Andrew L. wrote:Bob, my point, and I think vilna's too, is that worker solidarity is transnational. For you, it stops at the border. You've got some weird nativist stuff going on.

Not true, and I really suspect that you know that.

There is no weird nativist stuff going on, there is simply the recognition that a shepherd must tend to his flock first. Respect all similar flocks, but there will be times when other flocks are seduced into your territory, through policies favorable to the exploiters, and you must close ranks.

We don't live in one world all together; mentally and emotionally, maybe we do, but economically, we don't. Societies are still compartmentalized entities unto themselves, not to the degree that they once were, but in the world of labor, you cannot permit an endless supply of outside labor to dilute your value. If we were neighbors, I wouldn't knock on your door night after night and ask for you to put out a dinner plate for me.

Andrew L. wrote:Like vilna, I don't much buy into the category of 'the proletariat,' but just as capital is multinational, so too resistance is without borders.

Right, conceptually, resistance could cross borders as easily as capital, but in reality, it has no leverage across borders nearly approaching that of capital. Even Marx tried to change one country at a time, you know.

And how can you not buy into the category of 'proletariat'? It's perfect. All societies divide into elites, speculators, managers, aparatchiks, and the various proletariats. Go get some Orwell in you.

Andrew L. wrote:And you sure have a lot of respect for The Law given that the entire system and every law passed is coordinated by your cabal of baddies.

Cheap shot. The law is more powerful than me, but the law is not always my enemy. The law can work for me. Like I said way back in this thread, there are still labor and immigration laws remainng from the time when labor could legislate self-protection into the system; you deny us that- whose side are you on?

American labor cannot be the keeper of all our brothers- we can't do that loaves and fishes trick.

Andrew L. wrote:My parents 'took in' a Cambodian refugee when I was young. He was 16 when he moved into our house, didn't speak a word of English, and had spent 3 years on the run from the Khmer Rouge. He's a welder now with two beautiful daughters. Sends money to his mom in Cambodia every month. He arrived as a legal refugee, but my parents' community have also harbored illegal immigrants denied refugee status.

Great story, but you do understand that the economic impact of one Cambodian in one Canadian town is slightly less than that of 10,000 illegal immigrant construction workers in Chicago, right?

Andrew L. wrote:My parents are kind of like the Flanders. They're do-gooders (Mennonites).They go to church every Sunday. But they aren't reactionaries like you.

Extra cheap shot, but that's your history. Easy to judge, hard to get it right.

Andrew L. wrote:They know State laws are designed to reinforce an unjust status quo. And they've been prepared to answer to something they see as higher.

Oh, I see. Now you're advocating theocracy? Hiding behind God Love is for cowards afraid to make the choices they have to in a world run by man. You get God to go to Mexico for me and tell them to use birth control because they can't feed the mouths they have. God Love sets in motion more behavior that leads to misery, and you know that very well. Stick to Earth-bound arguments, please.

Andrew L. wrote:By contrast, you seem driven by resentment.

One lazy baby's 2 cents.

Yup, I hate to be stolen from by the system so I just lash out without ever thinking about it. Big resentment. We should all just never complain, because complaining is always selfish, right?

clocker bob wrote:There is no weird nativist stuff going on, there is simply the recognition that a shepherd must tend to his flock first. Respect all similar flocks, but there will be times when other flocks are seduced into your territory, through policies favorable to the exploiters, and you must close ranks.

We don't live in one world all together; mentally and emotionally, maybe we do, but economically, we don't. Societies are still compartmentalized entities unto themselves, not to the degree that they once were, but in the world of labor, you cannot permit an endless supply of outside labor to dilute your value. If we were neighbors, I wouldn't knock on your door night after night and ask for you to put out a dinner plate for me.

Being slower than I used to be, it took me a little while to grab what I couldn't get about this spiel. Then I realise: it doesn't make sense.

Shepherd? Flocks seduced into your territory? Are you Welsh?

You make the statement

you cannot permit an endless supply of outside labor to dilute your value

as an a priori assertion. Then back it up with a non sequitur about neighbours and dinner plates.

What? Sorry?

Illegal immigrants tend to work exceptionally hard for very little; they are exploited, certainly. But what are they taking from you?

The job-stealing thing is a bugbear of mine. A while back on this thread I posted a link a UK report that undermines the frequent camouflage for discrimination that immigrants take jobs away from locals. Over here, the openly racist British National Party have won a large number of council seats spouting such bullshit. The best riposte I heard to this was from a black local quoted by the Guardian in Barking, where the BNP made a number of gains:

The problem is some of the white people here do not have the knowledge to do the jobs at the top and they are not willing to do the jobs at the bottom that migrants do. But they are happy to blame them for everything and to claim that everyone is getting benefits.

Whilst this is a UK quote, again, I'm pretty sure the quote carries across.

Sheep. Shepherd. Flocks. What? Are you a shepherd? The migrants sheep?

What?

There is no weird nativist stuff going on, there is simply the recognition that a shepherd must tend to his flock first. Respect all similar flocks, but there will be times when other flocks are seduced into your territory, through policies favorable to the exploiters, and you must close ranks.

Bob you keep asserting this principle in various forms. What makes it the trumping directive? What history is there where this idea has been subverted as we are suggesting and disaster has overtaken the open arms community? (real question not rhetorical) What history is there to your "protect our flock first" devolving almost instantly into disaster for the unwelcome other flock. I am sure as a polish jew I read this our flock stuff in my own grid but it echoes back to the betrayals of many of the "our flock" first partisans in poland and russia. You can say its very different but I wonder. Taken in jews was against the law and more important to the partisan question economically and efficiently very dangerous. Do you follow? Please save the witty "hitlered" posts from the gallery. The example will help me follow clocker fellow.


Would you criticize the Abraham Lincoln Brigade for spending such human resource on a flock completely not "ours". When they asked one of the commanders of the ALB (Milton Wolf I think) why he went he said how could I not, it was happening in my own backyard. Is his outlook compatable with your shepherd directive?

We don't live in one world all together; mentally and emotionally, maybe we do, but economically, we don't. Societies are still compartmentalized entities unto themselves, not to the degree that they once were, but in the world of labor, you cannot permit an endless supply of outside labor to dilute your value. If we were neighbors, I wouldn't knock on your door night after night and ask for you to put out a dinner plate for me.

Aren't your ideas a conservation effort for what is changing? What assures you that the change can only be worse? I get the "worse" in what power and force will desire but who knows in the middle phase of transition what vulnerablity will present if we are not clinging to the old bread and circuses we used to get.

Right, conceptually, resistance could cross borders as easily as capital, but in reality, it has no leverage across borders nearly approaching that of capital. Even Marx tried to change one country at a time, you know.
And how can you not buy into the category of 'proletariat'? It's perfect. All societies divide into elites, speculators, managers, aparatchiks, and the various proletariats. Go get some Orwell in you.

The question is what would the piercing eye of Marx see now. As well as Orwell. Things have changed and to tie them to the terms of their day is to make genius common place. MAybe...Not denying the possibilty that some things are still applicable in the class war terms. Actually I am curious if you have some actual bits by Orwell on immigrants/flocks. HArd for me to think he would buy this bit..

Oh, I see. Now you're advocating theocracy? Hiding behind God Love is for cowards afraid to make the choices they have to in a world run by man. You get God to go to Mexico for me and tell them to use birth control because they can't feed the mouths they have. God Love sets in motion more behavior that leads to misery, and you know that very well. Stick to Earth-bound arguments, please.

No opinions on the realities behind the God but as for the God lovers=cowards that is just foolish clocker bob. Retract it for the centuries of Romeros and Leynauds that say different. As do Andrew's folks it would seem.

clocker bob wrote:There is no weird nativist stuff going on, there is simply the recognition that a shepherd must tend to his flock first. Respect all similar flocks, but there will be times when other flocks are seduced into your territory, through policies favorable to the exploiters, and you must close ranks.

We don't live in one world all together; mentally and emotionally, maybe we do, but economically, we don't. Societies are still compartmentalized entities unto themselves, not to the degree that they once were, but in the world of labor, you cannot permit an endless supply of outside labor to dilute your value. If we were neighbors, I wouldn't knock on your door night after night and ask for you to put out a dinner plate for me.

sparky wrote:Being slower than I used to be, it took me a little while to grab what I couldn't get about this spiel. Then I realise: it doesn't make sense.

Shepherd? Flocks seduced into your territory? Are you Welsh?

You don't follow it? A man is always a sheep and occasionally a shepherd in his life. In a situation where he is completely at the mercy of market forces, he is completely a sheep. In the world of labor, the only avenue for a sheep to claim any control back from market forces ( to make decisions made for the flock be agreeable to both the flock and to the market, market being capital, capital as the shepherd ), is to maintain internal control over the behavior and the quantity of the flock.

Maybe it's still convoluted.

I'll reduce it again.

The only way to have the power of an organism is for all the individual entities within the organism to have a common goal: symbiosis. If the organism is infected with entities that will not conform to the common goal of the organism, the organism weakens and dies.

A labor pool is a collectivist organism within a capitalist host. The capitalist host destroys the ability of the collectivist organism to behave in a manner conducive to its long-term success by bribing the rebellious entities with short-term success on the terms of the host, and the rebellious entities are content with that- or maybe they aren't, but when Option Two is "go back to waving your hand in the Wal Mart parking lot", they accept it.

sparky wrote:You make the statement

you cannot permit an endless supply of outside labor to dilute your value

as an a priori assertion. Then back it up with a non sequitur about neighbours and dinner plates.

What? Sorry?

Neighbor: Mexico

Dinner plates: US jobs

More neighbors coming for dinner, same number of plates, less food on all the plates.

Is there any possible fucking way that there is a single ounce of greed motivating the illegal immigrant worker in your mind? Is it all just this noble yearning to provide for his family, and is every attempt to provide for his family by the native worker greedy racism?

Everybody loves to cut the slices thinner when they're not the ones living off the bread.

sparky wrote:Illegal immigrants tend to work exceptionally hard for very little; they are exploited, certainly. But what are they taking from you?

Holy fuck. Do you really believe that a relocation of a worker to a different economy causes a corresponding increase in the available capital in the economy? "What are they taking from you?!" THINK! If you recognize that a strike without scabs is the only way any union has ever earned a fair share of profits, then make that radical 1-2-3 jump in your mind:

Hmm, the capitalist thinks, stroking his chin,

"Why did we give those meat packers a raise back in 1980? Right! They asked for it, and when we said no the first time, they weren't at the job the next day. That sucked. Hello, President Reagan? Could you stop border enforcement and then pass an amnesty law for our new non-union work force? Thanks, Ron!".

"Problem solved. These new workers are now on the dog-eat-dog every man for himself program, just how we like them. Hey, what ever happened to Stan and Joe and Mike and all those other asshole union fucks who asked for raises when our profits rose?"

"I think I saw Joe stacking the shelves at the Wal Mart third shift for $8.85; his kid had to join the Army because there was suddenly no money for college."

"Huh... Hey, Pedro, hack that steer up a little quicker".

"Damn, subsistence wage slavery kicks ass; my stock options just paid for my new home in Florida- got all the drywall hung by illegals for $10 an hour, too".

Cool, huh? I wrote you a little play.

sparky wrote:The job-stealing thing is a bugbear of mine.

I'll write this once more, in big Humpty Bear font.

It is not job-stealing that we are complaining about. It is a destruction of the ability to sell one's labor for a value commensurate with its worth to the company.

sparky wrote:A while back on this thread I posted a link a UK report that undermines the frequent camouflage for discrimination that immigrants take jobs away from locals. Over here, the openly racist British National Party have won a large number of council seats spouting such bullshit. The best riposte I heard to this was from a black local quoted by the Guardian in Barking, where the BNP made a number of gains:

The problem is some of the white people here do not have the knowledge to do the jobs at the top and they are not willing to do the jobs at the bottom that migrants do. But they are happy to blame them for everything and to claim that everyone is getting benefits.

Whilst this is a UK quote, again, I'm pretty sure the quote carries across.

Well, yeah, it's in English, so yes, it carried. There are very few jobs that people are unwilling to do. If there were, this country wouldn't have been built, by immigrants of every color. There are jobs that people wish they would receive more money for, and the only solution to that problem has always been organized labor / threat of strike.

sparky wrote:Sheep. Shepherd. Flocks. What? Are you a shepherd? The migrants sheep?

What?

Drink a coffee and read my reply. If my analogies still register as obtuse with you, I will come back. Try and call me a racist a few more times, if possible. That will be easier for you than understanding the relationship between labor and capital.

vilna43 wrote:Bob you keep asserting this principle in various forms. What makes it the trumping directive? What history is there where this idea has been subverted as we are suggesting and disaster has overtaken the open arms community? (real question not rhetorical) What history is there to your "protect our flock first" devolving almost instantly into disaster for the unwelcome other flock.

Protect our flock first simply means uninviting the other flock, not trying to destroy the other flock. Is the fact that I am unable to change living conditions for Mexicans mean that I am no longer enititled to change the living conditions for legal immigrants and other American citizens?

Can man be benefitted one small group at a time, even if that means that outside groups will have to wait their turn?

If illegal immigrants were being scooped up in their native lands and deposited in America by flying saucer against their will, maybe I'd see things more benevolently, but they came looking for what we've got. I didn't fuck their country up. Go kill some fucked-up Mexican exploiters back in Mexico.

Maybe the reason why Mexico is crumbling is that all the hardest working most able-bodied revolutionairies are bent over in American lettuce fields.

vilna43 wrote: I am sure as a polish jew I read this our flock stuff in my own grid but it echoes back to the betrayals of many of the "our flock" first partisans in poland and russia. You can say its very different but I wonder. Taken in jews was against the law and more important to the partisan question economically and efficiently very dangerous. Do you follow? Please save the witty "hitlered" posts from the gallery. The example will help me follow clocker fellow.

There is no racial cleansing component in my agenda whatsoever. If it exists in the agendas of other opponents of illegal immigration, I can't control that. America could be all Mexican, in fact, I will gladly become Mexican if it means I can be a unionized Mexican in control of my share of company profits.

vilna43 wrote:Would you criticize the Abraham Lincoln Brigade for spending such human resource on a flock completely not "ours". When they asked one of the commanders of the ALB (Milton Wolf I think) why he went he said how could I not, it was happening in my own backyard. Is his outlook compatable with your shepherd directive?

I'll have to read up on it more- is this during the Civil War? War changes all the equations, I don't know what parallels you can draw.

I'm now at the limit of time that I can spend on this reply- off to work for me, try and continue later this weekend.

clocker bob wrote:Oh, I see. Now you're advocating theocracy? Hiding behind God Love is for cowards afraid to make the choices they have to in a world run by man. You get God to go to Mexico for me and tell them to use birth control because they can't feed the mouths they have. God Love sets in motion more behavior that leads to misery, and you know that very well. Stick to Earth-bound arguments, please.

vilna43 wrote:No opinions on the realities behind the God but as for the God lovers=cowards that is just foolish clocker bob. Retract it for the centuries of Romeros and Leynauds that say different. As do Andrew's folks it would seem.

You may have misread me. God can inform people's attitudes, he certainly informs mine.

My comment reflected the opinion that God has given man unrestricted free will to run the planet as he wishes, and God has apparently decided to let us find our own conclusion to our history. If God was a phone call away, I would ask him to come check in on his flock. Because I can't and nobody else can either, saying "I will not enact this policy to benefit man because I suspect God would not like it" doesn't wash with me- get God to tell me that, not some book that's been filtered through so many human hands it could be partially written by L. Ron Hubbard for all I know.

If people want to claim God as their guidance counselor, produce God for me. Your interpretation of God is internally generated, so it can not be considered The Word Of God.

vockins wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:Bob, my point, and I think vilna's too, is that worker solidarity is transnational. For you, it stops at the border. You've got some weird nativist stuff going on. Like vilna, I don't much buy into the category of 'the proletariat,' but just as capital is multinational, so too resistance is without borders.

...and the clocker bob model is a recipe for inflation, negating the point of isolationism.

I love how an organized union labor work force can be blamed for earning higher wages, supposedly leading to inflation, but if a CEO earns a 400 million dollar retirement package, that's not inflationary, that's proof that the system works.

See if you can juggle these three oranges without dropping them, vockins:

Orange one: higher wages

Orange two: higher consumption

Orange three: higher prices

leading to

Orange one: higher wages

Orange two: higher consumption

Orange three: higher prices

and then stop juggling the oranges when demand has been satisfied.

clocker bob wrote:

vockins wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:Bob, my point, and I think vilna's too, is that worker solidarity is transnational. For you, it stops at the border. You've got some weird nativist stuff going on. Like vilna, I don't much buy into the category of 'the proletariat,' but just as capital is multinational, so too resistance is without borders.

...and the clocker bob model is a recipe for inflation, negating the point of isolationism.

I love how an organized union labor work force can be blamed for earning higher wages, supposedly leading to inflation, but if a CEO earns a 400 million dollar retirement package, that's not inflationary, that's proof that the system works.

I didn't say the bonus wasn't inflationary, dipshit. I didn't say shit about bonuses. I'm not arguing for 400 million dollar bonuses, the IMF, the NSA, or mind control weather machines located outside of Seattle.

There's nothing, nothing, supposed about the scenario I described. Examples abound - real, historical and contemporary, concrete examples of wage increases affecting the cost of living. Your plan does absolutely jack shit to improve worker purchasing power and quality of life.

Your bizarro world isolation plan is attemping to get value from nothing. Decreasing the number of people in a country does not equate to greater purchasing power in the long term. There are no examples of that ever happening. It is batshit nuts.

clocker bob wrote:Try and call me a racist a few more times, if possible. That will be easier for you than understanding the relationship between labor and capital.

Hey, I didn't say that: you did.

You use a large volume of words with passion. They still don't stack up, and quoting yourself repeatedly in multiple fonts doesn't change this: you offer the same argument over and over again. Whether you invoke sheep, shepherds or plates of food, your's is the same point.

So, in response, I repeat myself: what is your evidence to refute the statistics provided (again, UK only, but as I said, the principles carry) stating that immigration does not create unemployment or overall wealth destruction? Or, in your words:

It is a destruction of the ability to sell one's labor for a value commensurate with its worth to the company.

Maybe try cyan font next time?

This is protectionist, isolationist rhetoric that I read frequently on this side of the pond. Your words put the boot into the poorest, when it those who're exploiting labour laws to pay the lowest possible prices who should be brought to book.

Cheap, ill-treated foreign labour (whether exploited abroad or at home) built up the outstanding wealth apparent in our countries. It seems unnecessarily cruel to pick on them now. They are the easy target and they are the wrong target.

clocker bob wrote:
See if you can juggle these three oranges without dropping them, vockins:

Orange one: higher wages

Orange two: higher consumption

Orange three: higher prices

leading to

Orange one: higher wages

Orange two: higher consumption

Orange three: higher prices

and then stop juggling the oranges when demand has been satisfied.

Is this an argument? I urge you to visit a different fruit stall.