Immigrant workers are scab workers?

[revol68]

My fear is that capital has finally succeeded in freeing itself of labour - or is about to complete such a move.

This was hitherto presumed impossible by marxists - hence I think it's part of the reason why they unable to come up with a logical plan of action in response to it. The situation is outside thier comprehension and point of reference - therefore, it simply "cannot" be happening.

how the fuck is capital about to free itself from labour you daft fuck?
I mean the fact this thread is about immigrant labour would seem to suggest something, no?

Also if capital did somehow magically free itself from labour then who would buy it's commodities, or will they just pay us a universal income for sitting on our arses?

 

[poster342002]

how the fuck is capital about to free itself from labour you daft fuck?
I mean the fact this thread is about immigrant labour would seem to suggest something, no?

Also if capital did somehow magically free itself from labour then who would buy it's commodities, or will they just pay us a universal income for sitting on our arses?

I don't know if you've noticed but barely a week goes by without reports of mass layoffs here there and everywhere. Capital is needing fewer and fewer workers for it's purposes - and those it does need can be hired from the vast and growing international pool of unemployed workers on "Lowest common denominator" terms.

The few remaining customers for it's services can be charged sky-high prices or simply go without - there's plenty who'll stump up the costs on credit. Until they go under a mountain of consumer debt - and then the process just starts again with the next batch of workers drawn fromt he unemployment pool.

 

[revol68]

I don't know if you've noticed but barely a week goes by without reports of mass layoffs here there and everywhere. Capital is needing fewer and fewer workers for it's purposes - and those it does need can be hired from the vast and growing international pool of unemployed workers on "Lowest common denominator" terms.

The few remaining customers for it's services can be charged sky-high prices or simply go without - there's plenty who'll stump up the costs on credit. Until they go under a mountain of consumer debt - and then the process just starts again with the next batch of workers drawn fromt he unemployment pool.

sorry i must have missed the chronic unemployment currently gripping the UK.

Anyway you numpty you've seem to have contradicted your daft ideas straight up with "and those it does need can be hired from the vast and growing international pool of unemployed workers on "Lowest common denominator" terms." Alright so it actually will still need labour but has somehow freed itself from it.

Also care to tell us why we are currently working more hours than in the 70's?

 

[belboid]

But that makes no sense. (are you talking about the UK here or the world in general btw?). Yes, there are mass lay offs, yes there are some (a very small percentage in fact) of 'international LCD workers', but that doesn't fundamentally alter anything. And the credit boom cannot last - tho what effect it will have when it does end is well deserving of a seperate thread - so the very notion that there will always be plenty of people willing to stump up is plain wrong. Who is going to give them credit if they aren't working?

 

[rekil]

How the left responds to the coming crisis will define whether it is ever again taken seriously by the population or even its supporters/sympathisers.

Assuming that immigrants must be cretinous lumpen scab lackeys, because well they're forrin, is neither realistic nor a particularly helpful starting point.

 

[revol68]

See what happens when you don't hold in your brain farts.

 

[poster342002]

sorry i must have missed the chronic unemployment currently gripping the UK.

Anyway you numpty you've seem to have contradicted your daft ideas straight up with "and those it does need can be hired from the vast and growing international pool of unemployed workers on "Lowest common denominator" terms." Alright so it actually will still need labour but has somehow freed itself from it.

Also care to tell us why we are currently working more hours than in the 70's?

1. Unemployment is only counted from those who are eligible to claim jobseekers' allowance - which is extremely hard to qualify for. Real unemployment is higher than officially-recognised unemployment. I knew someone.for instance, who was out of work but could not obtain work via the jobcentre because they didn't qualify for jobseekers' allowance - therefore, they did not count as unemployed. Orwellian nonsense it certainly was - but there you go.

2. Capital needs a very small number of workers. Smaller than it has ever needed - hired and fired on capital's own terms with no industrial muscle to speak of to oppose it. That amounts to freeing itself from labour in my book.

3. Those small number of workers are then pretty much at the mercy of employers to work any number of hours - often unpaid - in order to get their work completed or face the consequences. If they don't like it, there's always the pool of unemployment they can join.

 

[poster342002]

But that makes no sense. (are you talking about the UK here or the world in general btw?). Yes, there are mass lay offs, yes there are some (a very small percentage in fact) of 'international LCD workers', but that doesn't fundamentally alter anything. And the credit boom cannot last - tho what effect it will have when it does end is well deserving of a seperate thread - so the very notion that there will always be plenty of people willing to stump up is plain wrong. Who is going to give them credit if they aren't working?

It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Huge numbers of unemployed with a few workers just about making do on credit until they go under. Then a new batch is hired from the unemployed who just about make ends meet on credit. Ad infinitum ad infinitum.

 

[revol68]

god you don't half talk some muddled ballbags.

This intellectual pygmy is a walking, talking illustration of this boards decline.

 

[poster342002]

god you don't half talk some muddled ballbags.

This intellectual pygmy is a walking, talking illustration of this boards decline.

Whereas that in-depth and analytical post ^^^^^ is the mark of an intellectual and politcal goliath.

 

[belboid]

1. Unemployment is only counted from those who are eligible to claim jobseekers' allowance - which is extremely hard to qualify for. Real unemployment is higher than officially-recognised unemployment. I knew someone.for instance, who was out of work but could not obtain work via the jobcentre because they didn't qualify for jobseekers' allownace - therefore, they did not count as unemployed. Orwellian nonsense it certainly was - but there you go.

True, you canm add about 50% to the official figure and you would be getting somewhere close. Still, not a historic high (of unemployment) tho by any means.

2. Capital needs a very small number of workers. Smaller than it has ever needed - hired and fired on capital's own terms with no industrial muscle to speak of to oppose it. That amounts to freeing itself from labour in my book.

untrue, worldwide there are now more workers than there ever have been before in history. Even in the UK.

3. Those small number of workers are then pretty much at the mercy of employers to work any number of hours - often unpaid - in order to get their work completed or face the consequences. If they don't like it, there's always the pool of unemployemtn they can join.

well, me n you will probly never agree on this one, but, basically, you're wrong. There are, of course, far too many unpaid overtime hours worked, and workers' rights have been appalinglky diminished, but that is still a very long way to say that workers are mere automatons - which is the only logical conclusion of what you are arguing.

 

[belboid]

It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Huge numbers of unemployed with a few workers just about making do on credit until they go under. Then a new batch is hired from the unemployed who just about make ends meet on credit. Ad infinitum ad infinitum.

I dont think any credit giving company will be employing you in the near future.

 

[revol68]

Whereas that in-depth and analytical post ^^^^^ is the mark of an intellectual and politcal goliath.

Mate your posts are just autocritique, your like the kid whose pissed himself in the playground, I don't have to do anything but point at you.

 

[poster342002]

belboid, revol68

All I can add is that the current and persistantly enduring dismal state of workers' resistance is testiment to my theory being more likely to be correct than yours.

Events speak far louder than words.

 

[exosculate]

I've attempted to answer that in the past. The example I gave was from the syndicalist movement of 100 years ago. Basically you need to unionise the immigrants. You show them solidarity and hospitality, and in turn they won't under cut you. It was the model used in France and America particularly, and it worked.

(Until the bosses got wise and started demonising both the migrant workers and the working class organisers).

Compared to then the left is dead Danny. I'm not sure that is an adequate answer to the question. Because what is underneath this whole thing is an open borders now argument from you. Its 600,000 Polish in a few years, you would argue the same if it were 6 million. The practical doesn't interest you I think.

 

[belboid]

whereas the 'practicality' of armed border guards shooting 'illegals' (which would be the reality, whatever you may wish) and a large illegal workforce who by necessity are paid much lower than their indigenous counterparts is interesting to you?

 

[exosculate]

it's a ridiculous question that has been answered several times at least, most likely in one of the absurd number of threads of this very page.

'Seeking work' is not scabbing by anyones reckoning (except perhaps that of racist morons). Scabbbing is crossing a picket linem, its quite straight forward.

the answer to the moronic question has been provided by Danny, I shall just add the point that it is racist fuckwits who divide our class against each other, and they do so by making 'incomers' scapegoats.

Congratualations suburbancasual, you are the bosses best friend today.

It's not been answered well.

What you are saying is that well unionised areas of work should defend against having wages cut, and block attempts to bring in casualised/scab labour to undercut them. Embracing new migrants as they arrive etc. I agree with that.

But when it comes to alot of non-unionised work, where the workers are already in a worse position, anyone there who gets upset at there conditions getting worse or it being harder to get a job is out of order. They should be trying to unionise etc. OK but thats not reality in many places. This is where the most damage is being done. The left accuse anyone upset in these situations as racist it seems to me. I don't agree with that.

The left in general, are really arguing for open borders, and that this could be managed by unionising all new workers (no matter how many). To me this is cuckoo land and does not represent a realistic approach to this very serious matter.

 

[exosculate]

whereas the 'practicality' of armed border guards shooting 'illegals' (which would be the reality, whatever you may wish) and a large illegal workforce who by necessity are paid much lower than their indigenous counterparts is interesting to you?

Don't understand what that means.

 

[belboid]

that your only feasible alternative is fucking appaling - 'strong' borders where immigrants are killed coming in (like on the spanish african border) and a vast number of people coming in anyway but having no alternative to work illegally and at rates which undercut local workers. More (more more) immigration controls may sound like they would protect local workers, but the reality is completely different.

 

[treelover]

got it in one, fantasy politics from a tiny dying breed

The left in general, are really arguing for open borders, and that this could be managed by unionising all new workers (no matter how many). To me this is cuckoo land and does not represent a realistic approach to this very serious matter.
Reply With Quote

 

[exosculate]

that your only feasible alternative is fucking appaling - 'strong' borders where immigrants are killed coming in (like on the spanish african border) and a vast number of people coming in anyway but having no alternative to work illegally and at rates which undercut local workers. More (more more) immigration controls may sound like they would protect local workers, but the reality is completely different.

Are you seriously arguing for no border control between Spain and Africa?

 

[belboid]

Yes. Are you seriously arguing for shooting those who try and cross (as happens now)?

It is you who is trying to develop a fantasy world.

 

[rekil]

got it in one, fantasy politics from a tiny dying breed

Only those born within the borders of the richer countries are proper people who matter and the other few billion can go fuck themselves. That's what I'm picking up here.

 

[Blagsta]

1. Unemployment is only counted from those who are eligible to claim jobseekers' allowance - which is extremely hard to qualify for.

Hard to qualify for in what way?

 

[exosculate]

Yes. Are you seriously arguing for shooting those who try and cross (as happens now)?

It is you who is trying to develop a fantasy world.

I am not arguing to shoot anybody. I am saying that with an incredibly skewed world economy, a no borders position if enacted would lead to a ridiculous movement of people. Which is why workers in rich countries would never support this in large numbers, unless world economics became more balanced, which would then reduce this movement anyway. Which of course is unlikely at the moment.

 

[poster342002]

Hard to qualify for in what way?

Basically, it's easy for them to find some spurious reason why you're not eligible to claim it. And without being able to claim JSA, you are not permitted to use a jobcentre. Even if you currently do not have a job.

 

[exosculate]

Only those born within the borders of the richer countries are proper people who matter and the other few billion can go fuck themselves. That's what I'm picking up here.

I'm picking up a purist non real world position here.

 

[poster342002]

Sadly, many are starting from where they would like the world to be, rather than starting from where it is.

 

[treelover]

I'm picking up someone is pinging the old 'racism/xenophobia radar' again in response to well though out critiques of the no borders postions (@C/L)

 

[trashpony]

So a protectionist stance to make sure that workers within your country are okay? Have you ever read any Mosley? Exactly the same argument he used.

Whatever happened to workers of the world? Ever thought of trying to organise internationally? Or is that just too difficult?