On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Trond Andresen wrote: > I have no admiration for hippies, or "organic famers " in the U.S. also > being exploitative bosses. So what, I ask... Trond, as the first line of my message indicated, my comments were primarily directed at the "US liberal/left," not Norweigans. My educated opinion is that most US decentralists do not understand that small-scale operations can be just as exploitative as large-scale operations--they believe that smaller is necessarily better (see, e.g., Kirkpatrick Sale's _Dwellers in the Land_). This is especially true in the case of organic agriculture. > > What does "national autonomy" mean in a case like the US agricultural > > labor market? There is no feasible way to eliminate undocumented > > border crossings, so I do not see "autonomy" as even an option. > > > > What about MEXICOs national autonomy then? > > I am no expert on the U.S. and Mexico. But I humbly am an > expert on Norway and the EU. Like I said before, my comments were directed at the US context. Re: Mexico's national autonomy. It has little. In the specific case of agricultural labor, the US labor market serves as something of a safety valve for the serious Mexian unemployment problem. Since the Bracero program (circa 1940's) the US and Mexican ag labor markets are inextricably tied together. > For what it is worth, my view on national autonomy for the U.S. is that > it ought to broken up into its separate states... This still doesn't address the issue of permeable borders. Tens of thousands of undocumented workers are going cross over from Mexico to border states regardless of the sovreignity of the individual states. In the absence of federal money/infrastructure/border cops/etc. the flow of immigration would most likely increase. > > My sense is that the vast bulk of decentralists are not opposed to > > capitalism per se--they believe the problem is monopoly capitalism > > (especially on a global scale) and they want to return to a mythical era > > of self-earned capital. I.E. their political ideals are essentially petty > > bourgeois. > > First: This is sectarian: Participants in a struggle for > autonomy have to pass an exam in marxism, too be worthy of support. Huh? Who said anything about espousing "marxism" as a precondition of support? > Secondly, it is also wrong in the sense that it ignores marxists and > reds and communists and revolutionaries and socialists and what have > you, that fight against f.inst. the EU and NAFTA. The whole of the > Norwegian left fought against EU membership. Once again, my comments specifically regarded the US context. I stand by my charaterization. Note that I wrote that the "vast bulk", not ALL, decentralists oppose monopoly capitalism, not capitalism per se. > > it's common to see slams against "corporations" but > > only rarely is "capitalism" mentioned. > > > > Seems I have to take the oath again. So be it: "I believe in Marxism, I > am against capitalism per se, not only corporations..etc. etc." Huh? Who said anything about oaths. I think you may be having flashbacks to your sectarian days, Trond. > Seriously, should we be happy that so many non-marxists are willing to > participate in activity against corporations even if they aren't > socialists, or should we sniff at all the non-correct participants? I > know one thing for sure: If that sectarian attitude had been typical > for the socialist part of the No-to-EU-movement in Norway, we would have > lost resoundingly. If people want to oppose corporations so that they can own their own smaller-scale enterprise in order to make money off of other people's work, I do not support them. That hardly makes me sectarian. The standard organic agriculture bumper sticker in California reads "Support Organic Farmers." I say "Support Organic Farm Workers." Will Hull Sociology Graduate Program University of California, Santa Cruz
