14th November Movement for Left Unity
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
No. Try actually replying to what I put. Use your brain.
It's inaccurate to describe people migrating in accordance to the demands of the globalised capitalist labour market as free, as it implies there's absolutely no pressure or coercion involved in any of these processes. It's downright dishonest, and a smear imo, to say that Spiney is against the "free" movement of human beings because he's against the current way in which immigration in a neo-liberal society takes place.
By all means let's build a society where people can choose where they want to live and work with total freedom, but don't mistake that goal for the current set up which is nothing of the sort. Where people are compelled to move to other countries even when they don't necessarily want to because of the demands the labour market imposes on them, demands which themselves exist because of entrenched global inequality.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
And so are you, just from the opposite direction with your pro-EU open borders anyone who disagrees is a racist (which is the obvious implication wrt treelover - who I also often disagree with but is most definitely no racist).
Didn't realised you had to be replying to me for me to be allowed to respond btw
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
so you agree with me - your only problem is the use of the word 'free'. But you want to create a fog to hide the fact that you actually support workers rights to go to whatever country they (are forced to) choose.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
I'll happily acknowledge that it's difficult to have conversations about immigration, and that some sectors of capital benefit from access to a freer labour market.
But, if you look closely what you'll find we have now is effectively open borders on capital's terms. There is no question whatsoever of this government or any future government cutting off British capital's access to a global labour market. The only effect that present border controls have is the harassment and marginalisation of the people caught up in the immigration process, and the creation of divisions. So what on Earth is the point of defending them? Particularly when the effect of a bigger labour market is pretty marginal compared to the various other forces that have degraded workers' rights and social service provision over the past few decades.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
I'd say that the intense competition for less and less resources is going to happen regardless, immigration is a pretty minor factor in it, and borders that are managed in the interests of capital are liable to make that competition more rather than less intense.
I agree that "open borders" as a policy is unattractive to many people in the current climate. That said, what do you expect LU (who I have little time for) to do? They're mainly internationalists and socialists, passing anything else would be pure populism.
Not only that, its acting as a pressure valve, many of the young people leaving southern Europe are the sort of people who in other circumstances would be agitating for social change in their own countries, etc.
btw, the open borders debate is a legitimate one and is being discussed on the L/U F/B page, if people are shouted down L/U will not grow.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I agree with all of that and I'm not defending them.
It's not my only problem, and I've had to say this three times now so I hope that should be enough, but it's the most dishonest thing you wrote.
Likewise the idea that because immigrants are "People who can make their own minds up" (who said otherwise btw?) they must somehow be exempt from the labour market, that's another thing. I can make my own mind up too, but it hasn't stopped me from being ruthlessly exploited in a number of shit jobs for the last few years, presumably that's ok then?
and you also claimed that "just cos at the moment it suits capital as well is irrelevant" which is unbelievably stupid, it's extremely relevant and the system has been deliberately set up in such a way as to bolster capitalism, to strengthen it and to weaken labour.
Your comparisons to "the football, the pub and work are all things done 'at the behest of capital' as well" I don't think are very helpful, as all human social interactions do not take place at the behest of capital (unless you're a total free market zealot) nor are they structured in a legalistic way to serve the interests of capital. You do not get arrested by the state for being in the wrong pub. You do not socialise purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties. This example certainly doesn't do anything to attempt to place the importance of the transnational labour market and the immigration system in this particular type of neo-liberal captialism into any sort of political context - it just reads as someone defending EU labour-market policy without even the slightest interest in what that policy is and what objectives the policy is designed to accomplish.
So there's 3, maybe 4, issues there alongside your dishonest usage of the term "free" and so hopefully you'll not require me to post again explaining this to you as it's already getting quite tedious and I'm boring myself.
And yes of course I would support workers the right to go whatever country they need to go to, I am very hesitant to advocate state backed immigration limits because you have to weigh all this against the fact free movement is a pretty fundamental human right, but I'm not going to end up slipping into this naive and apolitical defence of current EU immigration policy because I frankly don't support it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
who has given a 'naive and apolitical defence of current EU immigration policy'? If you are going to try to climb on your high horse over someone else's supposed dishonesty, making things up yourself isnt very bright.
The rest of your quote is just blather. you complain that ' You do not socialise purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties.' - which leaves the clear implication that migrants DO migrate 'purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties' - ie they are blind and simple automatons who do everything at the behest of capital.
So, it is in fact absolutely true that support for the principle of 'free' movement of labour is completely and utterly independent of whether capital currently wants free movement, or if it wants to limit movements. Hence the particular demands of capital at a specific point in time are irrelevant as to what our principles are.
That a discussion of migration doesnt cover every aspect of capitalism is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, but it doesnt alter the fundamentals.
ska invita
back on the other side
The way I understand it is the EU projects overall aim is to create an equal market across the zone (whether you believe this is possible or not is not the point). Free movement in the medium turn means lots of economic migration of the poorest looking to find work abroad. But at the other end of the spectrum theres is movement not for economic reason, such as Brits who can afford it going to Spain to retire. Not everyone is compelled Delroy.
But of course the policy was created with the intention that people would move for work in the way they are doing. It definitely has a negative effect on wage suppression in the UK, particularly in certain industries - but I agree with Belboid in as much as that the two positions here are not mutually exclusive, and have sometimes contradictory pros and cons. On balance for me the pros outweigh the cons.
A little anecdote: Ive driven across the East German Polish border with older Polish people who burst in to tears crossing the border with no stopping - they never thought such a thing would be possible in their lifetimes. Living on this island gives a different perspective to that of the mainland I think.
Good point, and as you say deepening austerity policies and pressure from the right really turn this into a cauldron of shit. Someone was telling me about a new UK law which means even your spouse cant come to the UK unless they are earning some high threshold of money (id like to find out more about that)
ska invita
back on the other side
true in theory but in practice Spain and Greece not to mention other countries have plenty agitation going on despite the freedom of movement.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
<doh, misread your post>
That isn't the fault of LU, the media attention. It's a small but good thing.
I do think LU should stand some candidates in the EU elections though. Momentum etc...
As for open borders an immigration: there are left wing points to put about immigration and it can be done without alienating everyone.
Immigration barely brings down wages (1-3pc avg) and when it does the effect is temporary, it often affects the poorest - who should be specifically helped out - and those are often other immigrants, wage suppression is more about the 35 year old deliberate move to create spare capacity in the labour market and is very often industry specific. Wages are also being hit by the biggest economic down turn since (take your pick) 1929 to 1945...
There is a thread on this with links, not difficult to find `Immigration a socialist viewpoint`.
As for today, now, what is anyone suggesting? That Spanish/Italian kids kick back and relax rather than move to London/Munich/Berlin to find work?
Last edited:
You did and continue to.
Migrants do migrate to provide capital with a cheap source of labour that can be used to produced commodities. That's the driving force behind mass immigration - economics. Global inequality. Money. Do you dispute this? Which is why I said to in the very first post - people don't migrate to England for the weather and the food, they do it for good wages, even if they hate the place and would rather be with their families. There's a huge degree of coercion involved that you've overlooked (presumably because you're ok with it)
The Joads didn't jump on the back of an old jalopy in the Grapes of Wrath because they wanted a holiday in California, they were compelled to by the economic system.
Four different times I've had to explain this.
Nope, I never said anything of the sort. I believe they are fully self-aware and intelligent rational human beings who migrate overwhelmingly for rational economic reasons, as a response to labour market pressures and imperatives. Now that sort of racist disgusting condescending attitude towards immigrants might be what you believe, but it's not what I believe, and they're certainly not the sort of terms I'd use to describe immigrants with, so please don't falsely draw those sorts of conclusions from what I've put, don't put those words that I've never used at any point in the discussion in my mouth, and once again please try to respond to things i've actually said rather than things you've maliciously insinuated.
What I'm saying is you have to measure and weigh the right of people to travel with the cold hard reality of the sort of labour market that exists within global capitalism, what interests that labour market serves, and what that labour market is based on. That's what I'm saying, it's not complicated, and you're either a very stupid person who needs things explaining 3 or 4 times before they sink in or you're deliberately on the windup. Or maybe deep down you're just a liberal who's perfectly at ease with neo-liberalism when push comes to shove?
The recognition that in a capitalist society mass immigrations exists for certain purposes, and that in this context it's by no means a progressive let alone socialist policy, and that actually mass immigration is itself a product of huge global inequality of wealth that compells people to travel and in many cases suffer horrendously as a result, and therefore shouldn't be celebrated as some sort of fantastic human right when it's way, way more complicated than that, these are all things that have gone flying over your head.
The task is to create a society where it's no longer necessary for people to do that on a large scale, and where migration can then be what it should always have been, which is people choosing to move somewhere not because they have to but because they want to, not because they're coerced by the market but because they're in a position of power over their own lives. I hate to break it to you y'know but it was a matter of people's free choice, and nothing at all to do with the labour market and economic necessity, I don't think hundreds of thousands of people would coming to fucking Britain of all places!
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you haven't had to explain it once, I immediately agreed with the bast majority of it. Its an absolute basic. But it is not the be all and end all.
It is, tho overly simplistic - people migrate to specific places for all sorts of reasons. Economic ones are primary, but not the only ones. If you say they are the only causes, you are, I'm afraid, treating people like simple cattle.
All your long winded blather seems to be is a way of avoiding giving a straight clear answer to the question - what immigration controls do you support? Saying 'I want a socialist society' is not an answer.
I haven't read anyone else's posts on the matter but here are my thoughts anyway 
The left has to tackle the issue of migration as a whole - not immigration, not "open borders" or free movement or closed borders and certainly not " immigration and the working class " as a single subject.
We have to recognise that migration exists on a mass scale and is probably only going to increase due to technological change and economic and ecological pressures, and we have to be honest and talk about the positive and negative impacts of mass migration whether it is Filipino nurses leaving a skills shortage in their home country to plug one cheaply here, or Eastern European workers being exploited in the agricultural industry ( and adding to downwards pressure on wages) or British migrants in Spain moving into new towns and villages and placing strain on water supplies.
We have to talk about how migrants contribute to the running of our public services, but also the pressures they bring on school places and housing.
And we have to provide practical solutions in the here and now to dealing with these issues, at the same time as promoting working class solidarity between and across communities.
We also have an equally immediate task to counter the constant stream of negative stories about immigrants as a group; not with statistics but with positive, human stories about people.
By dealing with migration as a subject we can challenge the 'othering' of immigrants and create a more cohesive narrative of migration.
Having abstract demands for 'no borders' doesn't address the real problems and does not create class unity.
I would go further as well and say that in any imaginary post revolutionary utopia I wouldn't want to see open borders or freedom of movement per se but instead freedom of association combined with community control of resources.
The left has to tackle the issue of migration as a whole - not immigration, not "open borders" or free movement or closed borders and certainly not " immigration and the working class " as a single subject.
We have to recognise that migration exists on a mass scale and is probably only going to increase due to technological change and economic and ecological pressures, and we have to be honest and talk about the positive and negative impacts of mass migration whether it is Filipino nurses leaving a skills shortage in their home country to plug one cheaply here, or Eastern European workers being exploited in the agricultural industry ( and adding to downwards pressure on wages) or British migrants in Spain moving into new towns and villages and placing strain on water supplies.
We have to talk about how migrants contribute to the running of our public services, but also the pressures they bring on school places and housing.
And we have to provide practical solutions in the here and now to dealing with these issues, at the same time as promoting working class solidarity between and across communities.
We also have an equally immediate task to counter the constant stream of negative stories about immigrants as a group; not with statistics but with positive, human stories about people.
By dealing with migration as a subject we can challenge the 'othering' of immigrants and create a more cohesive narrative of migration.
Having abstract demands for 'no borders' doesn't address the real problems and does not create class unity.
I would go further as well and say that in any imaginary post revolutionary utopia I wouldn't want to see open borders or freedom of movement per se but instead freedom of association combined with community control of resources.
Migrants do migrate to provide capital with a cheap source of labour that can be used to produced commodities. That's the driving force behind mass immigration - economics. Global inequality. Money. Do you dispute this?
Yes. You do not need migration to do this. Spare capacity in different labour markets exist for many different reasons. It started in earnest in 1979 and was "a price well worth paying." Immigrants do not set wage levels. Employers set wage levels.
Which is why I said to in the very first post - people don't migrate to England for the weather and the food, they do it for good wages, even if they hate the place and would rather be with their families.
Wrong. They do it because there is work. Not for the wage levels, over which they have zero control. People migrate to places where there is work and if there is a half decent education and health system as well, great. Two million Ukrainians in Poland for example.
There's a huge degree of coercion involved that you've overlooked (presumably because you're ok with it)
Certainly when there are no jobs in Spain, Italy, Poland that is a form of coercion. But would you rather they stayed there and chilled out?
If you want to end large scale movements of people within the EU the best thing is to sort out the basket case southern economies. Ditto from outside the EU as well...
Yes. You do not need migration to do this. Spare capacity in different labour markets exist for many different reasons. It started in earnest in 1979 and was "a price well worth paying." Immigrants do not set wage levels. Employers set wage levels.
Which is why I said to in the very first post - people don't migrate to England for the weather and the food, they do it for good wages, even if they hate the place and would rather be with their families.
Wrong. They do it because there is work. Not for the wage levels, over which they have zero control. People migrate to places where there is work and if there is a half decent education and health system as well, great. Two million Ukrainians in Poland for example.
There's a huge degree of coercion involved that you've overlooked (presumably because you're ok with it)
Certainly when there are no jobs in Spain, Italy, Poland that is a form of coercion. But would you rather they stayed there and chilled out?
If you want to end large scale movements of people within the EU the best thing is to sort out the basket case southern economies. Ditto from outside the EU as well...
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
It's £18,000 a year or £52,500 in savings. These requirements have caused a lot of misery for a lot of people http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/uk-australia-spouse-visa
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
agreed. You need to be arguing for strong workers organisations in the 'receiving' country to fight against attempts to use migrants to drive down labour costs, for example. You need to argue for a programme of mass house building. etc etc (as you pretty much say)
it's actually debatable whether that has happened - mostly the lack of nurses in the phillipines seems to be down to the government not paying for them rather than a lack of supply (nursing colleges are now cutting places because of graduate unemployment levels)
oooh - careful now, that's a little bit intersectionalist.
I'd agree that it is a policy you don't immediately go out and proclaim from the rooftops, rather like the demand for a workers militia, but when asked directly 'what immigration controls do you support?' you have to give the answer 'none'
there wont be nations in a post revolutionary utopia, so there'll be no borders by default.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Does acknowledging the undeniable fact that immigration is used by capital to advance its interests and that EU migration policy is a major part of this necessarily mean you have to be in favour of immigration controls? I don't think it does.
But what I do think is important is that we differentiate between economically coerced migration and genuine freedom of movement. If we allow the liberals to set the terms of the debate - by agreeing that EU policy represents freedom of movement - when a hell of a lot of people only experience, or perceive, the negative side of this, then all you're doing is making it harder to make the case for genuine freedom of movement.
And I think that when either you or ska invita (can't remember which one of you it was) suggests lowering of wages is an incidental by-product of EU migration policy, I think you've got the cart before the horse. The freedom for British pensioners to move to Spain is an incidental by product of a policy designed to empower capital and increase profits by lowering wages.
I'm not in favour of any state restrictions on movement of labour under capitalism - they'd be formulated in such a way as to perpetuate the race to the bottom. But nor do I think economic migration is an unambiguous social good. I think we should be honest that it's not great for any workers as it stands but that the only way to change that is to organise migrant and local labour - and organise internationally - rather than request from the capitalist state some imaginary magic bullet migration policy (ie migration controls) that will solve any or all these problems.
Only it seems to me that we only discuss migration in a context in which it doesn't matter that much - where we all agree that it's gonna be used as a tool of capital however it's managed. What we don't discuss is what we'd do if we were in a position to define policy so that it advances the interests of the working class rather than capital.
It doesn;t really matter what migration policy me, you or Delroy may or may not support because a) we're an irrelevance and b) whatever form it takes it's gonna be used by capital in one way or another to facilitate a race to the bottom - whether it's no movement at all or open borders. So let me flip it on its head - suspend disbelief for a second and imagine me you and Delroy are relevant - that after a protracted period of class struggle we've got into a position where we can elect a socialist government that has the necessary real social backing from the working class. What migration policy would you then support, assuming socialism didn't magically arise everywhere at once?
Edit: Only we're not going to go from neoliberal capitalism to post-revolutionary utopia over night. If it happens (and my faith in this has almost disappeared I'm sorry to say) there will be non-utopias run along broadly socialist lines for a while and this will be uneven - they will coexist with capitalist states and institutions elsewhere. So this answer is more of a cop out than what you're accusing Delroy of:
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
of course it doesn't. My point was simply that the current requirements of capital do not lead to a change in what is, or should be, a principle.
is this during or after the inevitable civil war?
If we're talking of some fictional far-left reformist government that hadn't yet brought about the full revolution (and thus will be doomed anyway...) then I'm for no immigration controls and raft of laws that ensure migrants cant just be brought over to lower wages etc.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Utter nonsense. Employers aren't free to set whatever wage levels tehy want. The working class has agency. They can only set them at a rate people will expect. So they want 'spare capacity in labour markets'. If this spare capacity is domestic you have to support it - keep it alive with benefits etc. If it's in Greece or Eastern Europe you don't - you can just advertise for them to come when they're needed.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
How's about you take other peoples posts as seriously as you want others to take yours?
I'm not talking about a left reformist government that hasn't yet brought about the full revolution (governments don't bring about the revolutions, the working class does) I'm talking about a socialist government brought to power off the back of a working class revolution.
The transition to socialism probably won't ever happen. I'm coming closer to the lletsa thesis every day - I think we're probably fucked.
But it definitely won't happen everywhere at once. What are you going to do about that? A socialist society would, I'd hope, provide a good minimum standard of living for everyone in that society. That would be attractive to everyone in the world at the shitty end of the stick. If they all came we'd not be able to provide that minimum - like it or not resources aren;t super-abundant - and it would collapse. I'd rather we restricted migration according to limits dictated by resources and obviously would have a very liberal (small l) asylum policy and the way we'd help the world;s poor would be by assisting them in struggles in their own countries, so we could get world socialism.
Also how would this 'raft of laws that ensure migrants cant just be brought over to lower wages' differ from migration controls?
I admit this is a meaningless abstract discussion though and apologise for starting it
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
thanks...a terrible situation
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
because they're laws which affect all people, around such things as the basic minimum rates of pay, removing the reasons why capital would want to bring migrants over.
If we're talking about a socialist society (your talk of it being elected confuses things - elected or brought in by revolution?), then it does all depend. Saying there might well be a war like situation is quite possible, uk blockaded by foreign powers etc. In which case its them effectively imposing border controls. But if, by some bizarre turn of events, every other country goes 'oh well, lets seew what happens there', then, yup, no immigration controls.
Last edited:
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yeah agree I wasn't clear on that - clarified here:
I think I agree to an extent but sorry, I edited since while you were posting that reply - what's your take on this bit?
I admit this is a meaningless abstract discussion though and apologise for starting it
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
it's barely any more abstract than the idea of their being a Left Unity government that could inititate the policies tht kicked this discussion off!I think I agree to an extent but sorry, I edited since while you were posting that reply - what's your take on this bit?
I admit this is a meaningless abstract discussion though and apologise for starting it
As for the main bit, mmm... it really is quite hard to say really, because of the multitude of factors to take into account. How many people have fled the country? Some of them would have been doing necessary work, so they'd need replacing. An immediate house building programme - are their enough decent builders in the UK any more, considering how the industry has been fucked over? I don't know. Would people be flocking here? I'm not so sure.
For sure, the key task will be to support struggles around the world so that there isn't only one socialist country. Beyond that, I refer you back to my previous 'mmm'
No you're wrong. Employers set wages. They can even set them so low the state has to top them up. Why not read some of the many reports written on the impact of immigration on wages. It isn't that hard.
I mean. Who is lowering wages in Spain? Who is lowering wages in Greece? Who is lowering wages in France? Immigration?
Try reading some of this below - and many other studies - instead of bouncing basic nationalist rhetoric around about wages and immigration.
Focusing on the period 1997-2005 when the UK experienced significant labour immigration (see our briefing
‘Migrants in the Labour Market’), Dustmann, Frattini and Preston (2013) find that an increase in the number of
migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in an increase in average wages of
0.1 to 0.3%. Another study, for the period 2000-2007, found that a 1% increase in the share of migrants in the
UK’s working-age population lowers the average wage by 0.3% (Reed and Latorre 2009). These studies, which
relate to different time periods, thus reach opposing conclusions but they agree that the effects of immigration on
averages wages are relatively small.
The effects of immigration on workers within specific wage ranges or in specific occupations are more significant.
The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in
the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest
paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage
effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector,
a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).
The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for
resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer
substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda,
Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased
immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ng - Labour Market Effects of Immigration.pdf
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Similar threads
