|
|
<< How Dare Arnie Face Unproven Charges? | Main | Davis Signs Health Care Law >> October 05, 2003Why the Left Supports AmnestyGreg Yardley over at commiewatch is perplexed that leftists support undocumented immigrants: immigrants' desire to come to America, even illegally, is a vote with their feet - a vote in favor of the capitalism and democracy that communists oppose. Next, if the communist thesis that America is an imperialist country that does so well by exploiting the third world is true, then immigrants who travel from the third world to America are coming because they want a piece of that exploitation action - in other words, not content to let Americans rip off the third world, they want a piece of the action themselves!Greg makes a few odd assumptions here. One Global System: First, his statement assumes that Mexico and developing nations are outside the global capitalist system, something multinationals making fat profits in Mexico, China and other countries would beg to differ with him on. Voting to flee the most exploited regions of capitalism is hardly an endorsement of the system-- and it's as reasonable to argue that they are endorsing the (sadly) stronger welfare state and labor rights in the United States than in their own nations. But the key reality is that the United States and developing nations are part of the same economic system, tied by capital flows, trade and labor markets. To move anywhere is neither an endorsement or non-endorsement, since wherever you go in the global capitalist system, there you are-- still in it. Exploitation on Both Sides of the Border: Greg's second fallacy is the idea that all Americans benefit from exploitation of the developing world-- an odd conservative endorsement of the most leftwing sectarian position (see obscure sects like the Maoist International Movement for this view). Most left activists believe that in fact corporate exploitation of developing nations harms people both there and in the United States. For example, union busting in such countries drives down wages overseas, thereby accelerating job loss for Americans overseas. This was the reason that labor leaders from Malaysia to South Africa to Brazil united with US labor leaders in Seattle in protesting global economic policies. See this report from Seattle 1999: The problem, as ICFTU head Bill Jordan notes, is that they have "no class analysis of the Third World" — where the elites represented in government profit from trade deals no matter how grotesque are the sweatshops they create. While support for labor standards is nowhere to be heard from the trade delegates of the developing nations, it was sounded repeatedly by the South African, Caribbean, Malaysian, Mexican and Chinese union activists (some of whom had spent years in prison for their efforts) who addressed Tuesday’s AFL rally. "What’s good for Ford workers in Detroit is good for Ford workers in Mexico and South Africa," said Glen Mpufane, a South African mine worker who called for a global minimum wage. (Following McEntee’s Marxian lead, he concluded, "Workers of the world, unite — against the WTO!")Erasing Borders Builds Unity: This unity of worker interests between developing nations and the US explains the drive for rights for immigrants. No one thinks labor rights would be better off in the US if workers were barred from leaving a job in New Jersey if a better one existed in New York. (Southern blacks experienced some of their most dramatic liberation by fleeing exploitation in the South for better industrial jobs in the North in the early part of this century.) The worst thing for labor rights is for workers to be chained to exploiting employers by the inability to look for better employment opportunities. Anti-immigrant policies are a tool to trap workers in developing nations, drive down wages further in those countries and globally. Capitalists are united across the world-- capital crosses borders freely. So of course the left has to fight for the right of labor to cross those borders as easily as capital-- how else can workers create the similar international unity to challenge corporate power? BTW I am seriously disappointed by the general indifference of most progressive bloggers to the nationwide mobilization of civil rights, civil liberties, church organizations and labor unions in support of the Immigrant Worker Freedom Rides. Conservative Catholic Cardinals came out to speak at the rallies but only a handful of bloggers like Talk Left, Body and Soul, Kevin Hayden, Politics in the Zeros, LatinoPundit, Al-Muhajabah, and the Dean Blogs discussed this event-- the largest mass mobilization of unions and civil rights groups in 2003. (Let me know if I missed someone) The absence of discussion - even critical - from most of the major progressive bloggers is discouraging. Posted by Nathan at October 5, 2003 06:05 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI'm far from "major" but I didn't cover it because other people were covering it so well, and I had nothing unique to add. And I think other folks (Atrios, KOS, etc) were caught up in The Trifecta (Plamegate, Schwarzengroper, and Rush). --Kynn Posted by: Kynn Bartlett at October 5, 2003 07:19 PM I'll be covering it again briefly in a post to be published at Open Source Politics tomorrow, mostly to point people to further resources. Posted by: Al-Muhajabah at October 5, 2003 10:47 PM To be fair, Nathan, my question was 'why don't communists oppose illegal immigration', not 'why don't leftists oppose illegal immigration'. Since I was wondering about communists, I used communist assumptions - that all Americans benefit from exploitation of the developing world. (Which can be found in a lot more groups than the Maoists, by the way.) As for the 'one world, one system' theory, this is handily downplaying the very real differences between the way things work here, and the way things work in Mexico or China (or, for that matter, Canada or France or Sweden). Your claim that there's just one economic system could use some complication. You're also overlooking that economic systems are the only systems worth choosing between - political systems also have to be taken into consideration. Because of the very real differences between nations, why shouldn't an immigrant's arrival in the United States be construed as an endorsement? As for what they're endorsing, your theory that they're voting with their feet for "the (sadly) stronger welfare state and labor rights in the United States than in their own nations," rings false to me - if that was the case, why on earth don't more emigrate to Canada or France or Sweden, all places with better labor rights and stronger welfare states? Why is the United States such a preferred destination? Posted by: Greg Yardley at October 6, 2003 07:43 PM Heh - that should have read "economic systems aren't the only systems worth choosing between." That's what I get for not proofreading. Posted by: Greg Yardley at October 6, 2003 07:44 PM But Greg- the whole "labor aristocracy" line is hardly the standard in even the communist left (whatever that means given the broad often antagonistic sects out on the edge.) I cite to the globalization protests at Seattle partly to note the broad network of leftists supporting the idea of identity of interests between US and developing country workers. As for different countries being different political systems, that's true to an extent, although as the Iraq war shows, all are ultimately under the same global political hegemony. THe operations of the IMF and WTO also place them all under the same political constraints, although some exist in more privileged geographic areas. But just because Roman citizens had privileges denied to the provinces does not mean that the Roman empire was an integrated political system. Posted by: Nathan Newman at October 6, 2003 08:51 PM Yes, communist groups have always argued that the international proletariat will do better when they all act together, and you can find explicit statements from some communist groups rejecting the idea that Americans live well because the Third World lives poorly - for instance, here's a recent one from the International Socialist Organization. (The most relevant parts are at the end of the article.) I agree, not every communist group explicitly uses the 'labor aristocracy' line. That said, most of these little sects are steeped in Leninism. 'Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism' is near the top of their reading list, and most of their later works on imperialism derive from it. And Lenin's very clear about the bourgeoisie's ability to buy off their own working class with a number of small privileges. If you ask a typical member of one of these groups why socialism didn't succeed in America, they come up with a mish-mash of reasons including the effect exploitation of the Third World had on the living standards of American workers. As for the anti-globalization protests at Seattle, from what I remember, they caught most American communists with their pants down. Posted by: Greg Yardley at October 7, 2003 12:03 AM Nathan, Not ALL leftists support illegal immigration, or "amnesty". Now, the AFL-CIO bosses and the Catholic Church do...because they are doing the bidding of the corporate employers and small businesspeople who benefit from cheap foreign labor. BTW, that's why, quiet as it's kept, non union telecommunications giants SBC and MCI were behind the scenes sponsors of the illegal alien rally here in New York. But, many American workers, White, Black and US Citizen Latino alike OPPOSE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, in particular workers who are, like myself, employed in casual labor-based industries like construction. The influx of illegal aliens into the construction business over the past decade has been a disaster for American construction workers, in particular AFRICAN AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. For instance, in Washington DC, Black workers have been, essentially, "ethnically cleansed" from residential construction, to be replaced by low wage Mexican and Salvadoran illegal alien construction workers. Throughout the South, a similar phenominon has happened. Needless to say, this has bred A LOT of resentment...so much for your fairy tale about how mass immigration breeds "unity" between workers. Now, of course, there are many White lefitsts like you who support illegal immigration..perhaps because it's not YOUR jobs at stake, and at least some of the more affluent leftists probably employ illegal aliens as household servants or have rich relatives who employ illegal immigrants. So, speak for yourself Nathan when you say that the "left supports amnesty". FRATERNALLY, Posted by: Greg Butler at October 9, 2003 08:20 AM No, Greg, you speak for yourself; as the list of endorsers of the Immigrant Worker Freedom Ride reflects, your anti-immigrant position is quite isolated on the left. List of endorsers-- Aside from all the labor union endorsements, a partial list of other folks: Yes, I know, along with the unions and the churchs, you think the NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, and all the socialist groups are working for MCI and AT&T. The fact is that it's hard to find a left-identified organization that DIDN'T support the Freedom Rides. Greg, you live in an isolated world where it's better to screw desperate immigrants than actually work with them and organize together. Posted by: Nathan at October 9, 2003 09:34 AM
Government in the boardroom, not the bedroom: Democrat Here's the remaining corner of the diagram: Around here, the march made the front page, probably because we don't get very many marches around here. The coverage was fairly sympathetic, concentrating on people who find themselves in the various areas of legal limbo provided by La Migra (INS before 3/1/03, then BCIS. (Such areas were home to the 19 hijackers not long ago.) and notify your local field office of the Bureau of Citizen and Immigration Services (formerly the INS, also known as La Migra). Posted by: Warren Eckels at October 14, 2003 01:46 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|