forego some measure of their existing wages IN THE NAME OF the revolution, that is, to effect some revolutionary end or solidarity, then and ONLY THEN, would your argument make sense. But to deprive them of some measure of their existing wage, overlooking the fact that the invariable beneficiary will be the world bourgeosie which will reap larger profits thereby, and sans any revolutionary impetus, is really quite unmarxist and unrevolutionary. Well, that's MY newsflash. Take it for what it's worth. But that's the reality of the dialectic, and it is unscientific to ignore it, as you and others seem wont to do, your policies can only lead to a further glut the US labor market, and boost the unemployment rate, which is already unconscionable. Shame! Peace, Ken >From: "Macdonald Stainsby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: Communist Internationalist Position on Immigration >and Travel >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:40:49 -0700 >charset="iso-8859-1" >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>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. > >*Snip* > >Newsflash: Imperialism creates higher standards of living than are realistic >under socialism, unless approached and applied on a global scale. >Translated, this will mean (unless we overthrow capitalism in one gulp >worldwide) a drop in standards of living in the first world. Asking the >Imperialist country working classes to drop in consumption is the *only* >progressive answer, since it is likely the only one connected to revolution. > >Macdonald > > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:47:58 -0500 >From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: [L-I] Bosnia- Where Are The Radical Leftists >andLiberals Now? ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><006501bffada$56646da0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Macdonald Stainsby wrote: > >> The point however is that Yugoslavia under Tito and even more >> > Serbia under Milosevic has nothing to do with a workers state (here is not >> the >> > place to prove this position). >> >> Oh, but it sure as hell is. > >It would help if comrades would indicate the post they are replying to (or at >least name its author). Given the volume on these lists, it is unreasonable to >think that readers will remember (or even have read) every post on a topic. > >Carrol > > > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > > >End of Crashlist Digest_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist ------------------------------------------------------------ ((((( Nettaxi.com in the News ))))) http://www.nettaxi.com/company/press/latest.html _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
