Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Can Controls STOP DEREGULATION?

vngelis | 02.09.2002 23:17

Controls Vs Globalisation

The globalist left when confronted with issues of workers control always argue for more globalisatoin not less. Take a case in point. If workers complain against an influx of immigrants they immediately brand them with the label racist. As if a complaint of this nature is
racist by just being aired.
When confronted with issues like people from different countries taking up posts in another countries qualifications, expereience is all considered the same and if questions arise they are immediately
branded as racist. As if there is no difference between third world educational systmes and first world ones as if there is no difference between Haravard and San Salvador University.

The globalist left doesn't believe in generalised well being but mass immiserisation. If there are 1 billion unemployed globally and the socialist movement had the slogan 'less work work for all' the globalist left has replaced this ideal with work for 5 seconds to
ensure everyone has a job, and live on a peanut a day. By arguing for the deregulation of labour, the dregulation of any government controls on education, on standards on parity with the lowest common
denominator the globalist left has set its ideal on a future which is attempting to introduce 19th century labor regimes with 21st century computerisation.

Thus whilst arguing that open borders is progressive and workers should move anyhwere for a job when they know full well there are not enough jobs to go round, they are basicallay arguing for global scabbing. they are telling workers mass outside workplaces in as big numbers as possible and demand work from the bosses, not by unionising
yourselves but by prostitituting yourselves for the lowest possible wage for the most amount of work, up until a new influx of hungry workers replaces the other ones.

Communism never was the ideal of the globalisation of immiserisation, but the advancement of society for the well being of all, not the destitution of the many. The globalist left want to replace the working classes of each country with a deregulated version of the current marketplace where products are made not for need but for
profit, and where workers are replaced at will by bosses whose only motive is the bottom line.

Workers control of production for the current globalist left is anathema to the globalist left like workers democracy was to the stalinist left of yesteryear. Both sought in their respective eras to
save ailing imperialism by lowering labour standards so as to save the declining rate of profit.

The s0-called Clinton 'boom' was based on an influx of millions of immigrants who are now working for less than their predecessors more than 2 decades ago. The declining rate of profit also leads to the
declining rate of wages and a declining base of customers for products produced. The globalist left doesnt seek to overthrow capitalism, but argues for even more globalisation,with the slogan for open borders.

Globalisation and open borders are the twin pillars of imperialism in its death agony just as they were in Hitlers eras, where fascism imported millions of slave labourers and imprisoned millions of its
own labourers. The USA today is adopting totalitarianism as its way of solving the unsolvable crisis of capitalism (hence its imprisonment of millions of people and the importation of millions of new immigrants).
By seeking to lower wages to zero it will then be obliged to make people work for free so as to sustain a regime where the richest 5% control over 40% of the wealth in the USA.

vngelis

Comments

Display the following comment

  1. nice article, wrong place — charlie