Max:
>Lind's position re: immigration is strictly of a
>piece with the basic idea of labor defense, a
>concept our free-trade marxists have great difficulty
>with. It is that the obligation of a trade union is
>to fight efforts to undercut its wages with other
>workers. It does not matter where they are,
>what color they are, or how miserable they are.
>
>Now you could argue that he does not execute this
>idea well in his position on immigration. Obviously
>the AFL is coming around to a different view, but
>that is Lind's point of departure. There is no
>intrinsic chauvinism in opposing the out-migration
>of jobs to ANY non-union destination, domestic or
>foreign. Obviously such opposition often falls
>prey to or opportunistically exploits chauvinism,
>but the underlying motive is totally appropriate
>for a labor defense organization.
The defense of labor is best executed by class solidarity, regardless
of nationality, immigration status, etc., not by nativist attempts to
monopolize jobs by excluding "aliens," which are in the end futile.
When nativists scab by breaking class solidarity, that is, by
excluding "aliens," "aliens" naturally can scab back in retaliation.
If "you" don't think of "them" as class brothers & sisters, whey
should "they" honor the picket lines when "you" go on strike?
Yoshie
P.S. to Carrol
When you come back to PEN-l, check out Ellen's posts on dollarization
+ related threads.
