Far-right response to Southport Outrage And Ongoing Violent Disorder

[mojo pixy]

I didn't want to patronise but I think posters should be free to use mockery and ridicule in their posts. There's too much literalism on these boards sometimes.

Suggesting it's OK to use disparaging nicknames or insults or racial slurs, if it's for ridiculing someone's imagined attitude. Just posh people, or is anyone game? I can definitely see that being applied and tolerated even-handedly here

The thing about taking posts literally in terms of the words being posted, is that those are all we have. I know some people are looser with words than others but this is a public forum where all kinds of people read, and choice of words matters more than in person where there's pitch and tone, body language and facial expression etc. At the end of the day we do choose the words we use (or even whether to) and I think it's fair to take posts as they are. There's always room for more posts to explain or challenge, wtf are we even here for?

 

[brogdale]

I thought the obliviousness of the "list" was even simpler than that, TBH. That some people claim immigrants aren't taking ordinary people's jobs, and then they list a load of people working in ordinary people's jobs.

So, are you suggesting that the poster who described that position as oblivious believes that immigrants take ordinary people's jobs?

If so, that is reductive and, IMO, economically illiterate. The reason that the main parties, who govern in the interests of globalised capital, promote immigration is to accelerate anti-worker supply side reforms, maintain downward pressure on wages, substitute for investment and promote economic growth.

To imply simply that immigrants take ordinary people's jobs is framing neoliberal political economy on the sort of level offered by the fash.

 

[maomao]

Suggesting it's OK to use disparaging nicknames or insults or racial slurs, if it's for ridiculing someone's imagined attitude. Just posh people, or is anyone game? I can definitely see that being applied and tolerated even-handedly here

[/QUOTE]

I think it's a fine line. I previously complained about a swathe of racist abuse being presented as satire here and the consensus was that it was fine but that could have been a year or two before the world changed in that respect. I thought the use of archaic language made the writer's meaning clear in this case.

The thing about taking posts literally in terms of the words being posted, is that those are all we have. I know some people are looser with words than others but this is a public forum where all kinds of people read, and choice of words matters more than in person where there's pitch and tone, body language and facial expression etc. At the end of the day we do choose the words we use (or even whether to) and I think it's fair to take posts as they are. There's always room for more posts to explain or challenge, wtf are we even here for?

Disagree completely, otherwise we might as well just follow The Sun's style guide. Figurative language and obscurantism should be encouraged. Nothing makes my heart sink more on these boards than when someone uses the word murder in a non-literal sense and is rounded on by a gaggle of dullards accusing them of hyperbole as if it were a bad thing.

 

[scifisam]

So, are you suggesting that the poster who described that position as oblivious believes that immigrants take ordinary people's jobs?

If so, that is reductive and, IMO, economically illiterate. The reason that the main parties, who govern in the interests of globalised capital, promote immigration is to accelerate anti-worker supply side reforms, maintain downward pressure on wages, substitute for investment and promote economic growth.

To imply simply that immigrants take ordinary people's jobs is framing neoliberal political economy on the sort of level offered by the fash.

I don't know what they believe personally. I believe, myself that competition for jobs in some fields, especially the ones the Islington resident posted, is higher when more qualified people are applying for the same job. This is not to blame the immigrants themselves or even immigration in general, and it's not denying that it's far more complicated than "immugrunts tekking are jobs."

And I'm not sure what to do about it, but I don't think that point-blank denying it happens is helpful, nor is claiming that it's because British people don't want those jobs. And many people do make those claims. They are demonstrating economic illiteracy when they claim that. That is 100% not on the same level as trying to burn down hotels full of vulnerable people, but I don't think anyone claimed it was.

 

[Epona]

If there are better qualified immigrants who can be employed for such jobs then employ them, and less qualified people who have supposedly been displaced can go and do fruit picking or train to get a construction site safety certification.

I'd rather have the best person possible looking after my health concerns than stuck in some sort of immigration camp/bibby stockholm etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

Decent article, though I'm not sure why the author is still a Labour councillor.

Surely not for much longer

 

[brogdale]

I don't know what they believe personally. I believe, myself that competition for jobs in some fields, especially the ones the Islington resident posted, is higher when more qualified people are applying for the same job. This is not to blame the immigrants themselves or even immigration in general, and it's not denying that it's far more complicated than "immugrunts tekking are jobs."

And I'm not sure what to do about it, but I don't think that point-blank denying it happens is helpful, nor is claiming that it's because British people don't want those jobs. And many people do make those claims. They are demonstrating economic illiteracy when they claim that. That is 100% not on the same level as trying to burn down hotels full of vulnerable people, but I don't think anyone claimed it was.

So you think immigration causes ‘indigenous’ unemployment?

 

[scifisam]

So you think immigration causes ‘indigenous’ unemployment?

Not what I said. Especially with the scare quotes there, if you read my full post rather than making assumptions.

 

[Gramsci]

Richard Seymour's article on the rightwing riots is a good read, pacy punchy and at times inciteful. However when it abruptly stops with the conclusion

"The hypertrophic excitement of the pogromists, and their manifest enthralment at the idea of annihilation, gives them something to do about it. It is their alternative to the pervasive affects of paralysis and depression, in a dying civilization."

It actually generates more questions than answers and then imo when re reading the article creates doubt as to why he omits any real attempts at a materialist account of causation. It's a pity because had he accepted that challenge it would have been an enthralling read. As it is we are left to ponder not only what comes next in this 'dying civilisation' but whether this description 'dying civilisation' is UK centric or if we tweak the 'whiteness' aspect whether we can apply some of what he is saying about ethnonationalist thinking on a more global basis .

Richard Seymour, Dreaming of Downfall — Sidecar

Riots in the UK.

newleftreview.org

edit There is a reply to the article in the Sidecar section of NLR.

Haven't read the reply yet.

I read him as saying that whilst the racist violent disorder took place in deprived areas there was support for some of it. Even if not for the actual violence. So he's saying this did not come out of no where. And the passive support contains sections of middle class.
So a purely class look at it is not enough.

It's a protest of those who fear what ending of a bordered ethnic state will bring. Ending up losing themselves in an undifferentiated mass of humanity.

What comes next is perhaps what optimistically someone like Paul Gilroy says about hybrid cultures. For some its an existential threat for others not. Its what I think I was getting at in my previous post.( 4349) But agree he is pessimistically not saying anything on that. That's the global aspect.

It reminds me of some of the anti vax people I know. Who believe " they" want to control us.

He makes good point I thought that Fascism in 1930s had an expansive "positive" programme. Now the new far right are purely defensive. Wanting to defend a bordered state. Its negative. That is where the paralysis and depression comes in. What Gilroy calls the melancholia over loss of Empire.

He's also saying that rational actions to stop it will not work. Example is even when the killer of the children was identified the far right violence still happened.

He is correct imo that the right wing and mainstream media praise for those who came out to demonstrate against far right is superficial.

 

[brogdale]

Not what I said. Especially with the scare quotes there, if you read my full post rather than making assumptions.

Fair enough, but you have said that, in some sectors, immigrants are doing jobs formerly undertaken by “British people”? And that it’s unhelpful to deny that?

So, as net migration has added millions to the UK population over the last 20 years, has this caused higher rates of unemployment?

 

[Dogsauce]

Islington has some of the biggest wealth disparities in the country which means you find both the very rich and the very poor there. More so even than when you were young.

It’s nothing like the North though. I’ve lived in both, and amenity wise, especially for kids, it’s world’s apart. They even have play parks with staff. In Leeds within a mile of my house there was one playpark for kids on the wrong side of a dual carriageway and everything was broken and shit, rusted climbing frame, knackered swings etc. Within a mile of where I lived in Angel there were over a dozen well maintained parks, plus several children’s centres with stay and play etc.

London does have huge wealth disparities but in the ‘better’ areas even the poor get more than elsewhere in the country. And don’t even get me started on Transport. This is way off topic perhaps, but there a huge disparities between regions of this country despite individual circumstances being dire for some people almost everywhere. And it is kind of relevant to the tensions people feel, the unfairness. Society works this way by design - the numerous central London parks (and other infrastructure) are funded from Section 106 money from new developments which are everywhere in London, other cities lag behind in building and have fewer high value schemes so less money going into the pot for local authorities to spend. Maybe if this money was pooled nationally and shared more equally it would be fairer.

 

[scifisam]

Fair enough, but you have said that, in some sectors, immigrants are doing jobs formerly undertaken by “British people”? And that it’s unhelpful to deny that?

So, as net migration has added millions to the UK population over the last 20 years, has this caused higher rates of unemployment?

I'm saying that competition for some jobs is harder with a workforce where there are more people and some are more experienced. Bit weird to claim that's wrong, TBH.

And now you're trying to make up things I haven't said.

I am in favour of immigration. I am 100% against the rioting and general abuse of immigrants, their descendants, and people perceived as immigrants. I don't think immigration has the same impact on all workers in all sectors, and from what you've said you don't even disagree with that, so I'm not sure why you're pursuing this line of argument, TBH.

 

[mojo pixy]

Nothing makes my heart sink more on these boards than when someone uses the word murder in a non-literal sense and is rounded on by a gaggle of dullards accusing them of hyperbole as if it were a bad thing.

Blimey if that's your sinkiest heart moment around here I envy you.

 

[ska invita]

Are we think dodgy?

 

[scifisam]

It’s nothing like the North though. I’ve lived in both, and amenity wise, especially for kids, it’s world’s apart. They even have play parks with staff. In Leeds within a mile of my house there was one playpark for kids on the wrong side of a dual carriageway and everything was broken and shit, rusted climbing frame, knackered swings etc. Within a mile of where I lived in Angel there were over a dozen well maintained parks, plus several children’s centres with stay and play etc.

London does have huge wealth disparities but in the ‘better’ areas even the poor get more than elsewhere in the country. And don’t even get me started on Transport. This is way off topic perhaps, but there a huge disparities between regions of this country despite individual circumstances being dire for some people almost everywhere. And it is kind of relevant to the tensions people feel, the unfairness. Society works this way by design - the numerous central London parks (and other infrastructure) are funded from Section 106 money from new developments which are everywhere in London, other cities lag behind in building and have fewer high value schemes so less money going into the pot for local authorities to spend. Maybe if this money was pooled nationally and shared more equally it would be fairer.

Yeah - sometimes I have to sorta "check my privilege" in London. Like, I assumed that adventure playgrounds were a common thing nationwide, and it turns out they're mainly a London thing. Had to be corrected on that on here. With the massive exception of housing costs, in some ways it is easier to be poor in London than outside it.

But housing is a pretty massive exception - if you don't have social housing or bought a home when they were cheap then you're a bit fucked. All of my daughter's best friends from school have now moved out of London because they couldn't manage the thousands needed to just move into a room in a house share. That's one of the reasons reallocating the money from housing developments in London to other areas of the country does not feel like a good idea. Central govt should fund more parks, adventure playgrounds, etc, but not by means of money that is specifically about a local area.

Sure Start centres appear to have been closed down in a lot of smaller towns, or just harder to get to without public transport. They are genuinely very useful - the ones near me are absolutely used by everyone. If a local council can't afford to fund them, then the local council's budget should be increased. Fucking Tories hate local councils, though, even Tory ones.

(Also the parks get their funding in lots of different ways, not just that. Some of that is probably easier to get in London though).

 

[Edie]

They're not random insults though, they're specifically derogatory terms used during the British Empire. She's accusing the Baroness of holding colonial attitudes towards ethnic minorities who she only acknowledges when they are in positions of service to her.

(apols if my reading incorrect Edie)

This.

brogdale The problem I was referring to was empire. Immigration to suit the wealthy with no heed to either the immigrants or the established population in working class areas.

Immigration, what controls are needed or appropriate and how to enforce them is complicated. I don’t believe in open borders. I recognise the importance (economically, socially, and culturally) of some immigration.

But the benefits and challenges of immigration are not spread equally. And to blindly insist they are and anyone who says different is racist is part of the lefts problem.

In many ways multicultural Britain is a resounding success story. That’s a testament to the working class. Not to Baroness Islington who expects a pat on the back for being served by a Pokémon collection of nationalities (apart from the black kid whose just black of course).

Staff in M&S/Waitrose: very varied.

It’s satire (except it’s not) and laughters a legitimate response. I laughed.

 

[brogdale]

This.

brogdale The problem I was referring to was empire. Immigration to suit the wealthy with no heed to either the immigrants or the established population in working class areas.

Immigration, what controls are needed or appropriate and how to enforce them is complicated. I don’t believe in open borders. I recognise the importance (economically, socially, and culturally) of some immigration.

But the benefits and challenges of immigration are not spread equally. And to blindly insist they are and anyone who says different is racist is part of the lefts problem.

In many ways multicultural Britain is a resounding success story. That’s a testament to the working class. Not to Baroness Islington who expects a pat on the back for being served by a Pokémon collection of nationalities (apart from the black kid whose just black of course).

Staff in M&S/Waitrose: very varied.

It’s satire (except it’s not) and laughters a legitimate response. I laughed.

OK, that’s a bit clearer; but I still don’t see why you’re surprised that a member of the political elite would default to her perceived benefits of immigration or why you thought that tactic an oblivious or acceptable side of the problem?

Of course capital’s political wing won’t come clean about why they really support high net in-migration. Or that any “challenges” of that demographic change always fall on the working class whatever their ethnicity or origin.

 

[Gramsci]

Example of this member of British elite spending her time trying to make it easier for asylum seekers to get here.

She's so out of touch

The UK must be a place of sanctuary for refugees

My Bill would enable child refugees to bring their parents and siblings to join them in the UK, as well as allowing adult refugees to be joined by ...

www.politicshome.com

Obviously looking for servants

I looked her up and she's a LD. Got made a Baroness. Seems to come from an average background. Not a member of the aristocracy

 

[cesare]

Example of this member of British elite spending her time trying to make it easier for asylum seekers to get here.

She's so out of touch

The UK must be a place of sanctuary for refugees

My Bill would enable child refugees to bring their parents and siblings to join them in the UK, as well as allowing adult refugees to be joined by ...

www.politicshome.com

Obviously looking for servants

I looked her up and she's a LD. Got made a Baroness. Seems to come from an average background. Not a member of the aristocracy

Yeah I think I picked up on this Baroness person from the.last few pages/dispute on this thread.

That sounds a bit snippy in retrospect but ffs

 

[Gramsci]

Yeah I think I picked up on this Baroness person from the.last few pages/dispute on this thread.

Thought id look her up. Seems decent enough person to me.

I was being sarcastic. As apparently not being to literal makes urban a better place

 

[cesare]

Thought id look her up. Seems decent enough person to me.

I did the same. Bloody libdem - says strong woman stuff but also GC. Also horrible sounding elitist which is probably why she was picked up in the first place. If she was younger she'd probably have added nanny and/or au pair to her list. No idea why cleaner and or carer got omitted.

 

[cesare]

Thought id look her up. Seems decent enough person to me.

I was being sarcastic. As apparently not being to literal makes urban a better place

Sorry I.missed the sarcasm.

 

[The39thStep]

So, are you suggesting that the poster who described that position as oblivious believes that immigrants take ordinary people's jobs?

If so, that is reductive and, IMO, economically illiterate. The reason that the main parties, who govern in the interests of globalised capital, promote immigration is to accelerate anti-worker supply side reforms, maintain downward pressure on wages, substitute for investment and promote economic growth.

To imply simply that immigrants take ordinary people's jobs is framing neoliberal political economy on the sort of level offered by the fash.

It might be helpful is you could provide some examples on how immigration accelerates attacks on labour rights, its impact on wage stagnation, and 'promote economic growth'. I think I am clear on the substitute for investment ie importing skilled labour without adequately investing in a domestic skills and development programme for example nursing.

 

[brogdale]

It might be helpful is you could provide some examples on how immigration accelerates attacks on labour rights, its impact on wage stagnation, and 'promote economic growth'. I think I am clear on the substitute for investment ie importing skilled labour without adequately investing in a domestic skills and development programme for example nursing.

I could look up economic studies of statistical correlation for you that show/"prove" these points but, equally, I could almost certainly find more that demonstrated the exact opposite. This is, after all, economics.

Unsurprisingly then, most attempts to overview such macro-economic studies come out on the side of immigration not having profound impacts on aggregate wage levels. The cynic in me suggests that, of course they would, if they expect to retain research funding from the neoliberal state.

The more focused studies do tend to examine the negative wage impacts of immigration in certain sectors of employment, particularly those where much of the labour cost falls on the neoliberal state via it's out-sourced neoliberal corporations, care being a well known example.

Without providing you with the examples you really wanted I would, in response, pose the question that, if these macro-economic outcomes were not the reasons why neoliberal states effected high rates of net in-migration, why would they do that? I think we know it's not out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[ska invita]

The fact we're now talking about immigration is a win for the fascists

 

[brogdale]

I do, though, feel it is important to challenge any nationalist/far-right narratives that exploit the notion that "immigrants take our jobs". This fundamental economic fallacy (the lump of labour fallacy) is notoriously sticky as it is very easy for racists to understand when they see immigrants working around them, but it is an example of profound economic illiteracy.

In other words, immigration may increase competition for existing jobs in certain occupational sectors, but it can also create new jobs. This is because there is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy (the so-called “lump of labour fallacy”). As a result, it is not obvious from theory alone whether migration will have a positive or negative impact on the job prospects of existing workers in the labour market—or no effect at all. To understand the impacts in practice, we need to look at statistical studies.

source

 

[Orang Utan]

Suggesting it's OK to use disparaging nicknames or insults or racial slurs, if it's for ridiculing someone's imagined attitude. Just posh people, or is anyone game? I can definitely see that being applied and tolerated even-handedly here

The thing about taking posts literally in terms of the words being posted, is that those are all we have. I know some people are looser with words than others but this is a public forum where all kinds of people read, and choice of words matters more than in person where there's pitch and tone, body language and facial expression etc. At the end of the day we do choose the words we use (or even whether to) and I think it's fair to take posts as they are. There's always room for more posts to explain or challenge, wtf are we even here for?

You appear to be the sole person who misunderstood the intent behind the words that you objected to. Might be worth reflecting on that.

 

[mojo pixy]

You appear to be the sole person who misunderstood the intent behind the words that you objected to. Might be worth reflecting on that.

Not really, it was yesterday now it's today and you've jumped in to rub some salt on. I didn't 'misunderstand', I (and I wasn't alone but it's interesting you'd say that so as to marginalise and other me for your pals) called out some accidentally-revealed class prejudice, and I'll do it again

 

[ElizabethofYork]

The fact we're now talking about immigration is a win for the fascists

What?

 

[Pickman's model]

Suggesting it's OK to use disparaging nicknames or insults or racial slurs, if it's for ridiculing someone's imagined attitude. Just posh people, or is anyone game? I can definitely see that being applied and tolerated even-handedly here

The thing about taking posts literally in terms of the words being posted, is that those are all we have. I know some people are looser with words than others but this is a public forum where all kinds of people read, and choice of words matters more than in person where there's pitch and tone, body language and facial expression etc. At the end of the day we do choose the words we use (or even whether to) and I think it's fair to take posts as they are. There's always room for more posts to explain or challenge, wtf are we even here for?

we are here to while away the weary hours at work and home