Carrol writes:
Marvin is completely correct. I would argue,moreover, that only a strong
and militant (no-electoral) left movement, can meet scuh a threat. AND
it must meet the anti-alien hogwash directly by making OPEN BORDERS a
primary principle. There is no wallygaggin around the issue.
==================================
Thanks, Carrol. I can't agree, however, that such movements can be "argued"
into existence - a not uncommon misconception among those trade in ideas.
Social movements arise in response to changing circumstances ("historical
necessity"). Intellectuals can nurture these when they appear but they
cannot give birth to them.
People typically turn from the private to the public sphere when they feel
that their living standards or physical safety or social values - often all
in combination - are under attack and the traditional ruling parties are
either not defending them or are responsible for the assaults. When the
masses take to the streets, it is to exert pressure on the governing
parties. If their distress and frustration is not satisfied or contained,
they begin to join and form new ones.
Because of class, race, regional, historical and other factors, a more
intense economic and social crisis in the US would see many Democrats,
concentrated in the major urban centres, moving to the left while small town
and rural Republicans moved right, with a greater potential for violent
clashes between their organizations.
The paramount demands on both sides would be for the restoration of lost
living standards, status, and stability, and fundamental change to the
existing system to prevent a recurrence. The apportionment of blame -
scapegoating in the case of the right - and the respective programs to
resolve the crisis would of course be at opposite poles.
In these conditions, it's highly unlikely that "open borders" would become a
central concern for leftward moving Democrats and independents - not even
within immigrant communities, where you would expect it to have the most
resonance.
In fact, anyone insisting on "making OPEN BORDERS a primary principle" of
the struggle for power being waged by the left would almost certainly be
accused of diverting it and isolated.
Principles are not enough, alas; those with most to lose weigh them in
accordance with how directly relevant and realizable they are. It's a lesson
the far left to it's detriment has not always absorbed.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
