I have to disagree on the last point on mass immigration. Mobility should be a birth right, within and outside borders (and borders of the periphery themselves are an unfortunate product of imperialism), although managed flows of people is generally preferable by most constituencies. Admittedly, mass immigration from a particular place is a reflection of failure of the national economy. But the ability of nations (governments) to transform their economy is easily said than done. So why not make it easier for people to find ways to seek a better life, whatever that might, instead of erecting barriers on left-nationalist grounds. As far as impact of remittance income is concerned it is generally positive but there is the danger of undue dependence of such incomes on the economic vagaries of the receiving countries.
Cheers, Anthony On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Matthijs Krul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marvin Gandall schreef: > >> Charles would be the first to agree that Lenin and the other classical >> Marxists were influenced by and wrote for the period they lived in, and >> didn't hand down formulas valid for eternity. They lived at a time when >> the >> working class in the West was growing in size and power and a sizeable >> part >> of it identified with the revolutionary left. They also witnessed >> first-hand >> the great scramble for colonies by the Europeans, the US, and Japan and >> the >> brutal misery inflicated on the colonial peoples which Twain, among >> others, >> documented in relation to the Belgian Congo and other super-exploited >> territories. So they properly characterized the period as a revolutionary >> and the age as one of imperialism. They thought they were on the threshold >> of capitalist collapse and socialist revolution, and their forecasts >> seemed >> to be strikingly vindicated both by the imperialist rivalry culminating in >> World War I, and by the subsequent wave of unrest in the armies and on the >> home fronts unleashed by the war which culminated in the Russian >> Revolution. >> In these circumstances, it was plausible to argue that the narrow craft >> unions and reformist leaderships of the workers' parties were running well >> behind the temper of the working class and delaying and obstructing the >> world socialist revolution which now looked all but inevitable. The >> materialist underpinning they gave to their analysis was that the craft >> unionists who controlled the embryonic labour federations and workers' >> parties had been effectively been co-opted into supporting the system with >> the extra profits generated by imperialism. But, as Charles notes, they >> didn't extend the concept of the "labour aristocracy" to the growing army >> of >> industrial workers in the advanced capitalist countries who were just >> beginning to organize and on whom the revolutionary left pinned its hopes. >> >> I won't repeat my arguments except to say that I've balked at the much >> wider >> use of "labour aristocracy" to describe the mass of today's workers in the >> West; that, in general, working class conditions in the West are >> stagnating >> or declining while those in the periphery are improving; that the higher >> growth rates, rapidly developing home markets, and export of capital from >> the former colonial territories to the West suggests the age of Western >> imperialism is drawing to a close and that the analytical framework of >> unequal exchange through which we've understood the world over the past >> century needs updating; that the "crisis of leadership" theory is >> inapplicable in a period when the leadership reflects the liberal >> consciousness of the base, where the socialist left is now wholly absent; >> that we live not in an age of advance and revolution, but of retreat and >> counter-revolution, characterized above all by the collapse or >> transformation of the old anticapitalist states and movements, the >> contraction of the Western trade unions, and the expansion of capitalism >> into vast new markets. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> >> I don't necessarily disagree that the classical age of imperialism might > be drawing to a close, though I think it is too early to draw conclusions > from it. In any case it would imply that the age of _western_ imperialism is > coming to a close, as I do not think capitalism can exist without some form > of imperialism. But as long as this hasn't happened yet, I think it is > legitimate to refer to the social-democratic inclined (skilled and/or white) > worker in the First World as a labor aristocracy, and all the more so for > the Western union bureaucracies. > > It's interesting to see the discussion often mentions as a counter-measure > the support for open borders and more immigration. I've noted from > discussions elsewhere with left-inclined people that there is a strong > tendency to feel that they should take on a pro-immigration position. I'm > not convinced that this is correct - on the basis of what I've seen and > read, it seems to me that strong immigration is bad for _both_ the home > country of the immigrants and the new host country's workers. The only > people who seem to benefit at all are the immigrants themselves and their > relatives back home (the latter due to remittances), and even that is > debatable. Why should we support mass immigration again? > > Matthijs Krul > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelaenshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
