Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
no they don't. the same logic applied to EVERY change of govt, in a capitalist nation, excepting possibly '45poster342002 said:
Immigrant workers are scab workers?
- Thread starter SuburbanCasual
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
iROBOT said:
Of course there are still "respectable proletariat" out there. There are an awful lot of lumpens out there too.
Are you sure about that R/J? he brought in at least two very nasty pieces of legislation: the CJA and the new Job Seekers Allowance.(JSA) Then again, the JSD was only aimed at the 'chavs' the lumpens, the 'pramfaces' etc, people even some on the left (including on p/p) seem to think are of no consequence.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I didn't imply he was ma teresa, he's a tory and therefore a scumbag, but his style, and soon his ministers, were very different.treelover said:
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
I can't say I noticed a change to less vicious legislation. tbh.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
europe policies changed; mind, there's not THAT much difference between blair and the tories. what I'm NOT saying is that major was radically better than she-devil....just different
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
True true, I'm not one to lump all in one cubby hole. But the term seems to be used less as a description of a demographic but one of opposition ie..working class v immigrants. Seems now you have to be white to be working class....nino_savatte said:
(when it used to be ALL the workers of the world).If the tories hadnt got rid of the closed shop (which I think was a good thing in balance) we wouldn't have this problem.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
It still is.iROBOT said:
ViolentPanda said:
so why are you, a socialist, defending someone and their posts, who believes migration is good for the phillipines, when it painfully obviously is just part of the imperialism/capitalism that keeps the majority of its population in abject poverty
edited to change "immigration" to ,what i meant to say, "migration", in line 1 .. thank you to vp for pointing this out
Jessiedog said:This is getting rather Kafkaesque!
What in my response could possibly lead you to that conclusion?
Have you somehow divined the degree to which I am anti-cap' through these words?Do you understand where I live?
I might lament the difficulties of living in a society that the Heritage Foundation has just labelled "the free-est economy in the world" for the 13th straight year. I may even have become rather resigned to it - worn down through exhaustion, as in.........
...."It's all we have"
But, how the fuck you can extrapolate this as you have tried is, frankly, beyond me.
Oh, I forgot, you can't. It's bollocks!
The fact is that I am just another worker here to be exploited by those who control the capital. I will soon, no doubt, be consigned, once again, to the scrap heap, to slide into festering popverty and eventual, lonely, old-aged, deprivation.
And how you can construe my support for the (working) poor of East Asia as being "not anti capitalist" is again unfathomable.
I also happen to have a strong and very personal interest in the Philippines, its people, its economy and the welfare of its poor. And the policies you advocate would have a devestating impact on this country.
So fuck you!Woof
you appear to support the concept of trickle down via migration that is dear to all conservatives the world over .. and you state .. "it is all we have" .. that is the voice of a cynic not a revolutionary ..
p.s. i am sorry you live in such a hard place and accept that that may/will colour your view .. but clearly it is not one of hard opposition to this system
p.s. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Philippines says it is not first but 97th freest economy
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
durruti02 said:so why are you, a socialist, defending someone and their posts, who believes immigration is good for the phillipines, when it painfully obviously is just part of the imperialism/capitalism that keeps the majority of its population in abject poverty
Surely you mean "emigration"?
durruti,durruti02 said:defending someone and their posts, who believes migration is good for the phillipines, when it painfully obviously is just part of the imperialism/capitalism that keeps the majority of its population in abject poverty
Let's assume that all the Philippine's overseas workers are repatriated. The country would implode. There would be mass starvation - hundreds of thousands dead. Things would be FAR WORSE than they are now.
Your "theories" are nonsense. You live in a fairytale world. And you obviously no nothing of the Philippines. You twitter on about "nurses" leaving the Philippines, but I've explained to you that people only go into nursing to get out of the country. No "ticket out" and nobody would study nursing - they'd study the next easiest way out.
Either way, it's not like the Philippines is LOSING nurses. The NET effect of this "ticket out" is that not every nurse gets out and those that stay - together with those that return - increase the pool of available nurses. If there were no "ticket out" through nursing, there would be FEWER nurses 'cos everyone would study the next easiest "ticket out".
Geddit?
And anyway, as I've mentioned, to focus on this one area to the exclusion of the larger, extremely complex situation, is spurious.
Overall, migration has a positive effect on the Philippines - it needs the income. It's a far from perfect situation with virtually a whole generation of children being raised without their mothers presence being not the least of the issues.
But (in the dog-eat-dog, capitalistic, REAL world in which we all have to live, of course,) the alternative that you are suggesting is unthinkable.
You know nothing I'm afraid.
Woof
durruti02 said:
Methinks you have trouble reading my posts durruti. I said I live in the worlds freest economy (according to Heritage,) hence my comments about having to live with "capitalism" - we don't have a choice. It's actually written down in our (mini) constitution, the Basic Law. It states that we shall remain a capitalist, free-market economy until the year 2047.
Hence my lament.
Geddit?
And I don't "support" the concept of trickle down at all.
But if any shit happens to trickle down my way, I sure ain't gonna kick it into the gutter - and neither is anyone else I know.
Would you?
Yes I'm cynical - I guess it comes with seeing the sun rise a few times.
But I'm also at least as "revolutionary" as you are, probably more so. You'd no doubt be surprised at what kind of "subversive activities" I get involved in.
Woof
Yossarian
⏭️
Jessiedog said:
Agreed – it’s a long way from being a perfect system but remittances from foreign workers is proving to be the way in which the most wealth is redistributed from the world’s rich countries to its poor ones – only as a stopgap measure of course, until the great revolution comes along and demolishes global capitalism…
Quite so. Quite so.Yossarian said:Agreed – it’s a long way from being a perfect system but remittances from foreign workers is proving to be the way in which the most wealth is redistributed from the world’s rich countries to its poor ones – only as a stopgap measure of course, until the great revolution comes along and demolishes global capitalism…
Woof
Yossarian said:Agreed – it’s a long way from being a perfect system but remittances from foreign workers is proving to be the way in which the most wealth is redistributed from the world’s rich countries to its poor ones – only as a stopgap measure of course, until the great revolution comes along and demolishes global capitalism…
No people sending money home creates more inequality in countries they send it home to. And it is no justification for policies that make the world a more unequal place, pouring misery onto misery.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
iROBOT said:
The Nat Socialists tend to couch their rhetoric in left-sounding tones. They constantly refer to the "working class" but what they are really talking about are certain groups of "white" people who, allegedly, sell their labour. Truth be told, if they got into power, the workers would find their needs and their rights suborned to the interests of corporate power.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yossarian said:
Especially in a nation such as the Philippines which actually has a policy of training "nurses for export", deliberately having a higher that required output from their nursing schools year on year.
That way the government is able to convert the cost of training into hard currency at a rate that is favourable to it (how capitalist can you get!
).Yossarian said:
Except that money is taken from the poor people in the 'rich countries' rather than the rich in all countries. Doesnt sound too reasonable to me.
nino_savatte said:
I disagree with your self description as a National Socialist surely you are better described as a Liberal Nationalist: in that you support Free Market policies around migration as you see them in the National Interest.
You also oppose International Socialists like durruti etc who believe that Free market policies are damaging for a lot of people in the UK and many many more abroad. In those countries that are plundered of their skilled workers by countries like the US and UK.
You see that Imperialism as perfectly OK as a few lucky people can come to the West and serve the Interests of the UK, and even send a bit of their earnings home.....
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
SuburbanCasual said:
This has been my point for a long time. That immigration on a large scale effects the poorest in Britain in a very disproportionate and unfair way (a point not lost on many working class people in the UK). It will therefore never (with current economic relations worldwide) be supported en masse by the working class in the UK, more so for the least skilled workers than any other too. Although the knock on to many more skilled groups of workers would be/is significant too.
rekil
to menny cranks
When I was finishing school, unemployment in Ireland was as high as it is in East Germany now. Anyone who claims they wouldn't move somewhere else if faced with that level of unemployment is probably insane or a liar and anyone who claims that working class people must be prevented from moving elsewhere needs a kick in the balls quite frankly.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
copliker said:
Anyone who blames people for seeking a better life is clearly being silly, people who may think it is having an affect on their own lives do not require a kick in the balls. Not more of a kick in the balls than they are already getting by the job availability and wage rate damage that is percieved to be being done by many people.
copliker said:
Not so long ago there were a huge number of young Irish people in London and many other cities in the UK and US etc...
Years and Years of economic migration that was only reversed when EU money started to fuel the celtic tiger.
Nobody in their right mind would have blamed people for wanting to move to better their life opportunities in those days and neither would they now...
But anybody who thinks that Economic migration is overall a good thing has got it badly wrong.
copliker said:
I know free marketers would like to believe it was mostly down to things like a cut in taxes. But i think that EU money that helped as you say delay people emigrating. That in turn proved a boost to the Irish economy.
I think that other countries would benefit from a similar boost to their economies.
Economic migration is obviously not a good thing for any country that loses most of its skilled workers.
Similar threads
