Fuck the Border, Support Mexican National Liberation

[AvanteRedGarde]

[From the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver]

Don't respond with pure emotion. Try this. Read it in its entirety once more, start once with what you agree with, then move on to what you disagree with or are skeptical about and explain why.





Fuck the Border. Support Mexican National Liberation.


Amerika’s borders are militarily imposed. They were established as part of a genocidal expansion onto the North American continent. Amerika and its borders are illegitimate.


Amerika’s borders are currently a means to imprison the masses of the ‘Global South’ in abject poverty. RAIM-Denver supports their free movement into the United States. Those who oppose the free movement of oppressed peoples into the U.S. are enemies of the oppressed.


Mexicans are not “immigrants.” Amerika stole nearly half of Mexico. As is often the case, Mexican “immigrants” are returning to the “Southwest”: Occupied Mexico. There is nothing “alien” about Mexicans either. Mexicans have far more in common with the people of North and South America; they are far more representative of the world’s people. Amerikans are the real illegal aliens.


RAIM-Denver supports the revolutionary struggles of oppressed people. While this struggle is primarily one of people directly overthrowing imperialist exploitation in the Third World, it is clear that this struggle must also strike at the heart of imperialism. This fact, Amerika’s history and other factors, all necessitate the dismantling of the United States as a sovereign entity.


RAIM-Denver supports the creation of a Mexican state in the “Southwest” and its reunification with a revolutionized Mexico. As part of the complete overthrow of imperialism, RAIM-Denver supports dividing Amerika into different territories administered by oppressed peoples in alliance with the revolutionary Third World masses. Amerika has stolen much and its debt grows larger by the second. With the division and the ultimate destruction of Amerika, oppressed peoples around the world find common cause.


We are the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver. We promote the revolutionary transformation of society through the global struggle of the oppressed. Find out more at http://raimd.wordpress.com

[Revy]

Stop with the absurd ideas supporting segregating ethnic groups with borders. Oh yeah, you're racist.

Mexican immigrants are not fighting for Mexican territory (what are you, trying to mirror the anti-immigrant reactionaries?). Mexican immigrants want to be considered Americans just like anyone here.

I'd like to remind everyone here that the above post did not have any words at all promoting socialism, or opposing capitalism. For loonies like RAIM, revolution is simply obliterating the First World. It's like Heaven's Gate but instead of the UFO riding the Halley's Comet it's the "clash of civilizations".

[AvanteRedGarde]

Mexican immigrants want to be considered Americans just like anyone here.

My gut reaction is how silly it is to think that everyone wants to be an 'American.' If this is pax americana reproduced in the left, I don't know what is.

They want the income and privileges (such as a U.S. passport) that comes along with being an American citizen. Could you blame them for this?

Of course, calling the majority of the richest 20% globally proletariat certainly adds to the confusion. Of course they are going to prefer being workers, even "illegal" ones, in America over working in their imperialist exploited home countries.


I'd like to remind everyone here that the above post did not have any words at all promoting socialism, or opposing capitalism.

That's not entirely true. Unless you are going back on Lenin and imperialism is the not the modern form of capital, then this document is most definitely anti-capitalist.

Note that it says, "reunification with a revolutionized mexico...revolutionary third world." Obviously RAIM is promoting a revolutionary alternative as opposed to simply extending other capitalist states.

Additionally, the document takes a clear stand for Third World workers and is clearly against borders. Unfortunately, this clarity is missing from much of the left.

[/quote]For loonies like RAIM, revolution is simply obliterating the First World. It's like Heaven's Gate but instead of the UFO riding the Halley's Comet it's the "clash of civilizations".[/QUOTE]

You're a psychologist now?

[Revy]

Immigrant rights demonstrations.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/481065476_71d7e6a432.jpg

Is it the Fourth of July? No, it's a demonstration for immigrant rights....yes, they want to be American, they don't want to be patronized by Third Worldists, they are Americans if they want to be, and it looks pretty clear they want to be.

I am not some kind of nationalist here, I am not patriotic myself. Calling for the annexation of the Southwest into Mexico is irrelevant to people who just want to be able to live freely here.

Once you get over your First World-guilt you can finally move around to real positions. There are people to be liberated here in America not corralled.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Don't let the flag waving go to your head. Like I said, they want the privileges and the freedom to not be super-exploited, not some abstract 'freedom.' The flag waving is in part a ploy, at the behest of their reformist, pro-american leadership, and otherwise caused by the concentration of wealth due to imperialist exploitation.

[Raúl Duke]

Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver

(a side question)
What's their position, if any, on Puerto Rico?


Support Mexican National Liberation.


There's already a Mexican nation-state. What the article calls for is that the U.S. South-West be re-united to Mexico. My question: What's revolutionary about this?

I mean the current Mexican government ain't a left government in anyone's definition.
They (the PAN) are a right/center-right government.


RAIM-Denver supports their free movement into the United States.

I agree with this. I support free-movement.


Amerikans are the real illegal aliens.

hmmm....
Why should we use the same terms that the right uses?
I say no-one is illegal.


As part of the complete overthrow of imperialism, RAIM-Denver supports dividing Amerika into different territories administered by oppressed peoples in alliance with the revolutionary Third World masses. Amerika has stolen much and its debt grows larger by the second. With the division and the ultimate destruction of Amerika, oppressed peoples around the world find common cause.

Exactly, how will this plan play out? I'm skeptical.
What kind of "oppressed peoples" (i.e. which group/who) are going to run the North-East, the Pacific-Northwest, etc?

I'm from Puerto Rico, which could be considered a place with oppressed people under the boot of U.S. imperialism, but the separation of the U.S. into different pieces is something we would consider irrelevant.

[Revy]

I agree with the title. Fuck the Border, Support Mexican National Liberation.
I agree with that.

What the post proposes, is just extreme and is not going to solve anything. Again, people are not going to be liberated by dividing up America. Wanting different separate nations for ethnic groups is not anything anyone on RevLeft should be supporting, if that is indeed what RAIM supports, when it says "dividing up Amerika into territories".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mexican immigrants are workers, and they share that common identity with countless others living in the United States. But instead of capitalizing on that, head-case nutjobs like the RAIM would rather you look at them as part of a national liberation front within the United States. It boggles the mind that some people think like this...it's just so completely out of touch with any and all reality.

And this isn't even a case of wondering whether one should support an existing national liberation movement, like the one in Palestine...this is a question of whether one should support the RAIM's Walter Mitty fantasy national liberation movement. I for one am glad that I don't have a raging Third World fetish to cloud my common sense...

[BobKKKindle$]

Amerikans are the real illegal aliens. What is this even supposed to mean? If you think that American citizens are illegal aliens simply because they live on land that was forcibly seized from Native Americans, and surrounding nation-states such as Mexico, then you could justifiably argue that almost every ethnic group in the entire world should be described in the same way, and forced to relinquish control of their land to someone else, because the current distribution of ethnic groups and cultures across the world is the result of successive waves of migration, many of which have involved the displacement and oppression of indigenous populations - this is certainly not specific to America, and nor is it a "white" phenomenon. In Britain, for example, the current "white" population is not descended from Anglo-Saxons or Celts, but from the Norman invaders who seized control of Britain (or at least England) in 1066 - do you think that Britain should be "returned" to countries that have a closer genetic link with Britain's original inhabitants, such as Ireland and the Scandinavian states? How far back should we go to determine who has a right to demand the "return" of a territory? I really don't see why communists should get involved in such abstract and irrelevant questions, or how any state can be described as more legitimate than any other state - as communists we should encourage the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism throughout the world, conducted by a multiethnic working class, whilst also campaigning for the abolition of all border controls and the granting of full citizenship rights to all immigrants as long as we continue to live under capitalism.

[skki]

Almost all borders are formed as a result of invasion. The only reason you're talking about the Mexican border is because America is on the other side.

[AvanteRedGarde]

(a side question)
What's their position, if any, on Puerto Rico?


I don't know, but would guess that they support national liberation and a kind of vaguely described 'unity with the revolutionary Third World masses.'


There's already a Mexican nation-state. What the article calls for is that the U.S. South-West be re-united to Mexico. My question: What's revolutionary about this?

"RAIM-Denver supports the revolutionary struggles of oppressed people. While this struggle is primarily one of people directly overthrowing imperialist exploitation in the Third World, it is clear that this struggle must also strike at the heart of imperialism. This fact, Amerika’s history and other factors, all necessitate the dismantling of the United States as a sovereign entity.[...]As part of the complete overthrow of imperialism, RAIM-Denver supports dividing Amerika into different territories administered by oppressed peoples in alliance with the revolutionary Third World masses."

They obviously link Mexican National Liberation in the Southwest to the global struggle.


I mean the current Mexican government ain't a left government in anyone's definition.
They (the PAN) are a right/center-right government.

They address this, somewhat vaguely, by calling for its reunification with a revolutionized Mexico. I'm assuming that this would have to occur simultaneously to or after any revolution in Mexico. I wonder though, if there was a revolution in Mexico, I could see the Southwest region being a big base area for reaction against it. It would be a really interesting situation if there was a revolution in Mexico.



Why should we use the same terms that the right uses?
I say no-one is illegal.

??


Exactly, how will this plan play out? I'm skeptical.
What kind of "oppressed peoples" (i.e. which group/who) are going to run the North-East, the Pacific-Northwest, etc?

I don't think that entirely important at the moment. I'm totally in favor of relocating Israel to North America, Germany or Eastern Europe. People obviously want homelands. It's a fact. Additionally, there are people without homelands. Why not a Romani nation, as part of some sort of revolutionary federation including a Jewish nation, a Lakota nation, a Mexican nation etc, all on the North American continent? Hell, all of the land was stolen and its not like America currently has a high population density.

Now, I'm not huge on nationalism. But there are two kinds of nationalism happening here. First is supporting and advancing the nationalism of oppressed nations and the other is defending the soveriegnty of an oppressor nation; that is, the sovereignty to continue to be an oppressor.


I'm from Puerto Rico, which could be considered a place with oppressed people under the boot of U.S. imperialism, but the separation of the U.S. into different pieces is something we would consider irrelevant.

Why? Do you think that the Puerto Rican National Liberation struggle exists outside the wider context of capitalism-imperialism? Should not people around the world link up in common struggle against capitalist imperialist, and must capitalist imperialism be defeated also at its center?


sidenote

And on a sidenote, given that many cities and communities in the Southwest are 50% or more Mexican Americans or "Hispanics" and that these groups respresents a lower strata of society, I don't see how its that outrageous to say that these people shouldn't run their own communities according to their own interests.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Mexican immigrants are not fighting for Mexican territory (what are you, trying to mirror the anti-immigrant reactionaries?). Mexican immigrants want to be considered Americans just like anyone here.



Stop right there.

Mexicans are American...whether they are in Mexico or Canada.

Mexico is a country in America, just like Chile and Peru are.

"To them, there’s this huge land, which frankly needs them, because they’re the people who are going to do the work. They actually don’t believe in a separate United States in any sense of the word — immigration laws, borders. They think that’s nonsense. It isn’t just because of the legal history, but really, to them, it’s their country as much as it is anyone else’s. And they’re not nationalistic in any narrow sense about it. They talk about the fact that, ‘yeah, Mexican guys live here.’ One guy knows a guy who married a Polish woman, who immigrated from Poland, and he think that’s great. But to them, America doesn’t belong to the people who call themselves Americans. That’s where they differ from Republicans and George Bush."

J. Sakai.

[BobKKKindle$]

And on a sidenote, given that many cities and communities in the Southwest are 50% or more Mexican Americans or "Hispanics" and that these groups respresents a lower strata of society, I don't see how its that outrageous to say that these people shouldn't run their own communities according to their own interests. I don't think that Hispanics being able to manage their own communities should be the final goal of communists - and I'm not sure whether it's something we should be demanding as a reform under capitalism either. I think that we should be arguing for workers taking control of the means of production and managing society in a democratic and egalitarian way through planning and direct democracy, because we think that capitalism is an exploitative system that leads to workers constantly facing the threat of material deprivation, and not being able to exercise control over their lives. The kind of struggle we want to promote should involve workers of every nationality and ethnicity because workers have nothing to gain from the national and racial divisions that the ruling class chooses to exploit as a means to maintain its own political and economic dominance. I just don't understand why you think that being able to work for a Hispanic boss instead of a white boss, or being subject to the oppression of a state that is controlled by Hispanic bourgeois politicians instead of white bourgeois politicians is going to signify any kind of improvement for migrant workers in the United States - Hispanic workers will still be exploited and deprived of their basic rights as long as private property and the resulting class divisions continue to exist no matter what their boss looks like, or what language the bosses speak when they abuse workers on the production line, and so surely you see that any kind of genuine revolutionary process is going to involve the expropriation of the whole of the ruling class, including Hispanic bosses?

[STJ]

I as an American have no problem with Mexican immigration they come here for the same reason everyother person from the third world does MONEY. You make alot more here than in your home country.

[JohnnyC]

[From the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver]
Mexicans have far more in common with the people of North and South America; they are far more representative of the world’s people. Amerikans are the real illegal aliens.
No human being is illegal alien.Your anti-Americanism is disgusting.

[Sasha]

I don't think that entirely important at the moment. I'm totally in favor of relocating Israel to North America, Germany or Eastern Europe. People obviously want homelands. It's a fact. Additionally, there are people without homelands. Why not a Romani nation, as part of some sort of revolutionary federation including a Jewish nation, a Lakota nation, a Mexican nation etc, all on the North American continent? Hell, all of the land was stolen and its not like America currently has a high population density.

so you favor ethnic segregation? i know some folks in the south of the US who would totaly agree with you.

http://www.ryantorre.com/kevin/Kevin_Webdesign/Group2_1920s/300px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

how the hell can you call yourself a leftist?

[benhur]

so you favor ethnic segregation? i know some folks in the south of the US who would totaly agree with you.

http://www.ryantorre.com/kevin/Kevin_Webdesign/Group2_1920s/300px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

how the hell can you call yourself a leftist?

Funny how you twist his words, making him look like a bad guy. Is it separatism to say every ethnic group deserves to live in respect and dignity? Is it separatism to say every community needs its own space, away from the people who're constantly attacking them, harassing them, abusing them racially, economically and in a million other ways? Suppose a Palestinian says: I've been attacked my whole life by Israelis, all I need is a place to call home so I can live with my people in peace and dignity without being judged on the basis of race, color, religion etc.. Would you have the heart to tell him: Listen, mate, you're f*****g separatist, because you want to stay away from people who're different from you. That makes you a racist, similar to zionists and KKK, and so you have no place in our socialist paradise.

Honestly, people here must understand the difference between White Nationalism (that's based on hatred of non-whites) and non-white separatism which is more a defensive reaction against centuries upon centuries of prejudice, bigotry, and racism. Black Separatism, for instance, isn't based on hatred of whites, but rather a fear of what white nationalists might do to them. Hence, oppressed Blacks (or any non-white community, for that matter) fearing for their lives and limbs, might well think separatism would at least give them some sort of security, in that they could stay out of harm's way.

Not that I am justifying separatism. But it's quite insulting to oppressed races, when you tell them you see no difference between white separatists like KKK and themselves, when the former is clearly based on hate and violence; whereas the latter is merely a clumsy attempt to defend themselves against racists. These people need sympathy and understanding, because they've been at the receiving end for a long time.

[Sasha]

yes, sepratism is sepratism, segregation is segregation.
as the saying in german goes "wir sind nicht volk, wir sind klasse!"

[Pogue]

Mexican proletarians would want to go to USA because the US proletarian labour movement thought for gains in USA meaning proletarians in the USA have better pay and conditions. Mexican proletarians and USA proletarians are both exploited and impoverished.

[Sasha]

Mexican proletarians and USA proletarians are both exploited and impoverished.

:lol: not according avanteredgarde.

acording to them a worker in the north of mexico is per definition exploited but the person doing the exact same job a few miles further up is per defintion not thanks to that border line drawn on the map.

[AvanteRedGarde]

the US proletarian labour movement [f]ought for gains in USA meaning proletarians in the USA have better pay and conditions.
Only the most hardcore chauvinist would say that the conditions within America are due to anything but imperialist exploitation and genocidal national oppression.

[#FF0000]

only the most hardcore chauvinist would say that the conditions within america are due to anything but imperialist exploitation and genocidal national oppression.

what

[AvanteRedGarde]

What, what?

The Indian government doesn't even control huge swaths of their territory due to a growing rural-based insurgency. Indian itself has probably upwards of 50-100 (this might be an underestimate) parties claiming to be Marxist. Some are fighting the government, some are in the government. Why is it that India is so poor.

The number of armed groups claiming to be revolutionary in Mexico is in its teens. The FARC insurgency has been kicking around for decades. These movements have been not been able to pressure their governments and exploiters into reforms. Why is that.

Like I said, the idea that the conditions within America are due to "labor struggles," as opposed to slavery, land theft and genocide and imperialism, is chauvinist.

Rich countries are rich because they are exploiters, DUH

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Only the most hardcore chauvinist would say that the conditions within America are due to anything but imperialist exploitation and genocidal national oppression.

It's not chauvinism, it's a fact.


What, what?

The Indian government doesn't even control huge swaths of their territory due to a growing rural-based insurgency. Indian itself has probably upwards of 50-100 (this might be an underestimate) parties claiming to be Marxist. Some are fighting the government, some are in the government. Why is it that India is so poor.

The number of armed groups claiming to be revolutionary in Mexico is in its teens. The FARC insurgency has been kicking around for decades. These movements have been not been able to pressure their governments and exploiters into reforms. Why is that.

There is a big difference between a couple thousand guerillas fighting the government and millions of workers organizing strikes and such. India's population is still dominated by peasants ffs. Honestly, there are around 9 million people organized in unions in India, out of a population of over 1 BILLION! You really need to read about the labor history of the US.

[Cumannach]

Like I said, the idea that the conditions within America are due to "labor struggles," as opposed to slavery, land theft and genocide and imperialism, is chauvinist.


The problem is you haven't backed up that statement with any argument.

Maybe in this instance you're being specific, but Marx, and every Marxist since has recognised that class struggle can and does change the conditions of the working class. So, you really are marking an awful lot of people off as chauvinists if you are being general.

[FreeFocus]

No state is legitimate. Fuck all borders. Of course, though, the borders of settler states are even more ironic and illegitimate.

[Bilan]

Amerika’s borders are militarily imposed. They were established as part of a genocidal expansion onto the North American continent. Amerika and its borders are illegitimate.

All borders are part of 'expansionist' politics, regardless of where they were. Legitimacy is meaningless without perspective.



Amerika’s borders are currently a means to imprison the masses of the ‘Global South’ in abject poverty.

Source? America has borders for more than one reason.



RAIM-Denver supports their free movement into the United States. Those who oppose the free movement of oppressed peoples into the U.S. are enemies of the oppressed.

Solid argument.




Mexicans are not “immigrants.”

No, Mexicans are Mexicans. This statement is meaningless.



Amerika stole nearly half of Mexico.

No, colonisers stole half of Mexico and incorporated it into, what is now the modern American state.



There is nothing “alien” about Mexicans either. Mexicans have far more in common with the people of North and South America; they are far more representative of the world’s people. Amerikans are the real illegal aliens.

That is disgustingly chauvinistic.




RAIM-Denver supports the revolutionary struggles of oppressed people. While this struggle is primarily one of people directly overthrowing imperialist exploitation in the Third World, it is clear that this struggle must also strike at the heart of imperialism. This fact, Amerika’s history and other factors, all necessitate the dismantling of the United States as a sovereign entity.

RAIM-Denver supports the creation of a Mexican state in the “Southwest” and its reunification with a revolutionized Mexico. As part of the complete overthrow of imperialism, RAIM-Denver supports dividing Amerika into different territories administered by oppressed peoples in alliance with the revolutionary Third World masses. Amerika has stolen much and its debt grows larger by the second. With the division and the ultimate destruction of Amerika, oppressed peoples around the world find common cause.

Common cause in the destruction of America is pretty stupid. America is not the cause of 'the suffering of the oppressed'. The American bourgeoisie peddles it, but the cause is capitalism.



We are the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver. We promote the revolutionary transformation of society through the global struggle of the oppressed. Find out more at http://raimd.wordpress.com (http://www.anonym.to/?http://raimd.wordpress.com)

You're ambiguous and verbose at best, and chauvinistic at worst.

[Bilan]

Only the most hardcore chauvinist would say that the conditions within America are due to anything but imperialist exploitation and genocidal national oppression.

This demonstrates, beyond anything, you're self-hating ignorant bullshit. You don't know anything about the history of the Labour struggles in America, and feel at liberty to talk shit about them to make yourself out to be some sort of AmeriKKKan heroz of the oppressed.
You don't fool anyone.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No state is legitimate. Fuck all borders. Of course, though, the borders of settler states are even more ironic and illegitimate.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

[AvanteRedGarde]

This demonstrates, beyond anything, you're self-hating ignorant bullshit. You don't know anything about the history of the Labour struggles in America, and feel at liberty to talk shit about them to make yourself out to be some sort of AmeriKKKan heroz of the oppressed.
You don't fool anyone.

My point being is that such concessions are predicated on exploiting other people. Struggle or no struggle, meaningful reforms are rarely handed out to those exploited by imperialism. And we are talking about more than concessions here; we are talking about a difference in income by a factor of forty.

We are talking about the steady rise of income of wealth, beginning foremost with the expropriation of land; through the utilization of slave labor; through the establishment of the White nation as a base for the labor aristocracy (as opposed to and to the various exclusions of the European immigrants communities who were "wetter," Blacks, Chinese migrants, etc); The close of the frontier and the projecting of America onto the world stage in Spanish-American, the attainment of global dominance in the wake of two world wars, minus the opposing Soviet sphere; and the breakdown of Chinese socialism and its becoming a rear production area for Western distribution.

Each one of these progressions created a social and material basis outside and almost completely independent of internal class struggle, offering up the mainstream masses within America more and more.

For instance:

1)Obviously, if you are stealing someones land and distributing it to settlers, these people are not proletarians. It could almost be argued that in the first few years that Jamestown was around, the mode of production was pillage. They would essentially burn down the natives' structures, chase them away and steal their food from already cultivated plots. In any case, the intermittent land theft that occired between the early 1500's and the late 1800's, rally lasting into the 1900's, stunted the development of a mainstream American proletariat right from the get go.

2)Slave labor allowed for more people to become settlers, since less people would be needed for labor-intensive work. Also, slaves would often cultivate raw materials such as cotton which would be spun by proletarians in the north. However, often times these proletarians were women or immigrants. Slavery, the slave trade and the material it produced did create some better paying jobs, such as ship building. Slavery, because it gave the young America a greater production base, also helped America not be exploited by European finance capital. Instead, the South was more or like a internal colony of Northern Finance capital.

3) Around 1890, the frontier is basically declared closed. From here, very little land ends up in the hands of small owners; much of the previously doled out land is being gobbled up by monopolies. Also around this time, the Spanish American War occurs and America seizes Spain's colonies. America, allied with Britain, fully edges out the other imperialist powers in the Western hemisphere and becomes a strong power in the Pacific. The U.S. helps invade China to enforce the open door policy (China of course was the last great region of the world to be colonized),etc.

4)At this point, most low wage production is being done by European immigrant communities and their children, slaves and landless and/or indebted Blacks, Mexican and Chinese laborers, etc. the obvious exception to this were White workers, would were given preferential treatment in the form of better jobs, oversight, etc. However, towards the end of the 1800's, Americanization programs began. In many cases, immigrant workers were forced to take nightly English classes. Child labor laws were enacted and so was compulsory education- effectively taking the children out of their immigrant communities during the day. "World's Fairs" were attended by millions and they were grotesque displays of American bourgeois grandeur. An any case, European immigrant communities were gobbled up by mainstream American culture, and this was the turning point for the expansion of the White nation. This however did interject much a much higher level of proletarian consciousness into the White nation.

5) By the time World War 2 is over, the U.S. is by far the dominant imperialist power. Opposed to it is the Soviet Union. More than just the threat of communist revolution in the U.S., for every inch of land that was liberated and came under Soviet influence, it was rightly understood that this inch of land could not be a base of exploitation for imperialism. The contest against socialism and liberation on the part of oppressed peoples necessitated the rallying of the U.S. and the West. This provided a basis for the living standards to be raised even higher and again the further expansion of imperialist privilege.

6) Capitalism is expansive. If it can't expand, its rate of profit will decline. Sometimes this expansion can be entirely make up (i.e. the value of homes throughout most of the West rising considerably between the 90's and early 2000's). Sometimes in means simply expanding the number of markets, i.e. how many things can be made into a commodity. Other times, this means overthrowing recalitrant governments for the purpose of increasing the level of capital investment and exploitation. However, the most remarkable act of this was the complete breakdown of Chinese socialism and it replacement by naked capitalism. While much of this value is captured by the Chinese bourgeisoie, this bourgeosie is also comprador in the sense that it exports most of the surplus value created by Chinese workers. If anything, this simple propped up a dying system.

Hopefully, America will become over extended and the whole system will collapse. Unfortunately, and this is a serious matter, there is not strong global leftist force capable of hastening this and channeling this struggle into one for socialism and communism.

The funny thing about your myopic labor history that you have so much of a crush on though. Its most shining examples were greatly influenced by immigrants. Other times it was racist as hell and supported national oppression and imperialism.

{Extremely sorry for the multitude of typos}

[PeaderO'Donnell]

So, its First world nations vs Third world nations now. Funny, I thought socialism was about class struggle, not "nation struggle". I may be wrong though.:rolleyes:

Have you ever actually lived in a Third or Second world country? You average worker in England is better off than your average middle class class in the Congo or Armenia.

Where do you think the money for your dole, computer games, dvds and personal computers comes from? Someone on here tried to make the point about how working class they are by saying their mum was having trouble paying her mortagage...That really made me laugh...what are the chances of the most of the world's population ever being able to afford to start one especially in somewhere like England?

Maoism-Third worldism does however seem to underestimate the need for working class independence and the dangers of "native" Capital.

I prefer the EZLN.

[black magick hustla]

We mexicans don't really give a shit about american patriotism tbh we only want the papers. However to hell with cultural politics and that whole nonsense of hispanics managing their communities. cultural platforms are the platforms of reaction and communism will be the final historical age that will deal with the remnants of cultural identity.

[FreeFocus]

We mexicans don't really give a shit about american patriotism tbh we only want the papers. However to hell with cultural politics and that whole nonsense of hispanics managing their communities. cultural platforms are the platforms of reaction and communism will be the final historical age that will deal with the remnants of cultural identity.

I don't view communism as a global culture killer and sure as hell do not want to live in a world where everyone is the same. I appreciate diversity and think it's very important that cultures are preserved. It's possible to practice your culture while being entirely respectful of others. Not to mention, cross-cultural exchanges and relations often enrich the different cultures involved.

[black magick hustla]

Culture will not end, but the issue of cultural identity will end. I simply see no place for garbage slogans about "managing our own communities" or forming an all brown organization.

[bcbm]

The funny thing about your myopic labor history that you have so much of a crush on though. Its most shining examples were greatly influenced by immigrants. Other times it was racist as hell and supported national oppression and imperialism.

I thought we were all racist immigrants anyway?:rolleyes:

[Elway]

My view of the original comment posted on the thread is that if one truly believes in internationalism, one, to the best of his or her ability, ignores borders.

It's workers v. non-workers. Period.

I should be free to travel to Mexico, and Mexicans should be free to travel to the United States.

The sooner there is One nation made up of the USA and Mexico, the closer we become to an international experience.

I am all for Mexico's states (are there 38 or so), joining the USA, with each leaving their capital cities for a new one somewhere near San Diego, California.

I am for the countries south of Mexico joining as well.

End nationalism. One large state is a lot easier to transform into a socialist society easier than 20 different states.

[FreeFocus]

I am all for Mexico's states (are there 38 or so), joining the USA, with each leaving their capital cities for a new one somewhere near San Diego, California.

I am for the countries south of Mexico joining as well.

Absolutely disgusting and repulsive. Thankfully this will never happen.

Your comments in several threads lead me to believe you are some sort of American chauvinist, or at the very least someone who is well to the right of revolutionary socialists. For example, your emphasis on the US Constitution in the thread on indigenous peoples. How the hell does bourgeois, imperialist law even enter into the discussion?

[Elway]

FreeFocus,

I don't believe it's possible to be a chauviist and be an internationalist, which I am. That is, using the antiquated expression of chauvinism being a super-patirotism.

First: It is simply my opinion that the current USA state, and Mexico state, if combined, would lead to a more socialist society. That's my belief. You may disagree, but why, as you wrote, would you find it disgusting and repulsive. I have no patriotism, and therefore, am no more disgusted by the capitalists who run the USA than the capitalists who run Mexico.

It is YOU who are appearing strange, seeming to favor Mexio's facist state for America's. My opinion is to combine them all.

Second: The issue concerning my comments re: natives and the U.N. Treaty, and the federal (U.S. Constitution):

I never said I supported the Supremacy Clause personally. I made two comments.

First, I explained WHY the US and Canada and Australia will always be against the treaty, or whatever it is technically called. I wrote a lengthy explaination which I won't bore anyone with again at this post. I stand behind what I wrote.

Second, I did, in fact, agree with ONE point raised in this matter, which is the ability of one organization to allow "members" to escape justice by reclassifying them as imune to prosecution. If your sister were raped, you wouldn't want her rapist to run from one authority to another, and use "national identity" as a means to escape justice. In THAT one case, I agree with those who would argue against the treaty.

I happen to agree with cappies on occasion. Hitler and I both enjoy/enjoyed Mozart. My icon and persona for this forum is a "capitalist", in that he owns a car dealership and other businesses. There's no reason to "hate" people raised to be cappies. There's no reason to love people raised to be "commies".

That's the best I can do in the "prove my credentials" department. Outside of that, happy to have a Scotch with you. Uh, oh! It's single malt, and costs money! :crying:
Better kick me off the forum!

[black magick hustla]

Absolutely disgusting and repulsive. Thankfully this will never happen.

Your comments in several threads lead me to believe you are some sort of American chauvinist, or at the very least someone who is well to the right of revolutionary socialists. For example, your emphasis on the US Constitution in the thread on indigenous peoples. How the hell does bourgeois, imperialist law even enter into the discussion?

I think what he meant is the construction of a world socialist state, which I am for.

[Elway]

I think what he meant is the construction of a world socialist state, which I am for.

Bingo!

[FreeFocus]

FreeFocus,

I don't believe it's possible to be a chauviist and be an internationalist, which I am. That is, using the antiquated expression of chauvinism being a super-patirotism.

First: It is simply my opinion that the current USA state, and Mexico state, if combined, would lead to a more socialist society. That's my belief. You may disagree, but why, as you wrote, would you find it disgusting and repulsive. I have no patriotism, and therefore, am no more disgusted by the capitalists who run the USA than the capitalists who run Mexico.

It is YOU who are appearing strange, seeming to favor Mexio's facist state for America's. My opinion is to combine them all.

Second: The issue concerning my comments re: natives and the U.N. Treaty, and the federal (U.S. Constitution):

I never said I supported the Supremacy Clause personally. I made two comments.

First, I explained WHY the US and Canada and Australia will always be against the treaty, or whatever it is technically called. I wrote a lengthy explaination which I won't bore anyone with again at this post. I stand behind what I wrote.

Second, I did, in fact, agree with ONE point raised in this matter, which is the ability of one organization to allow "members" to escape justice by reclassifying them as imune to prosecution. If your sister were raped, you wouldn't want her rapist to run from one authority to another, and use "national identity" as a means to escape justice. In THAT one case, I agree with those who would argue against the treaty.

I happen to agree with cappies on occasion. Hitler and I both enjoy/enjoyed Mozart. My icon and persona for this forum is a "capitalist", in that he owns a car dealership and other businesses. There's no reason to "hate" people raised to be cappies. There's no reason to love people raised to be "commies".

That's the best I can do in the "prove my credentials" department. Outside of that, happy to have a Scotch with you. Uh, oh! It's single malt, and costs money! :crying:
Better kick me off the forum!

Why would you combine bad with worse? Putting shit and shit together doesn't get rid of it, you simply pile it up. In terms of the treaty, while I personally do not support it because I am opposed to statist and "legal-based" approaches to anti-imperialist organizing and liberation, the immunity you speak of already exists between states pretty much, as governments choose whether or not to extradite criminals that enter their states.

I don't support the establishment of a "world socialist state," lest the entire world be enslaved under a Stalinesque world dictatorship. I support global socialism (you may say this is playing semantics, but I am an anarchist. I don't support any states, and would argue against a Marxist assertion that a "proletarian state" which still features hierarchy as its hallmark will have its essential characteristics and long-term trajectory changed from what we know today), and in my vision, there is no room for settler states and other imperialist states, much less exploited countries joining these states in some ridiculous union. I don't like this cold, naive approach of indifference to history and justice in order to bring about socialism. I support struggles which originate in justice and the linking of these struggles to smash capitalism and bring about socialism.

[Elway]

It may shock you to realize how similar we are in what we want in the FINAL end to it all. I merely disagree w. your piled up more shit analogy. I believe the fewer, larger states we have, the closer we'll get to empathy with one another, and the realization that Owners are the enemy.

No, what you say is not a symantic game; I fully understand the diference.

Finally, so you don't look like an idiot among your lawyer friends: The Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution DOES NOT allow each state within the U.S. to grant immunity to the criminals from other states. They MUST give them up, and regocnize the judicial acts of sister states. This relates to criminal matters.

Now, re: civil ones, that's a different matter, because South Dakota, let's say, cannot charge its constabulary with the job of grabbing Johnny Jones and returning him to Nebraska because he owes $3,000 to Macy's department store.

But yeah, there's no such thing as immunity from prosecution if you go from one state to another. The cops can't follow (and at that point, the FBI usually takes over), but the JUDGE in the new state MUST honor the decisions from the previous state.

I know you're not a fan of the federal constitution, but it works most of the time in matters for which it's designed to work. It's a plan. Most societies have them. I'm not a full on anarchist, as the weak can be trampled upon from my POV under such a scheme. As "plans" go, the U.S. Constitution is not a bad one. It's pretty old hat, but it's stuck in the 18th Century. But even commies in the U.S., when charged with crimes, turn to lawyers who defend their constitutional rights, and don't argue it's a bunch of bullshit. :cool:

[FreeFocus]

I meant state in the international sense, not a state in the Union.

[Guerrilla22]

The US established its territory by genocidal practices, but Mexico and the rest of Latin America didn't? I think someone needs to check their history books. Aside from that the solutions to Mexico's numerous problems won't be solved by some kind of ethnic identity movement/uprising, only by changing who controls the modes of production worldwide.

[Blackscare]

Someone explain to me how the first world proletariat is responsible for horror in the third world? Since when do they control industry and foreign policy? Isn't there another class that does that?


Also, capitalism is based on private venture. So the companies doing the exploiting in the third world are not always the same companies employing American workers. Your argument that there's some kind of direct correlation between imperialism and domestic wages is wrong. There is no monolithic "American capitalism", it's a chaotic soup of competitors.

What incentive would capitalists have in "passing on the savings" to the American proletariat in the form of better wages/benefits? Don't they exist off of surplus value, or is this the twilight zone?

[black magick hustla]

Why would you combine bad with worse? Putting shit and shit together doesn't get rid of it, you simply pile it up. In terms of the treaty, while I personally do not support it because I am opposed to statist and "legal-based" approaches to anti-imperialist organizing and liberation, the immunity you speak of already exists between states pretty much, as governments choose whether or not to extradite criminals that enter their states.

I don't support the establishment of a "world socialist state," lest the entire world be enslaved under a Stalinesque world dictatorship. I support global socialism (you may say this is playing semantics, but I am an anarchist. I don't support any states, and would argue against a Marxist assertion that a "proletarian state" which still features hierarchy as its hallmark will have its essential characteristics and long-term trajectory changed from what we know today), and in my vision, there is no room for settler states and other imperialist states, much less exploited countries joining these states in some ridiculous union. I don't like this cold, naive approach of indifference to history and justice in order to bring about socialism. I support struggles which originate in justice and the linking of these struggles to smash capitalism and bring about socialism.

So you support the formation of a "mexican" state and an American state? Because beyond the dumb lip service to "anarchism", the call of national communities "managing their own affairs" is the call for national states. I am sorry if I am indifferent to reactionary traditionalists putting "culture" as an excuse to justify the formation of artificial nation-states.

Solid anarchists strive for a world federation, which in my opinion, is the same as a world socialist state.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Someone explain to me how the first world proletariat is responsible for horror in the third world? Since when do they control industry and foreign policy? Isn't there another class that does that?

"Noone is neutral on a moving train.. "

As I have shown elsewhere, it is quite reasonable to assume that they vast majority of First Worlders absorb more value than they produce..

Additionally, to answer your question in a more direct way, the buying habits of First Worlders directly perpetuate, or rather plays an important role, in the exploitation of the Third World. It is well know that natural abundance does not translate to material prosperity under imperialism. Nations such as Sudan and Nigeria, which have an abundance of natural resources are usually devastated by imperialism. Obviously, as you said, most First Worlders don't have a direct say (though I would argue that their lack of trying makes a pretty big statement). However, consumerism, made possible by Third World exploitation, keeps they gears running smoothly.

While I certainly don't "blame" First Worlders for playing a role in this, I'm not above recognizing the material relationship between a minority First World masses and the vast majority in the Third World, while at the same time siding with the world's exploited as the true vehicle for revolution.


Also, capitalism is based on private venture. So the companies doing the exploiting in the third world are not always the same companies employing American workers. Your argument that there's some kind of direct correlation between imperialism and domestic wages is wrong. There is no monolithic "American capitalism", it's a chaotic soup of competitors.

At least read a summary of Capital. The entirety of surplus value, which is produced at the point where labor becomes embodied in a commodity, is not necessarily captured in its entirey at the point of production. Under the context of capitalist-imperialism and monopoly capital, it almost doesn't matter because the imperialists can shuffle value around where ever they see fit.

And actually, there is a correlation between imperialism and wealth. Anyone with an hinest interepetation of history or political economy can tell you this.


What incentive would capitalists have in "passing on the savings" to the American proletariat in the form of better wages/benefits? Don't they exist off of surplus value, or is this the twilight zone?

I listed a chronological history of the development of the elevated position specifically of Americans, including the material and social basis for this elevatation. I'm guessing you didn't read it.

To answer your question in the most brief and relavent way: the 'Cold War.'

Come on people. This stuff is obvious to anyone who isn't wrapped up in Marxist sounding dogma. Are your people really that dense?

[robbo203]

[From the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver]

Don't respond with pure emotion. Try this. Read it in its entirety once more, start once with what you agree with, then move on to what you disagree with or are skeptical about and explain why.


And there I was think that so called national liberation movements are all about setting up nation states that necessarily involve the establishment of borders to differentiate between themselves...

[black magick hustla]

'

Come on people. This stuff is obvious to anyone who isn't wrapped up in Marxist sounding dogma. Are your people really that dense?

Its not obvious at all. In fact it so non obvious that every time I address your points you just dissappear and stop replying to me. Anyway, what do you think would happen if the US and the whole west dissappeared. do you think stuff would be better?

[ComradeR]

The US established its territory by genocidal practices, but Mexico and the rest of Latin America didn't? I think someone needs to check their history books. Aside from that the solutions to Mexico's numerous problems won't be solved by some kind of ethnic identity movement/uprising, only by changing who controls the modes of production worldwide.
This shows the irony of this entire thread.
While imperialism does allow for the imperialist bourgeoisie to "give a larger piece of the pie" to their own proletariat (in order to pacify them) this does not make the working class of the first world the enemy of their fellow workers in the third world. Nor does it make them the cause of the hyper exploitation wrought by imperialism. It is capitalism and the class system it creates that is at the root cause of it all. But third-worldism's failure to see this is what makes it so dangerous, because it essentially rejects class struggle (it essentially lumps everyone in the first world together regardless of their class) in favor of pitting first world workers against third world workers, and taken to it's logical conclusion it would see the mass extermination of everyone in the first world. Of course even if the first world were utterly destroyed it would solve nothing. The third world national bourgeoisie would simply rise and take the place of the toppled first world bourgeois and the cycle of imperialism and hyper exploitation would continue anew.

[FreeFocus]

So you support the formation of a "mexican" state and an American state? Because beyond the dumb lip service to "anarchism", the call of national communities "managing their own affairs" is the call for national states. I am sorry if I am indifferent to reactionary traditionalists putting "culture" as an excuse to justify the formation of artificial nation-states.

Solid anarchists strive for a world federation, which in my opinion, is the same as a world socialist state.

There's already a "Mexican state." It's called Mexico. Sure, the Southwest was stolen from Mexico but Spanish Mexico had already illegally annexed and occupied Native lands, so calling for the land to be "returned" to Mexico is slightly ironic.

Where in my posts have I mentioned "national communities?" I support all communities in which people live managing their own affairs (see: communities in which you actually know the people you're around and can see them face to face, not imagined communities of millions of square miles and millions of people who you will never meet or see).

I want a world federation of autonomous communities, not a "world socialist state." The distinction is unimportant to you, but quite important to me.

[Elway]

Sure, the Southwest was stolen from Mexico but Spanish Mexico had already illegally annexed and occupied Native lands, so calling for the land to be "returned" to Mexico is slightly ironic.

The irony is deeper than that. Pre-Columbian Mexico itself was built up by the Aztecs, in the same ways of the modern European imperial powers. They forced treaty arrangements, invaded and murdered tens of thousands, took over all of the lands that became Mexico, and forced their religion on all of the people throughout the Yucatan.

[FreeFocus]

The irony is deeper than that. Pre-Columbian Mexico itself was built up by the Aztecs, in the same ways of the modern European imperial powers. They forced treaty arrangements, invaded and murdered tens of thousands, took over all of the lands that became Mexico, and forced their religion on all of the people throughout the Yucatan.

A fair assessment, but you and others attempt to use these types of arguments to justify imperialism. "Everyone has had land stolen, so who cares? Just move on." We can just as easily read these comments on Stormfront or hear it in Republican/conservative circles.

[benhur]

This shows the irony of this entire thread.
While imperialism does allow for the imperialist bourgeoisie to "give a larger piece of the pie" to their own proletariat (in order to pacify them) this does not make the working class of the first world the enemy of their fellow workers in the third world.

If that is so, why is it there's never been a revolution in the first world. Why is it most first-world workers are repulsed by the very word socialism? Please don't say it's due to propaganda, are you seriously saying first-world workers are so stupid that they can't see through propaganda? No, it's because they DON'T want to see through it (as imperialism serves their interests very well).

Why is it most first-world workers are patriotic and blame 'foreign' workers for taking away their jobs? Why is it you never hear them complain about capitalism, even during an economic crisis? Why is it most first-world people seem okay with war that kills people in the third-world? And so on and so forth.

All this cannot be a coincidence. Or, can it?

[Elway]

FreeFocus:

I really can't remember "justifying imperialism" during my time here. I merely place everyone on the same level. I don't subscribe to "the natives are all cool, and those who came later are all bad" way of viewing the world.

Our enemy is not history. It's the capitalist TODAY. Anyway, that's where I'm at.

It amazes me that you can always get 100,000 people to come out and support the "memory" of the Aztecs in a positive way on Cinco de Mayo, but if someone comes out in a Nazi uniform they get thrown rocks at.

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. PERIOD.

[FreeFocus]

FreeFocus:

I really can't remember "justifying imperialism" during my time here. I merely place everyone on the same level. I don't subscribe to "the natives are all cool, and those who came later are all bad" way of viewing the world.

Our enemy is not history. It's the capitalist TODAY. Anyway, that's where I'm at.

It amazes me that you can always get 100,000 people to come out and support the "memory" of the Aztecs in a positive way on Cinco de Mayo, but if someone comes out in a Nazi uniform they get thrown rocks at.

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. PERIOD.

I never even insinuated that I view the world in such a way. Imperialist occupation, of course, is bad. That is the case with settler states.

I am someone who values justice. If you can't see the connection between history and the present, that's on you. Situations carried on from events in history that persist and still affect people today need to be addressed. Where justice did not exist, it needs to be brought.

I wouldn't celebrate the Aztec way of life. Their achievements are notable, but their religious practices were disgusting. Nonetheless, the Aztecs can't be compared to Nazis, who carried out the most systematic and organized genocide in human history.

[Elway]

Yeah, I understand the connection between history and why we're in this mess. I just wish more of us were more about today, and really meant to change things.

Re: Aztecs v. Nazis, now it's YOU who don't know your history:

Nazis were around and in power, I guess, from 1933 - 1945.

Aztecs were in power for about 150 years or so, as a serious threat. They wiped out MANY "peoples" (back then, there was no Yucatan Nationalism, and a tribe 10 miles away was considered a different "people" by the Aztecs, and their adversaries. They literally killed off generation after generation of people, and didn't stop. The did what Hitler only dreamed of: expanding their control over ALL of their desired teritory. They were destrutive soldiers, and ruthless enemies, and killed and slaughtered withouth mercy. It is my opinion that they outdid the Nazis easily.

But my point was that YOU might throw a rock at a guy in a Nazi uniform marching in your home town in the USA. You would be a hypocrite if you didn't do the same on Tuesday to the guy in the Aztec headdress.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

If that is so, why is it there's never been a revolution in the first world.

You mean besides the two German revolutions, the Hungarian revolution, the revolution in Finland, Spain, as well as other upheavals all across Europe at that time and since? It's a lot easier to talk about facing the United States army than actually doing it. I don't exactly see the third world building socialism either.


Why is it most first-world workers are repulsed by the very word socialism? Is this a joke?


Why is it most first-world workers are patriotic and blame 'foreign' workers for taking away their jobs? Because they ARE taking away their jobs?


Why is it you never hear them complain about capitalism, even during an economic crisis? Have you been around for the last year?


Why is it most first-world people seem okay with war that kills people in the third-world? Have you been around for the last decade?

[bcbm]

Because they ARE taking away their jobs?


Foreign workers are not taking jobs from anybody. The bosses are moving jobs to foreign countries to exploit cheaper labor and material costs. To suggest this is the fault of the workers themselves is not a socialist position.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Well well SoB, the overt chauvinist in you finally came out. Tell us more about how Third Worlders are stealing jobs from hard working First Worlders.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Foreign workers are not taking jobs from anybody. The bosses are moving jobs to foreign countries to exploit cheaper labor and material costs. To suggest this is the fault of the workers themselves is not a socialist position.

I thought he was referring to immigrant workers. Nobody suggested that it was the fault of the workers themselves and not capitalism.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Ok them. Elaborate on how immigrants are stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

Don't back pedal. Tell us what you really think.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Ok them. Elaborate on how immigrants are stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

Don't back pedal. Tell us what you really think.

Jobs that would normally go to Americans go to immigrants willing to work for less. Is that PC enough for you? Obviously Americans are losing jobs to immigrants and such, is that really contestable? If not, why is it chauvinist to point that out?

[bcbm]

Because you seem to be blaming the workers who will "work for less" and not the bosses who have created the conditions that cause immigration and are exploiting the desperation of working people in order to make more money for themselves.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Because you seem to be blaming the workers who will "work for less" and not the bosses who have created the conditions that cause immigration and are exploiting the desperation of working people in order to make more money for themselves.

Perhaps, but I clarified a post ago. I never said their criticisms weren't misplaced, but I thought it was obvious why they would think that. Guy has job. Immigrants appear. Guy loses job. What the hell do people expect him to think? Are people really suggesting that's an American-only phenomena?

[FreeFocus]

Aztecs were in power for about 150 years or so, as a serious threat. They wiped out MANY "peoples" (back then, there was no Yucatan Nationalism, and a tribe 10 miles away was considered a different "people" by the Aztecs, and their adversaries. They literally killed off generation after generation of people, and didn't stop. The did what Hitler only dreamed of: expanding their control over ALL of their desired teritory. They were destrutive soldiers, and ruthless enemies, and killed and slaughtered withouth mercy. It is my opinion that they outdid the Nazis easily.

But my point was that YOU might throw a rock at a guy in a Nazi uniform marching in your home town in the USA. You would be a hypocrite if you didn't do the same on Tuesday to the guy in the Aztec headdress.

Provide some sources for these statements. I don't dispute that the Aztecs practiced imperialism (they were, after all, an empire), but prolonged, systematic genocide? They incorporated conquered nations into the empire.

I might throw a rock at a guy in a Nazi uniform. They make a fascist, racist and imperialist political statement by doing so. A person wearing an Aztec headdress is making a statement of cultural expression. Imperialism and bloodthirst did not solely constitute Aztec life. There was a rich culture. Really, your comparison is flawed: if we take the latter assertion, that a rock should be thrown at a person for wearing an Aztec headdress, the former assertion could be throwing a rock at a person for speaking German or wearing traditional German clothing (in other words, expressing culture).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Anyway, I lost site of the reason I posted in the first place. Mainly, I think the idea that workers in the first world react against foreign workers indicates that they're bought out by the capitalists is a completely ridiculous notion. It doesn't even make sense. If anything it shows how capitalism and imperialism do not serve their interests because it leads to them losing their jobs to people willing to work for less. Capitalism either drives down their wages or brings unemployment.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Jobs that would normally go to Americans go to immigrants willing to work for less. Is that PC enough for you? Obviously Americans are losing jobs to immigrants and such, is that really contestable? If not, why is it chauvinist to point that out?

Because American should have their jobs stolen by people who are willing to work for less.

You on the other hand would like to see American paid more for doing the same thing, and consider this "normal."

I'm assuming that you think "American jobs" should be saved, even if this means denying better paying jobs and wages to "immigrants" and "foreigners."

Under the normal conditions of capitalism, as described by Marx, wages would be driven down for the working class as a whole, leading to revolution. It didn't pan out this way.

You now defend the privileges of a set of overpaid workers, whilst brushing over the fact that these privileges are afforded by imperialism. Conversely, it can be presumed that you are also defending the low wages of "immigrants" and "foreigners."

RevLeft is starting to feel like the Second International.

Thanks for opening up, chauvinist First Worlder.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Perhaps, but I clarified a post ago. I never said their criticisms weren't misplaced, but I thought it was obvious why they would think that. Guy has job. Immigrants appear. Guy loses job. What the hell do people expect him to think? Are people really suggesting that's an American-only phenomena?
Am I on RevLeft or StormFront?

[Voice_of_Reason]

I would be opposed to borders if half of the people who came over here didn't bring their culture, their language, and their ideas over here, expect us people who live in America to agree with them, and complain that we are racist if we do not. If they want to come to America then they need to live by the standards of the country they are moving too, not expect us to live by theirs. THEY need to learn how to speak english, and THEY need to live to the standards of our country not theirs.


Am I on RevLeft or StormFront?

Your on RevLeft, I know god forbid someone have their own personal views....

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Because American should have their jobs stolen by people who are willing to work for less.

You on the other hand would like to see American paid more for doing the same thing, and consider this "normal."

No, I consider working for subsistence wages normal. I realize that you despise first world workers so much that you'd like to see them forced to give up all that they've worked for over the past 150 years or so, but I'm not sure you should be here if you support things that would only serve to increase the profits of capitalists.


I'm assuming that you think "American jobs" should be saved, even if this means denying better paying jobs and wages to "immigrants" and "foreigners."
I don't think you understand how capitalism and globalization work.


Under the normal conditions of capitalism, as described by Marx, wages would be driven down for the working class as a whole, leading to revolution. It didn't pan out this way. Driven down? They were already down to subsistence level in Marx's day. Your aversion to interference with the free market makes me wonder if you'd be in better company on Ron Paul forums.


You now defend the privileges of a set of overpaid workers, whilst brushing over the fact that these privileges are afforded by imperialism. Conversely, it can be presumed that you are also defending the low wages of "immigrants" and "foreigners."

Overpaid workers? Where have I heard that before? Oh right, Fox News.


Thanks for opening up, chauvinist First Worlder.
No problem guilt ridden middle class teenager.

[bcbm]

You now defend the privileges of a set of overpaid workers, whilst brushing over the fact that these privileges are afforded by imperialism. Conversely, it can be presumed that you are also defending the low wages of "immigrants" and "foreigners."I would presume exactly the opposite, actually. Attacking workers for being overpaid is the rhetoric the bosses are currently using in the economic crisis against the UAW and others. This is shifting the blame from the true enemy of our class to their victims and is an absolutely despicable position for a socialist to hold. We want to better the standards of life for our class all across the globe, not side with the bosses in their attacks on what we have.


I would be opposed to borders if half of the people who came over here didn't bring their culture, their language, and their ideas over here, expect us people who live in America to agree with them, and complain that we are racist if we do not. If they want to come to America then they need to live by the standards of the country they are moving too, not expect us to live by theirs. THEY need to learn how to speak english, and THEY need to live to the standards of our country not theirs.

This is a really disgusting statement.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I would be opposed to borders if half of the people who came over here didn't bring their culture, their language, and their ideas over here, expect us people who live in America to agree with them, and complain that we are racist if we do not. If they want to come to America then they need to live by the standards of the country they are moving too, not expect us to live by theirs. THEY need to learn how to speak english, and THEY need to live to the standards of our country not theirs.

I'm going to let this statement speak for itself. Those who are interested in real revolutionary internationalism should just PM me.

[Voice_of_Reason]

This is a really disgusting statement.

Does the truth hurt, care to elaborate?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm going to let this statement speak for itself. Those who are interested in real revolutionary internationalism should just PM me.

Internationalism? You mean third worldism, right? I suppose you're gonna start the third-world revolution from your upper class suburb? :laugh:

[AvanteRedGarde]

Profits generally equalize with time, so would wages.

Your idea of supporting gains from workers translates all too often in attacks on the oppressed, not revolutionary internationalism. Take SoB's last half dozen posts for instance. They're filled with pejoratives such as "foreigner" and "immigrant". This is hardly international working class solidarity.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Profits generally equalize with time, so would wages.

Your idea of supporting gains from workers translates all too often in attacks on the oppressed, not revolutionary internationalism. Take SoB's last half dozen posts for instance. They're filled with pejoratives such as "foreigner" and "immigrant". This is hardly international working class solidarity.

Profits equalize among competitors, but the aggregate profit rate can fall or rise. I wouldn't expect you to know what you were talking about though.

Also, I didn't realize the words immigrant and foreigner weren't PC.

[bcbm]

Does the truth hurt, care to elaborate?

I don't think national chauvinism is anywhere near "the truth." The championing of some (mythical) national culture at the expense of some of the most desperate sections of the proletariat is complete contrary to internationalism. Beyond that your statement shows a complete ignorance of history and how previous waves of immigration have panned out over the subsequent generations.

[bcbm]

Your idea of supporting gains from workers translates all too often in attacks on the oppressed, not revolutionary internationalism. Take SoB's last half dozen posts for instance. They're filled with pejoratives such as "foreigner" and "immigrant". This is hardly international working class solidarity.Yes and I criticized their position as well but your solution seems to be going to the other extreme and that is not revolutionary internationalism either. We defend the gains our class has made and strive to make further gains.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Through reformism? That's what is sounds like to me? I don't see another alternative way to see what you are proposing beside conciliatory measures within the context of the current system.

[FreeFocus]

The point is that we should deal with the world as it is. People in the First World, especially (and specifically) those in settler states (for example, Spain and France are nowhere near as reactionary as the US, although they aren't socialist at all), consistently support attacks on the Third World and policies which kill millions, except when it comes at a cost (Vietnam, Iraq). Recent polls have shown that a large majority of Americans support the occupation of Afghanistan. A majority supports Israel. The trend can't be ignored.

I have no problems with trying to organize workers in the First World. It needs to be done, and not all workers are reactionary or support imperialism. Many workers suffer terrible conditions and live in horrendous poverty. Nonetheless, these workers are a minority; the dangling "promise" of upward mobility provides the system with legitimacy and instills in the person a sense of rugged individualism and lack of care for people abroad.

However, people who suffer from imperialist attacks and exploitation should certainly not wait for workers in the First World to magically and suddenly wake up. The inaction and ignorance of one group should not prevent the attainment of justice for billions of others.

[bcbm]

Through reformism? That's what is sounds like to me? I don't see another alternative way to see what you are proposing beside conciliatory measures within the context of the current system.

All of the gains our class has won have been won through struggle and so we continue to struggle to defend those gains, as well as to build the combative force of our class so we can bring down class society.

[AvanteRedGarde]

'Struggle" which ends in reforms for small minorities of workers, if not channeled into revolutionary internationalism, have proven to strengthen the system imposed on the vast majority of workers.

I don't know about you guys/girls, but i'm about international equality, breaking down hierarchy and new world of rough mutuality and communalism. I don't see how propping up a demarcated group of workers, most of them indirect exploiters anyways (again, all within the richest fifth of the world), does anything but strengthen the social power of imperialism- that is strengthens the current system. This is true even when its coming from the self identified revolutionary left.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't see how propping up a demarcated group of workers, most of them indirect exploiters anyways (again, all within the richest fifth of the world), does anything but strengthen the social power of imperialism- that is strengthens the current system.

You say this all the time, but you've yet to provide any convincing evidence. You seem like the kind of person who would vote Republican in the hopes that they would make our lives intolerable enough to force us into revolution.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Well... American imperialism has only strengthen over the last 1-2 centuries. Americans have yet to consistently oppose it. Since this is pretty much established fact, I'll leave the burden on you to disprove it.

[Pogue]

Well... American imperialism has only strengthen over the last 1-2 centuries. Americans have yet to consistently oppose it. Since this is pretty much established fact, I'll leave the burden on you to disprove it.

Many people have opposed it. Look at the protests against the Vietnam War. Your looking at history with an extreme bias.

[FreeFocus]

Many people have opposed it. Look at the protests against the Vietnam War. Your looking at history with an extreme bias.

It also took years for an opposition to form and it largely occurred because of the draft and the fact that there were costs to the occupation (namely, 50,000+ American deaths). Many people used the argument, "Why spend so much money there, when we can use it here?" Opposition to a single war doesn't constitute broad anti-imperialism. Most people protesting Vietnam were not radicals, but liberals who either didn't like the cost associated with it or thought "American values" were being betrayed. No sustained anti-imperialism, no principled opposition.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Well... American imperialism has only strengthen over the last 1-2 centuries. Americans have yet to consistently oppose it. Since this is pretty much established fact, I'll leave the burden on you to disprove it.

That's why the largest protest movement in history, 36 million people, mostly first worlders, was against the war in Iraq. In your little fantasy world it's as if the effects of the media don't exist.

[FreeFocus]

That's why the largest protest movement in history, 36 million people, mostly first worlders, was against the war in Iraq. In your little fantasy world it's as if the effects of the media don't exist.

..and how many people live in the First World? How successful was this movement? Did it become a real anti-imperialist movement?

Answers (if you need help, or need to check your answers): Over 400 million people. Not very successful - the war went on and still is. It did not become a real anti-imperialist movement.

Most of them, again, were liberals, concerned with costs of the war. In the end, after holding up some banners and talking about how much they oppose the war, they went to the gas station for some cheap gas and then went home for a nice hot cup of coffee.

As for the effects of the media,


However, people who suffer from imperialist attacks and exploitation should certainly not wait for workers in the First World to magically and suddenly wake up. The inaction and ignorance of one group should not prevent the attainment of justice for billions of others.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

..and how many people live in the First World? How successful was this movement? Did it become a real anti-imperialist movement?

Answers (if you need help, or need to check your answers): Over 400 million people. Not very successful - the war went on and still is. It did not become a real anti-imperialist movement.

The point is that the anti-war action in the first world far exceeded what we saw in the third world. This fetishism of the third world as if it was full of non-reactionary socialist revolutionaries is moronic.

[AvanteRedGarde]

What the fuck are you talking about. There hasn't been an invasion which wasn't meant with sharp resistance. There are armed groups fighting the occupations, often with broad support.

For most people, "action" means something beyond sign waving and moral platitudes.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What the fuck are you talking about. There hasn't been an invasion which wasn't meant with sharp resistance. There are armed groups fighting the occupations, often with broad support.

For most people, "action" means something beyond sign waving and moral platitudes.

Obviously the area being invaded will put up sharp resistance. I didn't think that had to be pointed out.

[AvanteRedGarde]

And more to the point, where exactly is this anti0war movement now. The wars have been going on for years, and to some degree have grown to include strikes inside Pakistan. That's not to mention the U.S.'s constanct support for Israel and their recent meddling in Africa.

Where is this progressive First World anti-war movement today?

Answer, there isn;t one.

Either one of tow things are happening. Either First Worlders support imperialism by way of logical class consciousness. Or First World, particularily American, so-called communists are the absolutely worst organizers in history and are absolutely incapable of making living connection to the working class.

Which one is it?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And more to the point, where exactly is this anti0war movement now. The wars have been going on for years, and to some degree have grown to include strikes inside Pakistan. That's not to mention the U.S.'s constanct support for Israel and their recent meddling in Africa.

Where is this progressive First World anti-war movement today?

Answer, there isn;t one.

Either one of tow things are happening. Either First Worlders support imperialism by way of logical class consciousness. Or First World, particularily American, so-called communists are the absolutely worst organizers in history and are absolutely incapable of making living connection to the working class.

Which one is it?

Third answer: You just don't know anything about the anti-war movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER_Coalition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Can%27t_Wait
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_for_Peace_and_Justice

[AvanteRedGarde]

A link to the wikipedia page for three protest bureaucracies says nothing. Just admit that the anti-war movement is dead. There were hardly any, if any, large protests this March. Or am I wrong again?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

A link to the wikipedia page for three protest bureaucracies says nothing. Just admit that the anti-war movement is dead. There were hardly any, if any, large protests this March. Or am I wrong again?



On Sixth Anniversary of Iraq war...
More than 10,000 march on Pentagon, leading war profiteers
http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage

I know of at least 3 protests held in March.

[AvanteRedGarde]

That article is from 2006. It said that there were over 500 actions that anniversary. This is about 200 short of the 'tea party' rallies held earlier this year.

Just admit that there is basically no anti-war movement today and that during its existence it was insignificant as an oppositional force.

[AvanteRedGarde]

You know what, fuck it. Tell everyone that the anti-war movement is alive and well and that it's a vital part of the global anti-imperialist movement. This is what you think anyways you idiotic, dogmatic, chauvinist. I can't even get you to admit the fucking obvious. How fucking stupid or hung up on Marxist sounding dogma are you?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

You know what, fuck it. Tell everyone that the anti-war movement is alive and well and that it's a vital part of the global anti-imperialist movement. This is what you think anyways you idiotic, dogmatic, chauvinist. I can't even get you to admit the fucking obvious. How fucking stupid or hung up on Marxist sounding dogma are you?

:laugh:

You said there were no protests in March. I knew of three. I realize that it is Marxist dogma to provide evidence for your claims, that's part of the reason I'm a Marxist. Perhaps if you stuck to that part of Marxism more people would take you seriously. Instead, you come off as some immature, guilty middle class teenager. It only makes sense that you would detest people that support the first world working class as much as you detest the first world working class itself. Perhaps you're just mad that the working class won't establish socialism before you have to leave your parents house and get a job.

[khad]

Stop with the absurd ideas supporting segregating ethnic groups with borders. Oh yeah, you're racist.

Mexican immigrants are not fighting for Mexican territory (what are you, trying to mirror the anti-immigrant reactionaries?). Mexican immigrants want to be considered Americans just like anyone here.
Because they have no other choice--they'll all be dragged out and beaten by racist gangs. Immigrants have to show their loyalty or they will be fucked up.

:thumbdown:

[AvanteRedGarde]

:laugh:

You said there were no protests in March. I knew of three. I realize that it is Marxist dogma to provide evidence for your claims, that's part of the reason I'm a Marxist. Perhaps if you stuck to that part of Marxism more people would take you seriously. Instead, you come off as some immature, guilty middle class teenager. It only makes sense that you would detest people that support the first world working class as much as you detest the first world working class itself. Perhaps you're just mad that the working class won't establish socialism before you have to leave your parents house and get a job.

No, I asked where the anti-war movement today. You linked to the wikipedia article for three protest bureaucracies, linked an article from 3 years ago and said you knew of three protests last March.

Yet you didn't answer the question. Where is the anti-movement (not their bureaucracies) today? What is its state? Is there really an anti-war movement to speak of or is it largely the same old faces and dwindling numbers?

Quit obfuscating and answer the question. What is the state of the anti-war movement?

My personality, age, occupation, etc have nothing to do with the debate. The main crux of the argument is whether First World workers are exploited or even progressive. I have provided a number of examples over various threads. You have not provided a single shred of evidence to prove that First World worker are either.

First you resorted to raising the anti-war movement as an example of First World anti-imperialist sentiment. As myself and others have pointed out, the First World anti-war movement is the exception, not the rule. Thus your argument is a fallacy right from the start.

Then, when I point out that the anti-war movement is dead, you say it isn't and cite a Wikipedia articles on a few protest organizations and a three year old article as "evidence."

It's really funny that you actually believe yourself. Anybody with half a brain will tell you the anti-war movement is dead.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Thought this was relevant, again from RAIM-Denver:

March 5, 2009

Amerikans Support Escalation in Afghanistan


Nearly two-thirds of Amerikans back President Barack Obama’s recent decision to strengthen occupation forces of Afghanistan, according to a new public opinion poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News. These most recent figures are part of Amerikans’ long standing support for the onset, and in this case escalation, of imperialist wars of aggression.


Amerikans support imperialist aggression because they benefit from imperialist exploitation. Rather than a conscious decision or an instance of ‘false consciousness,’ Amerikans’ continual outward aggression is part of a historically formed class consciousness. According to this latest poll, support for a heightened occupation cuts across both Republican and Democratic voters.


Amerikans are a petty class of exploiters inseparable from U.S. imperialism itself. While they regularly support wars against Third World peoples, it is all too convenient for them to turn around and blame the leaders chosen to execute such wars when things don’t go well or when they’re called out as a nation of aggressors. With this latest poll showing clearer than ever Amerikans are in the imperialist camp, they should expect nothing less than resistance and reciprocity from those they favor violence against.


http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id*=‬6957836
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081202.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,179449,00.html?iid=fb_share

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The main crux of the argument is whether First World workers are exploited or even progressive.

You talk about first world workers not being progressive, but where are these huge third world communist movements?


I have provided a number of examples over various threads. You have not provided a single shred of evidence to prove that First World worker are either.No, you haven't. You provided income statistics and hypothetical examples that proved nothing. Anyway, this isn't the correct thread, so perhaps you should post some more of your "evidence" in your "Maoist" third-worldist thread.


First you resorted to raising the anti-war movement as an example of First World anti-imperialist sentiment. As myself and others have pointed out, the First World anti-war movement is the exception, not the rule. Thus your argument is a fallacy right from the start. Actually, you said there was no anti-war movement in America. That's obviously bullshit to anyone that knows what they're talking about.



Then, when I point out that the anti-war movement is dead, you say it isn't and cite a Wikipedia articles on a few protest organizations and a three year old article as "evidence." You pointed out that there were no progressive anti-war movements. I showed you three spearheaded by communist organizations. You said there were no protests in March. I linked to a protest in Washington from this year after accidentally posting the wrong link. You threw a tantrum. It would help if you didn't put words in my mouth, I never claimed the anti-war movement was still as active as it used to be. It's lost most significance since Obama's election.


Amerikans support imperialist aggression because they benefit from imperialist exploitation.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the government and the media connecting Afghanistan with 9/11.


Amerikans are a petty class of exploiters inseparable from U.S. imperialism itself.
So now nationalities and income brackets determine class? Cool.

[Bilan]

I'll address the rest later, but why Amerikan as opposed to American? Is this a shortened version of AmeriKKKa or something?

[AvanteRedGarde]

I'll address the rest later, but why Amerikan as opposed to American? Is this a shortened version of AmeriKKKa or something? Ask RAIM-Denver. My stock answer would be that America and American are ambiguous words which could refer to basically anyone who lives in the Western Hemishpere. My guess is that RAIM-Denver roughly uses Amerikan as a demarcation for the imperialist U.S, whilst American is used for other non-oppressor groups on the continents.

I would use the demarcation myself, but then i would spend way to much time haggling with people over superficial things like spelling (the fact that you raised to point verfies this, thanks).


You talk about first world workers not being progressive, but where are these huge third world communist movements?

The primary contradiction is between the exploited masses of the world and capitalist-imperialism. Obviously am advanced proletarian movement will not develop from spontaneity alone, but the fact that there is a vibrant anti-imperialist movement is promising.

When i say anti-imperialist movement, I am of course referring to Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah, insurgencies such as the Naxalites, the Shining Path, the EZLN, even the CP Nepal (Maoist) until recently, as well as state actors such as Venezuela and Bolivia. While this is a broad crossection, it highlights diversity and universality of the global anti-imperialist struggle.


No, you haven't. You provided income statistics and hypothetical examples that proved nothing. Anyway, this isn't the correct thread, so perhaps you should post some more of your "evidence" in your "Maoist" third-worldist thread. Well so far I've disproved the idea that working for a wage equals being exploited (under monopoly capitalism and imperialism at least.) I've shown that exploitation is based one the relationship of wages to the value of labor. This is all important because is opens the door to looking at the minority First World workers in a new light, outside of unscientific Marxist-sounding dogma.

I've also provided evidence which implies a high likelihood that First World workers are not exploited.

But to my credit, i still have more evidence to post and haven't dished it all out yet.



Actually, you said there was no anti-war movement in America. That's obviously bullshit to anyone that knows what they're talking about. There's not an anti-war movement as far as I can tell. If you call ten or so thousand people standing on the corner or by some governement building for a couple hours once a year a movement, then that's fine. It's an issue of semantics then. According to you there is an anti-war movement. According to me, there basically isn't one.


You pointed out that there were no progressive anti-war movements. I showed you three spearheaded by communist organizations.You pointed out three organizations, not movements, which are fronts for three separate self-pronounced communist organizations. The CPUSA and UFPJ are de facto pro-Democratic Party; their anti-war stances are thin veils behind which lies support for the very people and system which prosecute such wars.



You said there were no protests in March. I linked to a protest in Washington from this year after accidentally posting the wrong link. You threw a tantrum. It would help if you didn't put words in my mouth, I never claimed the anti-war movement was still as active as it used to be. It's lost most significance since Obama's election.Lost most significance? First, it never had much significance. Second, the bottom basically fell out. While this might be hyperbolic, it does not deviate from the general to say that there is no American anti-war movement. The paltry numbers at the few anti-war protests last March do not overturn this general trend.


Yeah, it had nothing to do with the government and the media connecting Afghanistan with 9/11. I was talking about last March.


So now nationalities and income brackets determine class? Cool.If class breaks down along geographic or nation boundaries, should we not admit this and incorporate it into our revolutionary theory and practice? It's dogma to say otherwise.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

You know what, fuck it. Tell everyone that the anti-war movement is alive and well and that it's a vital part of the global anti-imperialist movement. This is what you think anyways you idiotic, dogmatic, chauvinist. I can't even get you to admit the fucking obvious. How fucking stupid or hung up on Marxist sounding dogma are you?

Why are you ragging on the anti-war movement? Reading this thread was the first time I even heard of the "loosely organized group of dedicated activists" that is RAIM. Dude, aren't you in fucking Colorado? What's so special about your little organization? If first world activism is such a waste of time, what is the point of creating an "anti-imperialist movement" organization in the first world and then straight out attacking other anti-imperialist movements that DO ALREADY EXIST. And ANSWER HAS been organizing since the Obama election, in support of Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The primary contradiction is between the exploited masses of the world and capitalist-imperialims. Obviously a proletarian movement might not develop along the best lines, but the fact that there is a vibrant anti-imperialist movement is promising.

When i say anti-imperialist movement, I am of course reffering to Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah, insurgencies such as the Naxalites, the Shining Path, the EZLN, even the CP Nepal (Maoist) until recently, as well as state actors such as Venezuela and Bolivia. While this is a broad crossection, it highlights diversity and universality of the global anti-imperialist struggle.

Or at all, in the case of a lot of the organizations you mention.


Well so far I've disproved the idea that working for a wage equals being exploited, under monopoly capitalism and imperialism at least. I've shown that exploitation is based one the relationship of wages to the value of labor. This itself opens doors to looking at the First World working class in a new light.And I could just as easily prove that you could have capitalists that don't exploit their workers. This itself opens doors to looking at the capitalist class in a new, more positive light.

Honestly, your little hypothetical situations mean nothing.



I've also provided evidence which implies a high likelihood that First World workers are not exploited. But to my credit, i still have more evidence to post and haven't dished it all out yet.No, you haven't.


There's not an anti-war movement as far as I can tell. If you call ten or so thousand people standing on the corner or by some governement building for a couple hours once a year as movement, then that's fine. It's an issue of symantics then. According to you there is an anti-war movement. According to me, there basically isn't one.
You said Americans have never opposed the war. This is obviously ridiculous, because hundreds of thousands of Americans, 1 million in NYC alone by some estimates, came out to protest it.


Lost more signifigance? First, it never had much signifigance. So a couple thousand guerillas with absolutely no support from the proletariat are considered to be progressive anti-imperialist movements, but hundreds of thousands of Americans protesting the war aren't significant at all?


If class breaks down along geographical or nation boundries, should we not admit this? It's dogma to say otherwise.Y'know what, you're right. I should just give up and accept the existence of the Americans who make over $10,000 class. Anything else would be dogmatism.

[AvanteRedGarde]

And ANSWER HAS been organizing since the Obama election, in support of Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Like I said, there are two possibilities here. The first is that ANSWER couldn't organize itself out of a paper bag. The second is that Americans simply aren't going for the message because it doesn't match up with their historic class consciousness and interests.

I'm sure the people in ANSWER are very dedicated and resourceful.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Like I said, there are two possibilities here. The first is that ANSWER couldn't organize itself out of a paper bag. The second is that Americans simply aren't going for the message because it doesn't match up with their historic class consciousness and interests.

I'm sure the people in ANSWER are very dedicated and resourceful.

Are you fucking kidding me? They've organized marches with tens of thousands of people. How many people have RAIM and MSH organized? 5?

[ComradeR]

If that is so, why is it there's never been a revolution in the first world. Why is it most first-world workers are repulsed by the very word socialism? Please don't say it's due to propaganda, are you seriously saying first-world workers are so stupid that they can't see through propaganda? No, it's because they DON'T want to see through it (as imperialism serves their interests very well).
Most of this has been addressed by others but still you can't simply ignore the effect the media has on people. When people are bombarded with propaganda since birth in the form of the education system and the media it tends to shape peoples views and attitudes.

Why is it most first-world workers are patriotic and blame 'foreign' workers for taking away their jobs? Why is it you never hear them complain about capitalism, even during an economic crisis? Why is it most first-world people seem okay with war that kills people in the third-world? And so on and so forth.
This might have something to do with the fact that all they see is third world workers "taking their jobs", they can't see how it is in fact imperialism which is causing these third world workers to migrate in the first place. And they can't see that it's the fault of the capitalists who are hiring these workers for next to nothing. The capitalists use this to their advantage by turning workers against each other and it works. It even seems to work with you so called "third-worldists" who while looking at it from the other side are still falling for it. As for your point on working people supporting their countries wars you really think that is a first world phenomenon only? That kind of nationalism can be found in any country in the world.

I'm going to let this statement speak for itself. Those who are interested in real revolutionary internationalism should just PM me.
You (like all third-worldists) are no internationalist.

Nearly two-thirds of Amerikans back President Barack Obama’s recent decision to strengthen occupation forces of Afghanistan, according to a new public opinion poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News. These most recent figures are part of Amerikans’ long standing support for the onset, and in this case escalation, of imperialist wars of aggression.


Amerikans support imperialist aggression because they benefit from imperialist exploitation. Rather than a conscious decision or an instance of ‘false consciousness,’ Amerikans’ continual outward aggression is part of a historically formed class consciousness. According to this latest poll, support for a heightened occupation cuts across both Republican and Democratic voters.
Again nationalist support for war is not limited to the first world, it is a global phenomenon. A fact you "third-worldists" seem to be blind to.

Amerikans are a petty class of exploiters inseparable from U.S. imperialism itself. While they regularly support wars against Third World peoples, it is all too convenient for them to turn around and blame the leaders chosen to execute such wars when things don’t go well or when they’re called out as a nation of aggressors. With this latest poll showing clearer than ever Amerikans are in the imperialist camp, they should expect nothing less than resistance and reciprocity from those they favor violence against.
And this is why third-worldism is entirely un-Marxist, it completely rejects the class struggle by writing off the working class in imperialist countries as enemy's.

Well so far I've disproved the idea that working for a wage equals being exploited, under monopoly capitalism and imperialism at least. I've shown that exploitation is based one the relationship of wages to the value of labor. This itself opens doors to looking at the First World working class in a new light.
You have disproved nothing. Workers in imperialist countries while receiving a higher wage (which the imperialists give in order to pacify them) are still being exploited, not nearly to the level as those in the third world but exploited non the less. It is a fact that real wages have continually fallen over the last several decades while dept has increased as workers are encouraged to consume beyond their means using dept and credit.

If class breaks down along geographical or nation boundries, should we not admit this? It's dogma to say otherwise.
Class is not based on invisible lines we call borders, It's determined by your relation to the means of production. It's not dogmatism it's the truth and if you simply don't want to accept that then your a fool. what you are doing is simply rejecting class struggle and class war in favor of a "clash of civilizations" and is therefore not socialism.

[robbo203]

When i say anti-imperialist movement, I am of course referring to Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah, insurgencies such as the Naxalites, the Shining Path, the EZLN, even the CP Nepal (Maoist) until recently, as well as state actors such as Venezuela and Bolivia. While this is a broad crossection, it highlights diversity and universality of the global anti-imperialist struggle. .

The problem is not imperialism but capitalism. Imperialism simply expresses the expansionist logic of capitalism. All nation states are latently or manifestly imperialist, even the little ones because all nation states are the creatures of capitalism. It follows therefore that there can be no such thing as a genuinely anti-imperialist national liberation struggle since this is a contradiction in terms. The various movements you cite above, whatever their stated ideology, offer no alternative to capitalism in its most basic sense but represent merely various forms of accommodation to capitalism particularly in its state capitalist form. Their nationalism is fundamentally at odds with the notion of class consciousness and assumes a fundamental identity of interests between workers (or indeed peasants) and capitalists supposedly comprising their "nation-state"




Well so far I've disproved the idea that working for a wage equals being exploited (under monopoly capitalism and imperialism at least.) I've shown that exploitation is based one the relationship of wages to the value of labor. This is all important because is opens the door to looking at the minority First World workers in a new light, outside of unscientific Marxist-sounding dogma.

I've also provided evidence which implies a high likelihood that First World workers are not exploited.

But to my credit, i still have more evidence to post and haven't dished it all out yet..

I think you have swallowed the leninist myth of the labour aristocracy by the sound of it. Lenin´s idea that a small section of the working class in metropolitian countries has been bought off by the imperialists from the proceeds of their investments abroad was part of a larger explanation of why he thought the working class in Europe et al had remained refromist and not become revolutionary - it had been led down the reformist path by the labour leaders who had "betrayed" the working class becuase of their links with imperialism. It was also suggested by him but more forthrightedly by certain third worldists that the working class as a whole in Europe et al benefitted (albeit it to a lesser extent) directly from the proceeds of third world exploitation.

The argument is false. For a start, what it overlooks is that foreign Direct Investment (FDI) overwhelming flows not from first world to third world countries but from from first world to other first world countries. - first world capitalists exploiting workers in other first world countries in other words. The "booty" of imperialism in the sense that Lenin meant it would have therefore been relatively small by comparison with the proceeds of total investment. The labour aristocracy concept would led us to believe that those countries who had substantial foreign investments would also have a significantly well off labour aristocracy vis-a-vis the the rest of the working class. In fact the oppposite is true. I think it was Tony Cliff who wrote an article back in the 1950s providing empirical evidence to show that wage differenitals are greater in relatively poorer countries like Rumania than in a country like the UK with substantial FDIs.

The argument that first world workers share in the exploitation of the third world makes no kind of sense at all and in fact completely skirts around what the labour theory of value tells us about the process of exploitation under capitalism. Workers in first world countires may get paid more but their productivity is also substantially higher. Manufacturing in many parts of the Third World is still relatively labour intensive. Also, on the face of it, why would the capitalist be so generous as to share the proceeds of their exploitation abroad with their domestic workforce. If it is to buy them off then the outcome of this would be to stem their militancy and their attempts to raise their wage rates

I would be most interested to see this evidence you say you have which implies a high likelihood that workers in the first world are not exploited. I suspect it will amount to nothing more than a lot of hot air. All the evidence I have come across conclusively demonstrates that not only are workers of countries like America exploited but that the rate of exploitation has intensified in recent decades.Productivity has gone up significantly but real wages in the the USA have stagnated since the 1970s



If class breaks down along geographic or nation boundaries, should we not admit this and incorporate it into our revolutionary theory and practice? It's dogma to say otherwise.

Class does not break down along geographic lines. Where did you get this absurd idea? In every nation state you can clearly identify separate classes with divergent conflicting interests. The comprador bourgeiosie of the third world do very well , thank you very much, out of the exploitation of the local workers. They are as much part of the integrated system of global capitalism as their counterparts in the so called first world.

The dogma lies in denying the plain fact that we live in a system of global capitalism in which workers everywhere are exploited

[AvanteRedGarde]

The problem is not imperialism but capitalism. Imperialism simply expresses the expansionist logic of capitalism. All nation states are latent or manifestly imperialist, even the little ones because all nation states are the creatures of capitalism.

Here's the problem. The masses of the world are not being currently exploited by the "latent imperialism" of Mexico. Real imperialism, the kind that exists here and today, affects peoples lives, ahem, here and today.

While it is an oversimplification to say that class breaks down between the First and Third World, the former exploiting the latter, it is clear that class in arranged according to capitalism-imperialism, and thus on the basis of a handful of integrated monopoly capitalist countries exploiting the vast majority of the world. This has objectively resulted in the bourgeoisfication of most the imperialist country working class.

The fact that you admit that there is a Third World comprador bourgeoisie which facilitates the brutal super-exploitation of the Third World countries is only further testament that, yes, classes- arranged around capitalist-imperialism- do often contour around the First and Third World divide (though, as i said, its more complex than just Third World vs. First World, in that each group can be further subdivided).

I've already shown how a waged worker could be an exploiter, based on the super-exploitation of other workers. The idea that a proletariat is defined purely by their relationship to the means of production is false under imperialism. A worker who is an exploiter is clearly not a proletariat. In line with Engles, who describe a proletariat as someone who received no income from capital, it is probably better to view class in terms of the relationship to capital and the capital cycle. In any case, insofar over half of Americans own stocks or a house (and the owner is able to accrue value through their ownership), this automatically excludes them from the category of proletariat. The arguement I'm making though is that First World wages exceed the value of labor, with the difference made up by surplus value created elsewhere. In this case, part of the workers income would come from exploitation via a structural relation within the overall capitalist-imperialist system.

[bcbm]

This is what you think anyways you idiotic, dogmatic, chauvinist

Oh the irony.


In this case, part of the workers income would come from exploitation via a structural relation within the overall capitalist-imperialist system.Which is why we work to build a movement capable of taking down the entire system, as this is the only way we will be able to end the exploitation of workers both in the first and third worlds. Of course we should support our comrades struggling in other countries, we are internationalists, but this takes the form of supporting the class struggle not any group of thugs who calls themselves "anti-imperialist" or fights for "national liberation," an impossibility under the current economic arrangement. You seem more interested in fighting first world workers than any sort of boss.

[black magick hustla]

The interesting thing is that nobody in the third world who calls himself a marxist holds those ridiculous politics. Its a US thing, really. Even the maoists do not talk like that at all.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

The interesting thing is that nobody in the third world who calls himself a marxist holds those ridiculous politics. Its a US thing, really. Even the maoists do not talk like that at all.

There are two groups in Ireland which hold similar positions as Monkey Smashes Heaven...

[AvanteRedGarde]

So a couple thousand guerillas with absolutely no support from the proletariat are considered to be progressive anti-imperialist movements, but hundreds of thousands of Americans protesting the war aren't significant at all?


When it comes to actually challenging the system, or parts of it, then yes.

Based on effectiveness, they sporadic anti-war protests, even at their height, while testament to a degree of youth moralism on the part of some Americans also revealed the weaknesses of the whole movement. It was always dominated by protest bureaucracies, which tend to enforce a toning down on march participants. Most of the anti-war sentiment was liberal and in fact pro-imperialist in that is was based on a cost-benefit analysis. This was often the rehetoric employed by the more mainstream bureacratic leftist intsituitions. Almost all of the marches were permitted, which in itself is characteristic of a kind of condoned prop opposition. Most important however, the anti-war movement was not in the least bit able to derail the Bush-Cheney plans and implementations of war on two countries or did the critique of the war ever develop into a general one against imperialism.

Instead, the anti-war movement has basically bottemed out. It's message and members were basically challeneged into Obama and those whom uphold a critique of imperialism, even a superficial one, are left in the wilderness.

This should tell you something about the effectiveness of the anti-war movement, specifically related to its class basis.

This is compared to the examples I raised. You call them a "couple tousand gurreillas with no support." I question how true this is however. Obviously the EZLN had great support in their struggles for reforms. The Naxalites control large pockets in India and operate in nearly a third of the country and have actively been fighting neo-liberal designs in India (SoB should like this since it prevents "foreigners from stealing our jobs"). The Shining Path basically surrounded Lima and began urban operations for Fijimori fasicst dicatorship was able to cripple the movement. The Nepal the Maoists surrounded Katmandu before they signed the peace accords. Moving on, Hamas is the democratically elected majority party in the West Bank and Gaza. Hizbollah receives wide support from the masses. Again moving on, the 'Bolivarian Revolution,' for all its faults, is a progressive development. The same could be said with Evo Morales and Bolivia. Obviously, I'm not talking about isolated orgainzations and groups. Rather, I'm talking about a general tendency for anti-imperialist struggles, which is in fact reflective of the primary contradiction, that is the primary social antagonism, of the world today.

Now I'm not negating the possibility of revolutionary internationalism on the part First Worlders as individuals. However, a scientific revolutionary view must foremost be honest. This includes the recognition that First Worlders, as a class, are not revolutionary precisely because it is not in their immediate class interests.

[bcbm]

This includes the recognition that First Worlders, as a class, are not revolutionary precisely because it is not in their immediate class interests.

Of course its in our immediate class interests; dismantling capitalism and imperialism will improve the lives of workers in both the first and third world, far more than any benefit they bring.

[bcbm]

There are two groups in Ireland which hold similar positions as Monkey Smashes Heaven...

Ireland isn't a third world country...

[black magick hustla]

There are two groups in Ireland which hold similar positions as Monkey Smashes Heaven...

I have a question - you always have this ridiculous examples about everything. where do you find this groups? I remember last time you pulled out the freakin ICG as an example of left communism.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I have a question - you always have this ridiculous examples about everything. where do you find this groups? I remember last time you pulled out the freakin ICG as an example of left communism.

The Internationalist Communist Group in my opinion produces the most interesting and realistic analysis of the world today and is certainly more "on-the-ball" than the dogmatic to say the least ICC. I would highly recommend their writings to anyone. Have you actually read them or do you just believe all the waffle and misrepresentation of their positions put forward by the ICC?

A sympathizer of the ICC for instances put forward their brillant essay on the AIDS virus as an example of them being nuts. I am going to post it in the history section now so that people can make up their own minds.

http://revolutionaryireland.blogspot.com/2009/04/question-of-imperialist-privilege.html

http://inniu.wordpress.com/

[STJ]

The reason i think there are Mexicans in America. Is the North American Free Trade Agreement which went into effect on January 1 1994. It forced the Mexican government to open up its farmers to free trade with American farmers which the Americans farmers won. So all those Mexican farmers have to look for work and if you can't find at home you come to America. NAFTA has destroyed the Mexican ecomomy. So you racist in Americans have no one to blame but yoursevles for Mexicans being in America.

[Dimentio]

Funny how you twist his words, making him look like a bad guy. Is it separatism to say every ethnic group deserves to live in respect and dignity? Is it separatism to say every community needs its own space, away from the people who're constantly attacking them, harassing them, abusing them racially, economically and in a million other ways? Suppose a Palestinian says: I've been attacked my whole life by Israelis, all I need is a place to call home so I can live with my people in peace and dignity without being judged on the basis of race, color, religion etc.. Would you have the heart to tell him: Listen, mate, you're f*****g separatist, because you want to stay away from people who're different from you. That makes you a racist, similar to zionists and KKK, and so you have no place in our socialist paradise.

Honestly, people here must understand the difference between White Nationalism (that's based on hatred of non-whites) and non-white separatism which is more a defensive reaction against centuries upon centuries of prejudice, bigotry, and racism. Black Separatism, for instance, isn't based on hatred of whites, but rather a fear of what white nationalists might do to them. Hence, oppressed Blacks (or any non-white community, for that matter) fearing for their lives and limbs, might well think separatism would at least give them some sort of security, in that they could stay out of harm's way.

Not that I am justifying separatism. But it's quite insulting to oppressed races, when you tell them you see no difference between white separatists like KKK and themselves, when the former is clearly based on hate and violence; whereas the latter is merely a clumsy attempt to defend themselves against racists. These people need sympathy and understanding, because they've been at the receiving end for a long time.

Every people should have the right to self-governship over their own resources, I agree. But I think that the rights for working people is more important.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The reason i think there are Mexicans in America. Is the North American Free Trade Agreement which went into effect on January 1 1994. It forced the Mexican government to open up its farmers to free trade with American farmers which the Americans farmers won. So all those Mexican farmers have to look for work and if you can't find at home you come to America. NAFTA has destroyed the Mexican ecomomy. So you racist in Americans have no one to blame but yoursevles for Mexicans being in America.

1- American farmers are subsidized, giving them an advantage over Mexican farmers. Generally, Third World economies are set up to serve imperialist interest.

2-America was established at the barrel of a gun. As part of it genocidal expansion onto the North American continent, it stole half of Mexico. Americans who defend the oppressive border and corresponding wage differentials are in fact relying on the legitimacy of this genocide in order to defend the current status quo.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

1- American farmers are subsidized, giving them an advantage over Mexican farmers. Generally, Third World economies are set up to serve imperialist interest.

2-America was established at the barrel of a gun. As part of it genocidal expansion onto the North American continent, it stole half of Mexico. Americans who defend the oppressive border and corresponding wage differentials are in fact relying on the legitimacy of this genocide in order to defend the current status quo.

The reason Mexicans have lower wages is because we stole half of Mexico? wat

Where does genocidal expansion in the establishment of Mexico factor into your analysis? Your position seems based more on hating America than actually caring about people in the third world.

[Elway]

I am a Mexican-American individual myself . . .I have always felt a strong connection to my nationality and heritage.

You realize, Tre, that based on the statement you made, your nationality is a United States citizen. Not trying to pick a fight, but that's what nationalism means.

One your general comment, of disolving the border, I agree. But there would be some kind of nationality, and it would be a combined form of the USA and Mexico, perhaps Mexican states joining the U.S.

Some may feel (and one very reasonable and pleasant person commented) that this suggestion would put me into the far right. But no, in fact I believe that a "melded together US and Mexico could only lead toward socialism, or more socialist policies in place and a fairer land distribution, esepciall at this moment, where 85% of Americans are finally waking up to "how poor they are".

I also agree with you that the Mexican Cesion of 1847 will never revert back to Mexico, any more than the Louisiana Purchase will be declared "theft" by the World Court. These are pipe dreams.

I live in Colorado, but had a Mexican girlfriend and she was a Mexican national who lived here and had no interest in becoming a U.S. citizen. We went through Mexico a few times. Loved it and the people. They are far more like us than we might think. The courtesy alone would be something I would enjoy in America.

Thanks for your post.

[robbo203]

Here's the problem. The masses of the world are not being currently exploited by the "latent imperialism" of Mexico. Real imperialism, the kind that exists here and today, affects peoples lives, ahem, here and today..

"Latent" means what it says i.e. not manifest. So I am not suggesting that the masses of the world are being exploited by mexican imperialism. So what are we supposed to infer from your statement - that they are being exploited by the American, British, French, or Chinese states. Well no they are not. They are being exploited by and large by their local capitalist class but also by some very large multinational enterrpises mainly based in Europe and the USA. These are the actual agents of their exploitation. The problem is not imperialism as such but capitalism - imperialism is only a symptom of the problem. Let us say you somehow managed to successfully roll back all the imperialisms you currently dislike all you would succeed in doing is to create the favourable conditions for new imperialisms to emerge. Who know? The latent imperialism of a country like Mexico might then become all to manifest. Imperialism is simply the outcome of capitalism's expansionist dynamic



While it is an oversimplification to say that class breaks down between the First and Third World, the former exploiting the latter, it is clear that class in arranged according to capitalism-imperialism, and thus on the basis of a handful of integrated monopoly capitalist countries exploiting the vast majority of the world. This has objectively resulted in the bourgeoisfication of most the imperialist country working class...

If you are compelled economically to sell you working abilities for a wage or salary then you are a member of the working class. "Objectively speaking", that means over 90% of the population of all the monopoly capitalist countries you speak of are working class



The fact that you admit that there is a Third World comprador bourgeoisie which facilitates the brutal super-exploitation of the Third World countries is only further testament that, yes, classes- arranged around capitalist-imperialism- do often contour around the First and Third World divide (though, as i said, its more complex than just Third World vs. First World, in that each group can be further subdivided)....

I think you have misunderstood my point. It is the third world comprador bourgosie that directly exploit "their" own local workforce and indeed the bulk of the proceeds of exploitation is retained within so called Third world countries . You are simplistically equating exploitation with imperialism




I've already shown how a waged worker could be an exploiter, based on the super-exploitation of other workers. The idea that a proletariat is defined purely by their relationship to the means of production is false under imperialism. A worker who is an exploiter is clearly not a proletariat. In line with Engles, who describe a proletariat as someone who received no income from capital, it is probably better to view class in terms of the relationship to capital and the capital cycle. In any case, insofar over half of Americans own stocks or a house (and the owner is able to accrue value through their ownership), this automatically excludes them from the category of proletariat. The arguement I'm making though is that First World wages exceed the value of labor, with the difference made up by surplus value created elsewhere. In this case, part of the workers income would come from exploitation via a structural relation within the overall capitalist-imperialist system.


You say you have demonstrated how a wage worker could be an exploiter but you havent done anything of the sort. If I as a worker own a few shares that might realise a dividend of a few hundred quid per year does that make me a capitalist ? Clearly not. I cannot live on a few hundred quid a year and the vast bulk of workers get nothing like that from the ownership of shares. As for owning a house how, pray, does that make you a capitalist? Yes you can sell it and possibly reap the benefits of the enhanced value of the house on the market - or not which these days is more often the case. But so what? You still have to have a house to live in and make an outlay on some new house. You still depend on a wage of salary to pay back the mortgage or just keep body and soul together. You are still a worker in other words.


And as for this surreal claim of yours "that First World wages exceed the value of labor, with the difference made up by surplus value created elsewhere" I have already explained to you that this takes absolutely no account of the higher levels of productivity among First World workers due to the greater degree of mechanisation etc. There is also the the fact that the vast bulk of Foreign Direct Investment (FDIs) originating from the First World goes to other First World countries - over 75% in fact. Now if what you said was remotely true this would simply not happen at all. The prospects of super-exploiting the Third World and deriving enornous profts from this - enough if we are to believe your fairy story about how capitalism actually operates for the capitalists to generously giving first world workers a substantial cut of their takings - would surely mean a far higher diversion of capital outflows into the Third World. That is emphatically not the case so where does that leave your theory?

[Raúl Duke]

You realize, Tre, that based on the statement you made, your nationality is a United States citizen.

Using your definition (using citizenship to decide nationality), if I understood correctly, of what constitutes a nationality is tricky.
Every Puerto Rican is a U.S. citizen but they are obviously not an "American."

Although when one says Mexican-American...then in a way doesn't that imply an American from immigrant parents? So in a sense you are right. "Puerto Ricans-Americans" are usually not much like Puerto Ricans from the island. (Culturally speaking)


There is lot of intense nationalist and patriotic ideas among much of the working class of both first and third worlds.

Whether or not Puerto Rico is 3rd world, one thing to notice it that the majority/virtually all of the left in the island support independence in a general sense and are usually very keen to get into front groups with the other (although usually the more militant, not with the PIP electoral party) independence movement even if they are not explicitly socialist (although in a sense all the independence organizations, except the PIP, are implicitly "socialist", if I use the term broadly). There's no "ICC" type organization (Left-Communists) that is strongly anti-nationalistic/bourgeois national liberation. Actually, I'm not sure if there's any anarchists in the island...perhaps they are not organized or they really barely exist.

[Elway]

Using your definition (using citizenship to decide nationality), if I understood correctly, of what constitutes a nationality is tricky.
Every Puerto Rican is a U.S. citizen but they are obviously not an "American."

Although when one says Mexican-American...then in a way doesn't that imply an American from immigrant parents? So in a sense you are right. "Puerto Ricans-Americans" are usually not much like Puerto Ricans from the island. (Culturally speaking)

It has always been difficult for people to understand the following:

#1. Nationality only means one's citizenship. Period.

#2. EVERYONE has an ethnic background. Sometimes you meet idiots who believe that "Ethnic people" are non-white. My ethnic background is a combination of German, Russian, Swedish and Norge.

If one calls themseves a Puerto Rican, they are U.S. Nationals (that is the legal distiction), and their ethnic background is Puerto Rican.

If one calls themseves a Puerto Rican-American, they are U.S. Citizens with Puerto Rican ethnic background.

Johnny, I'm not implying you didn't know this; simply used your comment box to make my statement.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Tell me something intimate about German, Norwegian, etc culture. Explain to me the intimacies of being on of these nationalities.

Chances are, you're another white American, covering up the fact fact they come from an oppressor background by claiming a fake foreign heritage. Do you know German or any language besides English? Do you eat and prepare authentic German meals. Are you regularly in contact with anyone from Sweden?

Didn't think so.

[bcbm]

Tell me something intimate about German, Norwegian, etc culture. Explain to me the intimacies of being on of these nationalities.

Chances are, you're another white American, covering up the fact fact they come from an oppressor background by claiming a fake foreign heritage. Do you know German or any language besides English? Do you eat and prepare authentic German meals. Are you regularly in contact with anyone from Sweden?

Didn't think so.

Tell me what background someone who does nothing but rail against "rich, white, western" workers comes from.

Also, by your logic, being German, Swedish, etc heritage would still make one come from an "oppressor background" (my poor immigrant Irish farmer ancestors were a load of bastards), so I'm not sure what they're covering up in your mind?

[Elway]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/navbits_finallink_ltr.gif[/IMG] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=18629) AvanteRedGarde]Tell me what background someone who does nothing but rail against "rich, white, western" workers comes from.

Also, by your logic, being German, Swedish, etc heritage would still make one come from an "oppressor background" (my poor immigrant Irish farmer ancestors were a load of bastards), so I'm not sure what they're covering up in your mind?

WOW!

You've just demonstrated by your post that this ignorance relating to ethicity is not confined to the right, but also there are some on the left that don't understand the term, or believe it's only allowed to be used by "minorities".

I say (or write) again: WOW!

EVERYONE has an ethnic background. While a good argument could be made that there is something called a "White" culture in America, there is no such thing as White ethnicity.

Regardess of what foods I eat, or what clothing I wear, these ethnic backgrounds are a part of me, and equal to a Mexican or Chinese ethnicity.

But in my case, it doesn't matter too much, as they really have little to do with my interests. (There are some who would argue that they are a part of my thought processes, regardless of what I believe.)

My purpose was to distinugish the concept of ethnicity with nationality.

Also, I have never at this forum, rail against anyone or any group, nor discuss rich White people, or things like that.

I don't konw that I understand what you're getting at.

I've edited this post to include this final question: Why did you use the term, "intimate"? It seems out of context. Did you mean something else?

[bcbm]

I think you quoted the wrong post there, bro

[Elway]

Fixed it up. Sorry. Thanks.

[Raúl Duke]

It has always been difficult for people to understand the following:

#1. Nationality only means one's citizenship. Period.

#2. EVERYONE has an ethnic background. Sometimes you meet idiots who believe that "Ethnic people" are non-white. My ethnic background is a combination of German, Russian, Swedish and Norge.

If one calls themseves a Puerto Rican, they are U.S. Nationals (that is the legal distiction), and their ethnic background is Puerto Rican.

If one calls themseves a Puerto Rican-American, they are U.S. Citizens with Puerto Rican ethnic background.

Johnny, I'm not implying you didn't know this; simply used your comment box to make my statement.

I see.
Although if we were to use some of this "oppressed nationalities" kind of discourse some Maoists used then in a way Puerto Ricans U.S. nationals on the island could be considered "oppressed" in a political sense (PR is a colony, we don't have representation in Congress nor can we vote for the president). Although, the island doesn't have 3rd world economic standards per se (but it ain't better or like in many respects to a first world nation, we have a large unemployment rate and other factors)

Although once I leave the island (or any other Puerto Rican) and go to the U.S., they gain all the benefits that a mainland U.S. national has (and in these types of Maoists minds, somehow, automatically become an "oppressor" unless they are the kinds of Maoists that automatically view "ethnic minorities" in these nations as an "oppressed minority status" worthy of their support).


Tell me something intimate about German, Norwegian, etc culture. Explain to me the intimacies of being on of these nationalities.

Chances are, you're another white American, covering up the fact fact they come from an oppressor background by claiming a fake foreign heritage. Do you know German or any language besides English? Do you eat and prepare authentic German meals. Are you regularly in contact with anyone from Sweden?
:lol:
I'm half "white American" (from German, my grandmother is German, and French Canadian background), does that make me "half oppressor?"

Oh my, now "exploitative oppressor status" is determined by ethnic/national/etc background then a real "class analysis"?
Is that real leftist politics?

[Elway]

I've never used the expression "expressed nationalities".

I have spoken with a professor at Long Beach State University (that is in California), who SWARES that all of Puerto Rico is on the verge of separating entirely from the USA.

The recent election pole on this matter doesn't seem to show that.

[Raúl Duke]

who SWARES that all of Puerto Rico is on the verge of separating entirely from the USA.

:lol:


The option for independence here is not popular, but this is out of certain pragmatic concerns ("If we become independent we'll lose the federal government benefits/aid" or "If we become independent we'll become like Haiti/Cuba") then out of any sense of belonging to the U.S. The option for statehood is however quite popular, but even that camp seems to be dominated by pragmatic concers ("If we become a state then maybe our problems will go away" or "If we become a state, maybe we will get more government benefits/aid").


I've never used the expression "expressed nationalities".

I meant the "Monkey Smashes Heaven" or the MIM type Maoists.

[Elway]

Tre,

Thank you for that reference. I never thought of it that way. I use the term national becuase it's (to me) so aligned with citizenship, as it includes that concept of "nation" with in the term.

Nationalism is a radically NEW concept, and has the amazing posibility of creating alignment of membership without reference to one's ethnicity. That's a great achievement, and (here's where I differ from a great number of socialists) a POWERFUL TOOL for world socialism.

Americans who identify with one another as Americans have created friendships and relationships separate from ethnic thinking. These cross ethnic and racial lines, and create a sense of cummunity unrealted to ethnic ties. Thus people of many ethnic cultures feel a kinship with others.

This is, to me, one of the wacky "gifts" U.S. citizenship has created in Americans; one that can be a benefit in discussing the notion that the class enemny is not of a different color or ethnic background, but is a member of a group that holds and owns capital, and the means of production.

[Elway]

Johnny, I understand what you have brought up, and all of those practical concerns make sense that the "middle class" would be obsessed by all of this.

However, why does the Statehood movement seriously outdo the Independence movement?

[Il Medico]

I have a few thoughts on this.
1. No boarders are legitimate.
2. No states are legitimate.
3. Picking one nationalist cause over the other is by no means socialist.
4. And Mexican immigrants are not trying to win back Mexican territory. They trying to escape the hell created for them by capitalist back in Mexico.

[Raúl Duke]

However, why does the Statehood movement seriously outdo the Independence movement?

Well, the political situation about the status is not as "clear-cut" as some would like or even as it might seem to some.

The statehood movement gains support based on these ideas and conditions:
1)The idea that if the island becomes a state there will be more federal benefits/aids/services/etc.
2)The idea that by becoming a state of the U.S. would resolve the island's government problems such as corruption, etc.
3)Much of the "middle classes" and the probably most of the bourgeoisie are bilingual and familiar to "U.S. culture"; at least that which they can experience via TV. These people do not mind if the transition towards statehood brings about some more "Americanization."
4) A large amount of the population is on welfare/unemployment aid/etc at a given time. It's thought that some of them believe their benefits would increase by becoming a state. However, this could just be a made-up story caused by the "middle class" (sometimes, in this country, they see themselves as the working class who "unfairly pays for the rich and for the lazy/unemployed") targeting those who are on welfare.

The first 2 ideas and #4 are however assumptions that I'm highly skeptical of, yet lots of people believe it. Also, while a large number of Puerto Ricans might support that option the U.S. seems to, historically, not support to co-opt Puerto Rico as a state.

Those who support statehood also forget that by being a state we then have to start paying federal taxes...

The support for independence is usually based on a few factors but these factors just don't have much "pull." Usually, those who are sympathetic to independence are usually intellectuals.
1) All socialists/communists (I think they have some Trotskyist faction here, "Refundacion Communista", that is or was part of the Socialist Front) support independence here, in a seemingly broad sense (i.e. it seems they would be fine with independence even if it doesn't lead to a socialist state/socialist-majority government).
2) There are somewhat "ethical-historical" reason to support for independence. This being: It's crazy to just capitulate into a state of a country that commited some crimes against this island.
3) Being a state would mean we will continue to be forced to fight the "U.S.'s wars."
While Puerto Rico was in a sense supportive of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext that it was to get the man responsible for 9/11; it generally opposed the war against Iraq from the beginning and this lead to a general opposition against both wars. Also, Puerto Rico in general opposed the Cuban Embargo. Yet Puerto Rico currently cannot influence foreign policy and even if it were a state its influence would be small.

However, these factors don't have much "pull", when people hear of independence they think of the negative "what ifs"
1) "We could end up like Haiti or like Cuba" (this concerns the middle class)
2)Loss of federal benefits (this alledgedly concerns the more poorer workers)
3)No longer connected to the U.S. economy, etc

However, in reality, keeping things "as they are" is the most popular option (in a sense). In fact, some political commentators have stated that certain sections of the bourgeoisie (although they didn't use that term, they probably used "elites" or "the rich" and usually name some family names related to capitalist enterprises here) support a sort of "detached from the U.S." version of the commonwealth that would allow them to institute pro-business laws that the federal government may not usually allow (or discourage) other states. In a way, the population is also afraid of "big fundamental change" so they prefer to keep things the way they are now.

I'm sorry that this post is long but this topic may perhaps need to have a book written about it to cover it correctly.

[Elway]

Johnny,

Thank you for a very hard thought piece of writing. I fully understand the answer to this question, which has alluded so many that I have asked: Why not go for independence. Also, thank you for the frank honesty, which has escaped so many, including so called intellectuals.

I agree with all you wrote here, and have now a deep understanding of it all.