North America/Mexican border.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Along the US/Mexican border, groups of armed Malitias patrol in jeeps hunting for "illegal" Immigrants, yet it seems to me that the Texans are the illegal Immigrants, as they annexed Texas from the Mexican people

In the last few years killings and kidnappings of Mexican "Immigrants has risen, and more worryingly, they are seemingly applauded by the likes of Beck and North.
Does this show a growing or steady rise in white supremacist attitudes in the States?

With the right wing scaring the public into thinking they are all going to be locked up in FEEMA camps and baked in ovens by the "socialist" anti christ, how can the left reduce the lumpen who have been bombarded with right wing hate propoganda since birth and what if anything can socialists do to protect Mexican immigrants from being killed by these Militias?

Little Bobby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVWcqXv8ReY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMwMm0RZ88c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF9PvRY1vZk

[Robocommie]

Since those Minutemen clowns think it's cool to monitor the border, maybe we could form a Leftist militia to monitor the Minutemen.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Since those Minutemen clowns think it's cool to monitor the border, maybe we could form a Leftist militia to monitor the Minutemen.

Maybe the left could set up a small tent city on the border to give shelter and food to newly crossed immigrants and protect the from these bastards.

[CartCollector]

Maybe the left could set up a small tent city on the border to give shelter and food to newly crossed immigrants and protect the from these bastards.

Problem is if you knowingly help illegal immigrants across the border you could be arrested for aiding and abetting. I'm not a lawyer though, so I don't know if this is true. I would think it is though.

But then again, if there were enough police along the border to catch you, there wouldn't be an illegal immigrant problem.

[Robocommie]

Problem is if you knowingly help illegal immigrants across the border you could be arrested for aiding and abetting. I'm not a lawyer though, so I don't know if this is true. I would think it is though.

But then again, if there were enough police along the border to catch you, there wouldn't be an illegal immigrant problem.

That's both true. Still, I like Bobby's idea.

[zimmerwald1915]

they annexed Texas from the Mexican people
No they didn't. The ancestors of some of the people who currently live in Texas were used, consensually, by the American state to annex Texas (and New Mexico, and Upper California) from the Mexican state. Mexico has never belonged to the "Mexican people": workers have no country. It's perfectly possible to support the struggles of workers who cross the border from Mexico into the United States without supporting stupid Mexican irridentism.

[zimmerwald1915]

So, you oppose anti-imperialism because that would be equivalent to supporting the "small bourgeoisie" of the victimized nations of imperialists. However, you are absolutely sure that opposing national liberation struggles led by the proletariat because that would NOT be supporting the big imperialist bourgeoisie.
Not sure where the "small bourgeoisie" quote is coming from. Certainly I didn't say it: perhaps you're trying to put words in my mouth. What I said was the communists shouldn't be supporting irridentism--which is what Little Bobby Hutton was doing--because workers have no stake in which bourgeois state occupies any given patch of land.

There is no such thing as a "national liberation struggle" that doesn't take place in the ideological framework and in the interests of many sections of the world bourgeoisie. There is the "national" bourgeoisie, which hopes for a state of its own to control and a market to claim dominance over, though in the present period it in fact gets neither of these things, due to the presence of its international backers. These are those bourgeoisies that hope to pry the new "nationally liberated" country away from the sphere of influence of that country that has dominated it hitherto, and will expect and get some quid pro quo for their support. "National liberation struggles" maintain the "liberated" country within the grip of imperialism: it's merely a question of who's doing the gripping.

As for the place of the proletariat in these "struggles", show me a "national liberation struggle" and I will show you a proletariat that has been ideologically disarmed and has been bamboozled into acting in the service of some section of the world bourgeoisie. If the proletariat is to take control of a struggle, any struggle, it can only do so by making that struggle about its own interests, its own demands, which interests and demands are counter to the needs of the "national" and all other sections of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat cannot take control of a struggle by adopting the demands of the bourgeoisie: it can only hand the leadership of a struggle over to the bourgeoisie by doing so.