Although Zwarich appended his further thoughts to my statement, he did not address a single one of the points I made, and persists in claiming that he cannot see evidence of SOS or Minutemen "hate speech."
From the SOS site: "Welcome to Mexifornia! Aren't you tired of watching your state turn into a third world cesspool right before your eyes?" "Soldier of 1492" (referring to Columbus's invasion of America) writes: " I just wanted to bring to attention an event called the "ANARCHIST GATHERING" Which includes guests, speakers, and bands. here's the band list: Resist and Exist, Contravene, Aztlan Underground, Gather, Anima Mundi, + speakers, films, workshops. I noticed Aztlan is playing a role in this along with a number of Socialist/communist groups. I think this is something to monitor, and or protest. At a very minimun I know some people will be taking pictures and seeing who is involved. I would be willing to bet many of these felons attend SOS protests." So the site is very consciously anti-Mexican as well as anti-communist and anti-anarchist. Even the Minutemen refuse to let Turner and SOS associate with them because of Turner's remarks about bringing baseball bats to rallies with the strong inference that he wants to bounce them off people's heads. So much for Zwarich's inability to see "hate speech." Nor has he commented on Hal Netkin's attack on demonstrators against Minutemen in Orange County (Netkin runs an anti-Mexican website), when he drove his SUV type vehicle into several protesters. Nor has Zwarich responded to evidence of the involvement of White Revolution and the neo-nazi National Vanguard in SOS and Minutemen activities, or the involved of neo-Confederates with spreading the vigilante groups into the southeast. The reason Zwarich is blind to all this, and in denial about the political content to challenges to his perspective such as those I raised, is that he has an axe to grind regarding his view that we currently have "open borders," and his strategic perspective that the left should be fighting to close the borders to oppose corporate profiteers and defend the "working class." He also buys the idea that racism is MOST virulent in the working class (and so therefore, paradoxically, excusable or irrelevant in comparison to allegedly more fundamental economic class interests). I want to briefly reiterate my main point to Zwarich, and others, that this struggle is not only about "immigration." It is about land and colonialism. These groups are very clear -- in a way the state itself sometimes obscures -- that the issue is about whose "sovereignty" will prevail on the lands of the so-called "US Southwest." SOS didn't come to Baldwin Park to protest immigrants; they came to protest an art installation that asserted this was Mexican, and is and will be Indian land. The very concept of "immigration" is tied up with the imperial imposition of borders. SOS refers to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (which of course the US doesn't abide by in terms of recognizing the land, language and other rights of the people they "annexed") and the Gadsden Purchase to "prove" that this land was not stolen. But in many other references, they make it clear that see the territory as the booty of conquest (this is the same "We stole it fair and square" attitude that Ronald Reagan used regarding the Panama Canal). If you ignore the question of land and sovereignty, of colonialism, you will be nothing but "confused," as Zwarich would have it. But beyond the question of land for a moment, let's look at the question of labor. Regardless of immigration, it is the tendency of capitalism/imperialism to immiserate the working class, to drive it down to and below the cost of its own reproduction. (And inside, most of the "reproduction" of labor power comes through the unwaged work of women, which is simply expropriated by the capitalists). There are a couple of million people capitalism prefers to take out of direct competition for wages by locking them in prison, when it would be more economically advantageous for them, under Zwarich's theory, to have them out on the streets serving as a reserve army of labor and driving down wages. But the state has other important social control, garrison state purposes that it must serve. Similarly, the Corporate Party, as Zwarich calls it, doesn't want "open borders," it wants porous closed borders, another matter entirely, because it assumes that illegal labor (like any other black market commodity) is ipso facto more profitable and more easily exploited. This is the same reason drugs are illegal, not to end their marketing, but to create a much more profitable black market and grey market. That's why the state, the Corporate Party, finds both official enforcement mechanisms like the Border Patrol, and unofficial ones like the Minutemen, so necessary. Why does Zwarich think Ahh-nold and Bush have lauded or immunized these vigilantes? Because they admire them as effective working class opponents of the Corporate Party? It is to laugh. On the other side of the equation, where were SOS and Zwarich while the Corporate Party decimated the labor unions (with the connivance of labor 'leaders')? Where were they on the deregulation of the energy market, and of other natural monopolies, and of telecommunications, all of which have resulted in "profit opportunities," downsizing, and immiseration. Even if immigration were only what Zwarich says it is (it isn't, it's one of the main motors of domestic economic activity, the only thing that will keep the social security system afloat, and in most studies, a net plus on income side of the cost-tax revenue axis -- that is immigrants pay more in in taxes than they take out), that doesn't necessarily make it the biggest contributor to profitability or the deepened exploitation of the workers. What about challenging the prisons, the police, the cuts in education and social services, the tax giveaways to the wealthy and super-rich, etc, etc, etc? Perhaps because it's easier to scapegoat "Mexicans" than to attack the rulers? Finally, immigrant workers, both legal and illegal, are some of the most militant, most prone to organize and unionize of all workers. Despite Zwarich's portrayal of them as essentially a mass of scabs, they have in fact engaged in protracted and militant strikes, sometimes with official backing of AFL-CIO unions, sometimes in self-organized wildcats. The only way out of the apparently insoluble contradictions and confusion that Zwarich sees is to begin to propose revolutionary social, economic and political changes. Under capitalism and imperialism, with or without immigration, the system rests on competition among the workers. The solution is not nationalism and protectionism, it is internationalism, a world without exploitation, oppression, and alienation. The only way to get there is to engage in a conscious process of mental, physical and economic decolonization. At 10:27 AM 7/19/2005, Zwarich wrote: >I want to express my thanks to all who took the time to respond to my >comments about the complex and highly volatile issue of 'immigration'. >Many excellent points have been made on different sides of this complex >question. It is always heartening to hear points of view expressed in >reasoned arguments. It is crucially important that we on the progressive >Left maintain the capacity for reasoned internal dialogue, most especially >in those areas where we find ourselves in disagreement. > > > >I do regret that certain false assumptions have been made about me and >what I think, such as the completely untrue assertion that "Zwarich >casually identifies all Mexicans immigrants as the enemy of workers", >which came from one writer who clearly has very strong emotions invested >in this issue (nothing wrong with that, I greatly admire passionate >commitment). This same writer went on to say that, "Neither Zwarich, SOS, >nor the Minutemen promote working class unity against corporate and >government rulers". > > > >I would like to make it very clear that I am NOT a supporter of, an >apologist for, or defender of, SOS or the Minutemen. I am only trying to >get us to develop some perspective on this volatile issue. I am trying to >get us to see both ourselves (by far the hardest task), and these >anti-immigration groups, in terms of how we fit in to the larger picture. >Although I have spent a few hours now reading on the SOS and Minutemen web >sites, I do not really know that much about these groups at this point. >But in lumping me together with them in terms of what we promote, the >writer quoted above could not be more wrong about my lack of promotion of >working class unity against the ruling class. In fact, this was the very >central message I was trying to get across in my comments, (although I >obviously did a very poor job of it). > > > >'Identify the Enemy' is one of the most basic tenets of warfare. I have >tried energetically to promote an awareness and understanding of this >basic principle of adversarial struggle among the ranks of the progressive >Left. I have written many tens of thousands of words trying to get us (the >Left) to realize that we are constantly allowing ourselves to be flummoxed >and bamboozled by the corporate ruling class, (which I have referred to >for years as the Corporate Party), precisely because we continually fail >to properly 'identify the enemy'. (The disastrous ABB fiasco was a direct >result of such a failure). > > > >It seems very clear that the de facto open border policy that is currently >in effect, under which current US immigration laws are simply not being >enforced, is a policy that could only have been implemented by the >corporate ruling class that holds the reigns of power. I was trying to >make the point in my previous comments that this de facto open border >policy is entirely in keeping with the overall (and age old) ruling class >strategy to pit all workers around the world against each other in the >much discussed 'race to the bottom'. I cited Marx's thesis: 'The value of >labor is defined by the cost of reproduction (replacement) of that labor', >which explains the simple and obvious mechanism of this working class >'race to the bottom'. > > > >How can it possibly not be completely and immediately obvious, to anyone >who perceives reality from a Left perspective, that the direct and >immediate objective of this open border policy is to instigate >wage-suppressing competition, among desperate competing workers, in those >jobs that cannot be exported to third world countries, where labor is >desperate and therefore cheaper, (service sector jobs, domestic >construction, etc)? To suppress working class wages in those jobs that >cannot be exported, the Corporate Party is importing massive numbers of >desperate immigrant workers to compete directly with domestic workers. >This policy is having its intended devastating effect in the lives of the >American working class. Millions of American workers, who only recently >held decent paying jobs, now can no longer find those jobs, because they >have been filled by lower-paid immigrant workers. Or even when they can >still find those jobs, they now pay dramatically lower wages that cannot >support a dignified life for workers and their families. How, or why, is >this disastrous effect of the current open border policy in the lives of >working class Americans not completely obvious? And when those Americans >who are being victimized by this open border policy attempt to organize >themselves to find redress for their grievances, how is it that we feel >that we should demonize them for trying to protect their families and >livelihoods? > > > >Thus we are left to contemplate this completely bizarre circumstance where >Left wing pro-immigration groups are vociferously supporting the >capitalist Corporate Party's open border policy, which directly victimizes >the domestic working class, while anti-immigration groups, such as SOS and >the Minutemen, which many are identifying as 'right wing', are protesting >vociferously AGAINST the open border strategy of the capitalist ruling >class, because they feel victimized by its effects. And, in the very >height of irony itself, many of those who SUPPORT the capitalist open >border policy most militantly, (and demonize those who are demonstrating >AGAINST this capitalist open border policy), carry signs that say things >like, "Smash Capitalism!" > > > >How did we get this confused? How did we let ourselves be drawn into this >absurd position as enthusiastically willing dupes of the Corporate Party, >supporting the capitalist ruling class open border policy? One writer >asserted that the Corporate Party, witnessing this fiendishly clever drama >it has devised, is "laughing all the way to the bank". Right On! (as we >used to say in the olden days). > > > >SOS and the Minutemen are NOT the enemy folks. In class terms, (in may >respects), we could say that they ARE the working class. Many of the >instigators and leaders may actually be middle class, but there can be no >doubt that they are enjoying a huge degree of support among the American >working classes, represented by ALL races, that have been victimized by >these open border policies. These are 'ordinary people', concerned >citizens, who feel threatened by this sudden massive wave of immigration >we have seen in the last ten years, and, right or wrong, they are >organizing in response to that perceived threat. > > > >To the extent that they are confused and misinformed about this issue of >immigration, to the extent that they may resort to racist attitudes and >arguments, they are indeed themselves the dupes of the ruling class (the >Corporate Party). What I have tried to point out is that when groups on >the Left take up a belligerent battle cry in militant terms that demonizes >these people as 'the enemy', these Leftist groups are only succeeding in >making Corporate Party dupes of themselves. We are, in direct effect, >taking up 'class warfare' against our own class, (assuming that the Left >identifies with the working class), and in doing so, we are providing the >corporate ruling class with great amusement, not to mention GREAT >political advantage. When we fail to properly 'identify the enemy', we >ALWAYS provide that enemy with great advantage. > > > >I'm sure it was my fault for not making this point clearer to the writer >who missed it so completely. This main point of my recent comments was no >doubt unwisely obscured by my attempts to point out that in terms of >aggressively emotionalized 'hate speech', of which the pro-immigration >Leftist militant groups are accusing SOS and the Minutemen, the commentary >that I have personally seen and heard on this immigration issue that is >coming from the Left is FAR more incendiary than anything I personally >have seen or heard (in the research I have done) coming from ANY of these >anti-immigration groups. > > > >I was not in Baldwin Park, but there is a great deal of video of both >events available on the internet. Anyone who cares to can see for >themselves that the most emotionalized, obscene, and blatant 'hate speech' >was coming from the Left. Can anyone refer me to actual documentation of >hate speech coming from SOS or the Minutemen? (I'm not saying it does not >exist, I'm just saying that the hate speech coming from the Left is >immediately apparent, but I have not yet found any that is coming from SOS >or the Minutemen, even after looking for it). > > > >That does NOT assign a value judgment as to who is 'right or wrong' on >this issue. I tried to make it clear in my comments that in addressing >those comments to Left discussion groups, I am addressing what I consider >to be 'my side'. I am simply disturbed and embarrassed that 'my side' is >presenting such ill-considered arguments, arguments that ignore the most >basic premises about class struggle, (that we should have learned by now), >and that those arguments are being presented in such unreasoned, hateful, >and emotionalized terms. > > > >These heated emotions that are being directed against essentially working >class groups, like SOS and the Minutemen, should properly be directed at >the corporate ruling class, the Corporate Party. When we take up this >inflamed battle cry against these working class groups, we are taking our >eye off the ball, folks, and we are doing EXACTLY what the Corporate Party >wants us to do. We could not possibly be cooperating more fully in making >complete 'ruling class dupes' of ourselves. We are vociferously supporting >the Corporate Party's open border policy that is victimizing American workers. > > > >As I have already said, I have no doubt at all that many overt racists >would gravitate to the ranks of groups like SOS and the Minutemen. This >should be no surprise to anyone. Racism is RAMPANT among the working >classes. Lord God, SURELY we are aware of that! > > > >EVERY racial group at the bottom of the economic ladder suffers from this >cursed affliction of racism. Working class people of EVERY race, and most >especially those clinging to the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, >exhibit distressing degrees of racism against other racial groups with >whom they are in direct economic competition. The most violent and >virulent emotions of overt racism exist among the poorest classes, between >poor whites, poor blacks, poor Hispanics, etc. Any who don't understand >this, should take a walk on the 'other side'. If you are black, walk >through an East LA barrio. If you are Hispanic, walk through a South >Central 'hood. It doesn't matter whether you are Anglo, or Asian, or >African-American, or Hispanic, or any other race, take a walk through any >ethnically segregated neighborhood of a different race, among the poorest >economic classes, and see what kind of reception you get. > > > >This is the problem we face, folks. And when we take up this battle cry >against other working class groups, as we are taking it up against these >anti-immigration groups, we are only making ourselves a part of that >problem. We are playing right into the hands of the Corporate Party. > >Zwarich > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Novick" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Zwarich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "activism" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >"Jimmy Rivera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Actionla" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LAAMN" <[email protected]>; >"peacecenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:20 PM >Subject: [LAAMN] Re: [actionla] Earl Hutchinson invites Joe Turner at the >L.A. Urban Policy Roundtable? > > >>I appreciate Leone, Leslie and Tom's responses to Zwarich. He and I have >>previously exchanged views about immigration issues, and despite his appeal >>to "Reason," I am honestly not sure "reason" is what will carry the day. >>However, here's another go at it, >>from a different angle. >> >>Turner and SOS are quite clear that issue is not immigration -- it is >>"defending" the conquest of this land. Their provocations directed at >>Judith Baca's art installation in Baldwin Park clearly is about their >>claims to sovereignty (through war) over this land, and their objections >>are to the idea that this is Mexican, or Indian land. >> >>Unless we acknowledge that, we can't begin to have a discussion, with >>Zwarich or anyone else. That is to say, the starting point for >>understanding this phenomenon must be colonialism and particularly settler >>colonialism. We must directly confront the SOS ideology about a >>"reconquista," which it shares with the most openly racist "anti-immigrant" >>groups, such as Glenn Spencer's American Patrol. Spencer was the thug and >>criminal (had to flee CA because of problems with the law) who used to >>promote anti-Mexican July 4th protests at the Westwood Federal Building. >>Hal Netkin, the racist thug with the CCIR who ran his van into protesters >>in Orange County, runs a website that views "Mexican-American" politicians >>like LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as fifth columns following secret orders >>from Mexico and/or MEChA to carry out this reconquest. Mexican population >>growth in any form -- births, immigration, inter-marriage -- is seen as a >>demographic assault on Euro-American dominance in this territory. This is >>not new. White settlers carried out lynchings and created vigilante >>organizations like the Texas, Arizona and California Rangers to enforce >>their land grab and domination of the indigenous population. Neither >>Arizona nor New Mexico was admitted to the union until each had a clear >>Anglo majority population. Before they became states they were governed as >>colonial territories of the federal government. >> >>If you think this struggle is only about immigration, you pursue fruitless >>strategies and arguments for dealing with it, like the popular US myth that >>we are "a nation of immigrants." This foundation myth -- that is to say, >>lie -- is meant to disguise the fact that the US is an Empire, peopled by >>colonized and kidnaped people and settlers, as well as some immigrants. >>Native people including Mexicans are not immigrants. Black people are not >>immigrants. Hawaiians are not immigrants, nor are Inuit. Neither are the >>descendants of the English colonists offspring of immigrants, but of >>settlers -- people intent on the dispossession of the indigenous population >>and seizure of their land. >> >>The very concept of immigration, in fact, is a fairly recent one, and >>spread from the US and other settler colonies that wanted to increase their >>European population. Immigration (as opposed to migration, a natural >>process of human (or animal) population transfer and distribution, is >>predicated on the imperial nation state and its imposition of borders on >>reality. Neither restrictions on human movement, nor imposition of borders >>and planting of flags to claim territory (and ultimately privatize it) are >>"Reasonable" or justifiable; they are simply manifestations of the >>operation of the strategy that "Might Makes Right" in history. >> >>It's interesting that Zwarich tries to rest his arguments on Marx. Marx and >>Engels, who certainly made some contributions to human understanding and >>liberation, were also flawed by Euro-centrism. They supported the US >>invasion and conquest of a large chunk of Mexico, because they felt that >>Yankee Protestant industry would hasten the development of the productive >>forces, and thus of socialism, more than leaving it under Catholic, mestizo >>Mexican authority. They did this, despite their opposition to slavery, when >>the US, by virtue of its conquest, REINTRODUCED chattel slavery into a >>territory where it had been abolished by the Mexican revolution for >>independence. >> >>What are the terms on which we struggle about and discuss this issue? They >>must be on the question of de-colonization, because only in that context, >>which require the total social, economic and political transformation of >>this society, can we begin to build an alliance among all oppressed and >>exploited people. Within that alliance, the contributions of the millions >>of Mexicans who now live throughout the US -- a million Mexicans in >>Chicago, for example -- become strategic, and any contradictions such as >>those Zwarich cites become contradictions among the people whose real >>shared interest is in defeating the Empire. >> >> >> >>At 06:21 PM 7/15/2005, Leslie Radford wrote: >>>I'm going to try to take this from Zwarich's anti-ruling class ideology. >>> >>>First, let's be clear: Joe Turner and Save Our State are opposed to all >>>Mexicans and to the poorest workers. >> >>In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is >>distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior >>interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and >>educational purposes only. >> >>Check out "Turning the Tide: Journal of Anti-Racist Action, Research & >>Education" >> >>Anti-Racist Action/People Against Racist Terror >>PO Box 1055 Culver City CA 90232 >>310-495-0299 >>www.geocities.com/ara_losangeles >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>"To subscribe to ARA NEWS, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following command >>in >>the body of your message: >>subscribe ara-news" >> >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>============================================================== >>ActionLA >>Action for World Liberation Everyday! >>URL: http://www.ActionLA.org >>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Tel: (213)413-1778 >> >> >>To post your annoucemnet to the list, send e-mail to: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>all messages are moderated, need to be the ActionLA list meber to post >> >>To join the list, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>or visit: http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/actionla >> >>To unsubscribe from the list, send e-mail to: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >>**WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT! >> >>Please support our important works of ActionLA! Send your donations to: >> >>The Peace Center/ActionLA >>8124 West 3rd Street, Suite 104 >>Los Angeles, CA 90048 >>(at the memo line write donations to ActionLA/SEE, all donations are tax >>deductible) >> >>For Credit Card donations, please visit: >>http://www.actionla.org/Donation.htm > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
