Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

>I've always wondered about this perceived issue. Chomsky alludes to it
>frequently too, but doesn't go into ramifications. What IF labor WERE as
>mobile as capital? What would happen? Would high-paid, unionized workers
>in First World countries chase after their jobs as they moved to
>Indonesia, taking work in shantytowns and favelas at $1/day? I think not.
>Or would low-paid, un-unionized Third World workers flock even more than
>they already do now to industrialized nations, further exacerbating the
>downward pressure on wages here? I think so. How then would one sell this
>to the workers of the First World? WHY would one want to do so? Anyone
>care to dispel my ignorance on the subject?

Fools step in where angels fear to tread, so I'm glad to oblige.

Perhaps this is a mystery to you because you imagine a socialist society is
just like a capitalist one, only with different rulers. Lenin took that
tack, but it is not MY idea of socialism.

Socialism does not seek to overthrow one ruling class to replace it with
another, as did the capitalist revolution, or the feudal revolution before
it. It ands class rule altogether, abolishing class divisions and the
apparatus of class rule - political government.

Political government is a necessary instrument of class rule, it is the
government of people. This is the means of ensuring that the few can live a
comfortable life at the expense of the many. If there is not the physical
means for ALL to live a comfortable life this may be historically necessary
in the name of progress.

Aristotle justified the privilege of the slave masters thus:

         "...if the weavers' shuttle were to weave themselves, then there
        would be no need either for apprentices for the master workers,
        or of slaves for the lords."

But these conditions are now met and no justifications exists for the slave
or the master. We now live in a time when the weavers shuttle DO "weave
themselves". Modern technology means there is no longer any need for
exploitation and poverty, unlike ancient times there is now the material
possibility for all to live decent lives, not just in the developed
countries, but throughout the world. The snag is that access to those
technologies, what we can loosely call the means of production, is  owned
and controlled by a tiny few who operate it, not to produce what people
need, but to make a profit. If there is no profit, production is simply
shut down, it doesn't matter that there are needs to be met and the ability
to supply those needs is readily available, it only matters that there is
no profit to be had.

Socialism is, in essence different from class rule in that it is the
government, not of people, but of production. There are some minor
differences amongst socialists about just HOW to organise production, but
in my opinion that is a question to be determined from time to time by the
democratic will. What socialism is NOT is government of people.

Because there is sufficiency and security for people, there is no need to
rule people, to tell us what to do or where we shall live.

So you can see that, under socialism, there is nothing to decide. There
would be no restrictions, because there would not only be no need for
restrictions, but no mechanism to impose restrictions, except of course the
possibility that no-one would choose or bother to manufacture and/or
operate the physical means of transport. I think this latter is unlikely.

Mass migration to escape economic deprivation depends, you will agree, on
there being economic deprivation. It is only a symptom. Capitalism is the
disease, moreover it is a disease which seeks, by suppressing freedom of
movement, to mask its own symptoms.
>
>Oh. One other thing. Every year the Wall Street Journal endorses a
>constitutional amendment that would read, "There shall be open borders."
>Are we on the WSJ's side on this one?

Lawrence Libby, wrote:

      > I believe it was you, Tresy Kilbourne, who said, "Also, as
      > Noam reminds his listeners, the truth value of a statement
      > does not depend on who's uttering it."

Hoisted on your own petard!

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tasmania