[Marxism] x versus x

Andrew Pollack acpollack2 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 30 08:33:26 MDT 2007

(no names in subject lines :)
  No harm, no foul, Greg.
  I thought at first also that you had missed the irony, but in reading  the rest of what you posted decided you either hadn't missed it or it  didn't matter. Because you made some great, insightful points.
  The AFL's statement IS narrowly focused on harm to "legals." There is  tactical advantage in this, just as there is in pointing out how new  documentation requirements for Medicare have screwed many citizens. But  it must be coupled with defense of the undocumented.
  The AFL HAS in the last couple years issued statements which defend all  workers more broadly, including mentioning the undocumented  specifically, especially when they've complained about how "guest  worker" programs are virtual slavery and inevitably and inherently  flawed.
  There is no doubt in my mind that part of the reason the AFL can take a  more progressive stand on flawed immigration proposals than Change to  Win is the desire of the building trades to limit immigration. But  that's not the only reason, and the building trades must occasionally  grit their teeth at the support expressed by the Federation for even  the undocumented.
  Anyway, sounds like you're doing great organizing work Greg, keep it up.
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 

More information about the Marxism mailing list