RE: [Marxism] The May 1 boycott, the Latino movement and the Left

[Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon Flanders writes: "To some extent we are talking apples and oranges when
we talk about the war in Iraq and the immigration rights movement.

"Would we demand that the immigration rights movement and the May 1st
Boycott put opposing the Iraq war on its list of demands?"

No, but these are two different kinds of movements, and my real objection to
what UFPJ is doing isn't that they're ignoring the immigration issue, but
that they're taking sides in a dispute within a movement that they're not
part of, and, in essence, conditioning what should be an unconditional
stance of solidarity with the immigrant rights movement, which is what they
*pretend* to have. In other words, it is a sneaky and shame-faced
intervention. 

The principle involved is the right of self-determination of nationally
oppressed peoples, not as a promissory note "come the revolution," but in
the here and now, today.

As you note, there are a variety of pro-immigrant rights materials on the
"United for Peace" web site. UfPJ took the initiative to have a big press
conference helping to publicize the April 10 demonstrations. That press
conference also projected April 29 as an opportunity to make demands around
immigrant rights. On the web site, they have coverage of the April 10. But
they've shunned May 1.

Why? I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think you have to be one. 

The bottom-line demand of the immigrant movement is legalization for all. If
you look at the MAPA web site, the web site of the LA alliance, or the one
put up by the Alianza 17 de Marzo in Atlanta, i.e., of forces independent of
the ruling class parties, you will see that very clearly and explicitly
reflected. 

That is not true of the "pro immigrant rights forces" in the Democratic
Party orbit, even though, thus far, there's been no big debate around the
exact formulation of the demands. 

Their slogan is for "comprehensive immigration reform," and the UfPJ web
site explains what this means:

"Tell Congress that you want immigration reform that:

"- Includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
"- Reunites families
"- Ensures workplace protections and civil rights for all."

Now to most people, even within the movement, this sounds basically okay, I
mean they don't sit there and parse words. But ask them if this means
legalization for everyone, and they say yes, and if it means building a
Great White Wall on the border and they'll look at you as if you're crazy,
because obviously it doesn't.

But Democrat politicians aren't most people. A case in point is Hillary
Clinton, who just came out for the odious Sensenbrenner Great White Wall and
other "enforcement" measures, says she's for legalization --"earned"
legalization, mind you-- LATER, maybe starting in a year or two, and calls
on Latinos and other defenders of immigrant rights NOT to protest on May 1. 

Hillary was among the speakers at the April 10 rally in New York, and with
her Daily News interview basically she's given the finger to the movement,
dealt it a low blow, and I hope that organizers of that action will not
hesitate to denounce her opportunist pandering to the racists.

BTW, lest we forget, her cracker husband is the one who in bed with the
Gingrich Republicans in Congress did the immigration and welfare reforms of
a decade ago that cut off even "legal" residents from most forms of social
assistance, and snuck into the welfare reform, I think it was, a provision
requiring states to get Social Security numbers to issue drivers licenses,
supposedly as an anti "deadbeat dad" measure, which in reality was just
another ruling class propaganda campaign against Blacks, especially young
Black men, but what it has led to is the denial of drivers licenses to
unauthorized immigrants and the transformation of the drivers license into,
in effect, a national ID card and internal passport in the wake of 9/11. 

UFPJ is boycotting the Great American Boycott out of deference to such
"friends" in the Democratic Party. If they want to pimp for Hillary and her
ilk, that is their right. But UfPJ has no right to dictate to or intervene
in the Latino and immigrant movement telling it what its demands should be
or what sort of protest actions it should have. On the contrary, they have
an *obligation* --imposed by their own character, statements and supposed
principles-- to stand unconditionally with the immigrant rights movement and
NOT intervene. 

They might not agree with all the tactics projected for May 1; but they
should respect the integrity of the immigrant and Latino movement by not
trying to undermine the date, especially as the movement's response to the
attempts by the pig press to divide it has been very clear: there are going
to be a multiplicity of ways people can participate in the May 1 protest; we
may not all be in a position to do exactly the same thing at the same time,
but we can all show by participating in one way or another that we remain
united against the Sensenbrenner Bill and for legalization of our brothers
and sisters.

UfPJ doesn't have to endorse or accept responsibility for everything that's
been projected. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it will respect
the actual movement, or whether it will pick and choose, opportunistically
maneuver and manipulate our protests and our demands to make Senator Clinton
and her ilk look good.

*  *  *

Referring to my other recent post, on the need to look at the *social* side
of these questions, this is a good illustration of the need for it.
Obviously "ideological" or "line" questions play a role here, but in many
ways the real core issue is the social one: what is going to be the
relationship, the stance, between what UFPJ represents, which is an
overwhelmingly white/Anglo antiwar movement, and this Latino/immigrant
movement. 

Is UfPJ going to respect the movement, its choices, and stand with us even
if they wouldn't have chosen the same tactics themselves? I believe that is
the antiracist, the anti-imperialist position, one that empowers the
movements of oppressed peoples. But it is not the one they seem to have
chosen.

True anti racism, true anti imperialism, true opposition to white supremacy,
is a political approach that seeks consciously and systematically NOT to
teach oppressed peoples the right road to their liberation, but to create
space and empower oppressed peoples to find that road for themselves. 

Joaquín

Joaquín

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Flanders
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:43 PM
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] The May 1 boycott, the Latino movement and the Left

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 06:29 -0400, Joaquín Bustelo wrote:
> I believe this sharply changes the character of the April 29 "antiwar"
> demonstrations, because U.S. politics has changed radically since that
> action was called. TODAY an antiwar movement without immigrants is an
> abomination, it is an anti-movement, it is worse than having no
> movement at
> all. 
While as usual I find your posts full of useful information and
insights, the above is really over the top.

To some extent we are talking apples and oranges when we talk about the
war in Iraq and the immigration rights movement.

Would we demand that the immigration rights movement and the May 1st
Boycott put opposing the Iraq war on its list of demands?

Of course not. Why? Because the point of unity is around legalization,
not the war. While I suspect that the majority point of view of the
undocumented is opposition to the war, it would be wrong to make the war
a matter of principle for May 1st, or for the movement for full
legalization.

Furthermore, if the UFPJ did call for support for May 1, would that mean
that hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers would answer the call
to oppose the Iraq war and mobilize? I think we know that the answer is
no, they would not.

This is for a whole host of reasons and pressures, including that many
recent immigrants don't think that the foreign policy of the US is a
concern for them right now, nor do they want to add opposition to the
war as another reason for them to be harassed and kicked out.

> 
> And the test of inclusion is the May 1 day without immigrants great
> American
> boycott. You can like it or dislike it, but among the Latino activists
> and
> groupings that have arisen organically in this upsurge, the call for
> it has
> been recognized as authoritative and even binding. THIS IS WHAT THE
> MOVEMENT
> IS DOING, no matter how many vendidos the white media trots out to
> oppose
> it.
> 
> I don't really care what the people who dominate UfPJ politically
> think
> about the tactics. I'm simply not interested. That's something we
> Latinos
> will discuss and decide among ourselves. All I want to know is whether
> they're with us or not. And on that, UFPJ's silence on the May 1
> boycott is
> eloquent. They're boycotting the boycott.

I checked the UFPJ website and it is true that they don't mention the
May 1 day of action. There is, however, plenty of press releases on the
immigration issue, including one blasting the recent INS raids. I am
sure there will be speakers on the immigration issue at the April 29th
rally in NYC. They might not have politics that you and I would endorse,
but I suspect they are some of the same people we were happy to see at
the great immigrant rights mobilizations.

Clearly the groups that make up UFPJ don't have agreement on May 1, so
that's why they don't bring it up. That's too bad, but that is the
political reality in the coalition at the moment.

Should we all then stop demonstrating against the Iraq war until UFPJ
corrects this situation?

I don't think so. 

Jon Flanders


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism