Vineland revisited

[Jane Sweet]

Teufelsdröcke wrote:
> 
> People can indeed move from one country to another, as allowed by the
> country of desired residence, or by the terms, for example, of their
> health insurance. And such "legal" immigrants are not automatically
> considered citizens of their new country. "Illegal" immigration is
> tolerated to provide a pool of unprotected workers. In other words, I
> can move any time I want from Minnesota to Missouri, get a new driver's
> license, register to vote locally, but I can't move to Mexico without a
> proven outside income and a healthy bank balance.

But a substantial account Balance is not what keeps folks
from moving to Mexico. 
I have a sister living in Mexico for nearly twenty years,
she's a school teacher, in other words she's not wealthy.
People are moving from the Mexico to the USA, not the other
way round, ot because one needs be wealthy to move to Mexico
but because if one is poor in Mexico the USA is for many
reasons, the best place to go. Moreover, plenty of people
are moving to the USA from Mexico, many of them poor. People
are moving to the USA in great numbers, the 1960 census was
around 180,000,000, and people are not having large families
now and have not been having as many children,  although a
lot of the population growth from 1960-1975 was obviously
due in large part to the National birth rate, people are
moving to the USA. People are also moving from Nation to
Nation in Europe and Africa and continent to continent in
huge numbers. So, although the global state or citizen of
the world may not be what structures like the European Union
have afforded, I still don't think people are being
prevented from moving, emigrating, by a conspiracy
orchestrated by those with Capital interests. 


> 
> > > In this
> > > way they are inherently fascist, codifying the continuing availability
> > > of essentially prison labor in countries already ravaged by capitalist
> > > predation.
> >
> > Is it capitalist predation that has ravaged these nations
> > and their peoples?
> > Can the USA continue to be blamed, can the World Capitalists
> > take all the responsibility for poverty and slave and prison
> > labor? I don't think so. There is good and evil isn't there?
> > Isn't Africa hungry for US technology and food? Isn't it
> > those Capitalists that have discovered all those wonder drugs
> > now in use in Africa?
> 
> You are right that the world is very complicated, and that there is
> plenty of evil about without capitalism's adding theirs. But that likewise
> does not mean that global capitalism is not to blame for its predations.
> The relationship remains that poor countries provide cheap labor and
> resources and get very little in return.

Well, many businesses have simply moved to the South of the
United States to find cheaper labor, but of course Brazil is
still cheaper than Florida. So I don't disagree, the facts
are the facts. That Corporate concerns seek out cheap labor
and try to avoid other costs associated with doing business
in more costly environments, be these domestic or foreign,
it is "good business." Of course doing business in Florida
or Brazil has other costs, educated work force pool and law
and union considerations and the cost of materials of
shipping materials, plants and equipment, political risks
and so on. That exploitation of foreign labor is the rule is
not born out by the facts, although this is going on, and no
matter how much, it is an appalling rate. We should
remember, the USA is a domestic economy. So, not to play
down or justify or excuse the exploitation and abuse of
foreign labor by US concerns, but the US is a domestic
economy, have to check the figures but I think GNP or GDP
(I'll have to define what these are, it's changed recently)
in the USA is close to 80-90% domestic. Moreover, much of US
foreign economy and  trade abroad and this includes
production of everything from arms to food is not labor
intensive because it involves intangibles and not tangible
products. Moreover, I believe, again my numbers are all a
bit, but just a little bit dated, Canada, a Nation with
about 10% of the population of the US is the largest trading
partner of the USA, the largest trading partnership in the
world I think, not much exploited labor up there, but
anyway, I'm not suggesting this practice is not abhorrent
and unfair or that people should not be protesting it, it's
just that I think we should try to get a handle on what is
actually taking place.  



> 
> > > The very opposite of their claim of bringing "western"
> > > economic vitality and progress to "developing" nations, it is in fact a
> > > new kind of colonialism.
> >
> > If it's new, or a new kind, perhaps colonialism is not the
> > best term to describe it?
> > Perhaps saying that it is a new kind of colonialism
> > indicates that the horrors of colonialism are diminished as
> > much as the horrors of the current state of affairs is
> > inflated by the use of the term colonialism?
> 
> Not all colonialism in the past was at the level of the Belgians in the
> Congo or the Germans in Southwest Africa, yet we use the same term for
> good and bad. Modern globalism is colonial, because much of the trade
> relationship between rich and poor is determined by debt of the latter
> to the former, and the poor country rarely controls the industries the
> rich country has brought to them. Trade is almost completely on the
> terms of the rich, which is not a democratic arrangement.

I'm not sure this is the case at all. This is very
complicated and I can talk about it till the cows come home,
if there is something I really know a bit about it's world
Debt. We will need an example otherwise we are just blowing
smoke. 


> 
> > > Indeed, the anti-globalization movement provides some reason for hope,
> > > because unlike the economic desperation behind the 1930's and the war
> > > conscription behind the 1960's it is driven by a long-term and
> > > principled vision of a democratic world.
> >
> > Well, some of the drivers don't give a damn for democracy,
> > but most, be they red, pink, anarchists, so on, don't like
> > capitalism one little bit, but I doubt there is much hope of
> > defeating that market principle.
> 
> True enough, alas, that some don't give a damn for democracy. The great
> majority, however, of the 30,000 protesters in Québec and the thousands
> demonstrating at border crossings and the week before in Brasil and
> Montréal do, I think, believe in democracy. And as long as capitalists
> claim that "free market" is the same as human liberty, then yes indeed
> most of them don't like that capitalism. Shouldn't people enjoy the same
> rights of economic and social self-determination as corporations do?
> Shouldn't their liberty and welfare in fact come first?

Well of course, but again, I don't like the question.