Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[durruti02]

I wont pick at point after point, that would take a massive post. But..

I see your general point, the workers have lost a lot of ground over the last 20 years. It wasnt gained in first place by a workers movment that took a hostile stance towards immigrants though. Don't say there were no immigrants, the brittish working class has absorbred wave after wave of immigrants. From Irish "navvies", Eurpean Jews. During the post war period there were massive waves of West Indians and South Asians.
I'm not saying that theese influxes didn't create initial tention but many of thees immigrants and their decendents have become amoungst the most militant of class fighters.

Tenents controll of housing is desirable, it would represent a step forward for the workers movment if it was done on a large scale. On it's own though it would not solve the need to build new houses or bring the resourses needed to maintain the existing ones. Only a fight for resourses from those who presently controll them could do that. Unless were talking about a revolution in wich such resources are controlled by the (much more democratically than they are now) organised working class. A sons and daughters policy does not solve this issue either, especially since most couples have more than one son or daughter.

If communities were to close themselves to new comers that would not stop immigrants from entering the country in the first place. They would still have to settle/be settled some where. It stands to reason that muslim communities would be more open to muslims, Samali to Samaliens etc etc.

You say that I have no faith in ordinary people that I show a distrust of the w.c that is typical of the left. This relates to your point about the working having lost a lot of their power, wich I whole hertedly agree with. The working class also seemsto have gone backwards in terms of political awareness. The effects of this I see in my every day life. The far right is on the upward turn in many white working class ex Labour Party heartlands. Day after day almost I stand helpless as my work mates just shrug their shoulders at the extension of their hours with out over time, the incredibly slow progress made on our peice work at a dismall rate. I work with a local trade union structure made up of tired old labour party men, and yes the TnG burocracy dismally failed the Gate Gormet workers. I dont see that how attacking immigrants will change these things other than pandering to the parasite of the far right in our communites.
I know all the above sounds gloomy and beilive me if I didn't have that faith that you talk about Durruti, I would'nt be the person that I am. There are a great many other issues that could be brought up about why the class is on the back foot, such as the bankruptcy of Social Democracy and the buracratisation of the TU movment but I supose those things are for other threads.

patty again no one is attacking immigrants .. we are attacking hiow immigrants are USED!!

but but but is not one of the reasons the left/progressive politics ( i shouldn't really put those together!!) are at such a low ebb is that labour/swp etc do not have working class politics??? when do the left ask what people want ???like iwca hi do??? no they come out with nonsense like defend the muslim communities .. from what?????

i guess the whole point for me of this thread is to talk about restructuring and how we oppose it .. and we will only oppose it by dealing directly with day to day issues .. work.housing etc etc .. the IWCA take quite a strong stand that unions have been crippled for now and that therefore the priority is the community .. i do agree alot with that ( but not entirely) but like with HI members of both groups still end up as shop stewards etc etc

my experiance is that the only way forward .. is when people belive yo are honest .. when people trust you and your poltics ..when people think your politics is relevant .. the left do not do any of this .. so back to basics ..

 

[Patty]

sihhi "Does "going backwards"= no longer listening to their respective Bennite/McLennanite/Cliffite vanguards?"


Going Backwards: I won't take the Bennite/McLennanite/Clifite Vangaurds references as hostile. No, I mean what I said, I see that a lot of workers just are not prepared to fight. I used an example from my personal experience but the circumstances in British society speak for themselves.
The government is riding rough shod over workers rights. Employment is becoming ever more casualised, the welfare system has become penalty bassed not needs based, poloticians play games with our health and eduacation systems. And yet many working class people just don't see a way of changing these things.
That many people are no longer listneing to the people you listed above is a mixed blessing. On the one hand there is no comfortuble little neice for high ranking workers "representatives" and the blind alley of vangurdism is gone. On the other hand what has taken it's place? I'm yet to see a new form of militancy, not to say I never will.

 

[Patty]

patty again no one is attacking immigrants .. we are attacking hiow immigrants are USED!!

but but but is not one of the reasons the left/progressive politics ( i shouldn't really put those together!!) are at such a low ebb is that labour/swp etc do not have working class politics??? when do the left ask what people want ???like iwca hi do??? no they come out with nonsense like defend the muslim communities .. from what?????

i guess the whole point for me of this thread is to talk about restructuring and how we oppose it .. and we will only oppose it by dealing directly with day to day issues .. work.housing etc etc .. the IWCA take quite a strong stand that unions have been crippled for now and that therefore the priority is the community .. i do agree alot with that ( but not entirely) but like with HI members of both groups still end up as shop stewards etc etc

my experiance is that the only way forward .. is when people belive yo are honest .. when people trust you and your poltics ..when people think your politics is relevant .. the left do not do any of this .. so back to basics ..

It seems that we (durruti, shhi, myself) are debating around the points of some thing that we basically agree on. Thats more productive than taking polarised positions and seeking to discredit each others ideas, wich is too often the case here.

It's not the idea that I am arguing with, such as community controll of housing, honest politics. It's the emphisis on immigration that I feel uncomfortuble with in many ways.
Immigrants are used by capialism, that gives all the more reason to seek to unify different sections of the working class along a common interest. Take community controll of housing for example. I feel that a case can be made for TAs that are prepared to carry through the allocation of housing with out using immigration, as such, as a reason to do this. If a community in these circumstances was to decide that due to over crowding they could not take in any new comers then fair enough, hopefully it would be the pretext to fighting for more housing to be built.

I keep refering to the far right because they have been able to take the initiative on the issue of poor housing and community facilities on the basis that immigrants are taking up all the available room/resourses. They may oppose the Iraq war etc but I don't see grafiti on walls proclaiming that, I see the same old "pakis out" type slogans. Probably written not by the mambers of far right groups them selves but disillusioned working class youth.

I know little of the IWCA or HI? but I agree with your points about the left never asking working class people what they want, not so sure about the idea that Trade Unions are defunct as a form of organistion, is there no futre for a shop stewards movement? .
I have very little to do with the SWP these days, or their likes who claim to be The Revolutionary Party, partly because they bare little relevelence to what I see as part of the struggle, partly and initially because all I see in them is political orthodoxy. Though much of my political out look has been influenced from that direction

 

[LLETSA]

Poi ntless

I rest my case. I'll carry on reading the thread and ignore your throw-away references.

Please do.

But you haven't got a case. Judging from this thread you are just another example of the type of poster who says very little about a subject, preferring to write about other posters instead.

What word is poi the first three letters of?

 

[tbaldwin]

How am I arguing against workers control. I'm arguing against out and out localism. There is a big difference. I'm asking how you see things working in a practical way and this is all you can say.

So your for workers control. But not if its exercised locally.
Excellent CockneyRebel a really well thought through response.

 

[exosculate]

TnG member. Non party affiliated socialist. Been close to SWP in past but hey who hasn't. Strong Labour Party/Trot up bringing. I'm inclined to ask why you ask?

Its because you sound like a trot - thats why I asked.

 

[exosculate]

So your for workers control. But not if its exercised locally.
Excellent CockneyRebel a really well thought through response.

I think the translation is :

You can argue anything you like as long as the party sanctions it

 

[LLETSA]

Been close to SWP in past but hey who hasn't.

Me.

 

[tbaldwin]

So your for workers control. But not if its exercised locally.
Excellent CockneyRebel a really well thought through response.

Ever read Animal Farm,CR?

 

[Patty]

Me.

As in you have never been close to the SWP.
Well good for you. It's not easy when you consider all the SWP front organisations, ANL, Globalise Resistance(any one remember that one?),UAF, RESPECT, StWC in most places is SWP dominated.

 

[Patty]

Ever read Animal Farm,CR?

I see your point. Having said that though Animal Farm is hardly concice political analysis, Like 1984 it's used as much by the right wing press as a peice of anti-Communist propaganda as it is by those anti-bolshevists on the "left" (If lefts the right word to use)

 

[exosculate]

I see your point. Having said that though Animal Farm is hardly concice political analysis, Like 1984 it's used as much by the right wing press as a peice of anti-Communist propaganda as it is by those anti-bolshevists on the "left" (If lefts the right word to use)

Its one of the most concise pieces of work on the failure of Bolshevism in my view. And most importantly -it correctly merges Stalin and Lenin into one figure.

The right use all sorts of ideas incorrectly - the intention is important in Orwells work - its basically a left critique of Stalinism and it really doen't matter how they present it.

 

[LLETSA]

As in you have never been close to the SWP.
Well good for you. It's not easy when you consider all the SWP front organisations, ANL, Globalise Resistance(any one remember that one?),UAF, RESPECT, StWC in most places is SWP dominated.

No, no-it's a piece of piss.

 

[tbaldwin]

I see your point. Having said that though Animal Farm is hardly concice political analysis, Like 1984 it's used as much by the right wing press as a peice of anti-Communist propaganda as it is by those anti-bolshevists on the "left" (If lefts the right word to use)

Animal Farm.
Socialism is a great idea but when the idea becomes corrupted by dishonest people.who want "power over the people" it becomes fucked.
Animal farm is good in illustrating this. Groups like Workers power want Power over the Workers,and they certainly dont stand for Working Class control.

 

[tbaldwin]

But there are progressive and reactionary layers in the working class. The working class isn't one big homogenous group, far from it. It's got nothing to do with not having faith in the working class but trying to mobilise the most progressive sections of the working class and building from there. Not trying to work with people on the lowest common denominator.

.

This is fucking brilliant. The progressive layers of the working class!!!!!!!!. That must mean the 80 people in workers power + a few other saddoes who they think they can win to their positions.
So its OK to write off the rest as reactionaries and they can be safely ignored. Its Socialism for the Elite. No wonder the Far Left is so popular.

 

[sihhi]

Immigrants are used by capialism, that gives all the more reason to seek to unify different sections of the working class along a common interest. Take community controll of housing for example. I feel that a case can be made for TAs that are prepared to carry through the allocation of housing with out using immigration, as such, as a reason to do this. If a community in these circumstances was to decide that due to over crowding they could not take in any new comers then fair enough, hopefully it would be the pretext to fighting for more housing to be built.

I agree with what you said in bold but don't quite get what you're saying in the bit in italics after that.

I think we agree in general but differ in our approach of real-life discussion of migration
I've argued for:
1. clear aims of naturalisation/legalisation for all false paper/illegal migrants especially in a setting where "false document" and "legit" workers work side by side.
2. using explanations that stress why currently working-classes are shafted but government and UK plc benefit (from migration at present)-- using the idea of workers' control or working-class residents' control of living + housing decisions

 

[tbaldwin]

my experiance is that the only way forward .. is when people belive yo are honest .. when people trust you and your poltics ..when people think your politics is relevant .. the left do not do any of this .. so back to basics ..

There have been some really good contributions on this thread. A lot more people seem to be looking honestly at the subject and not just dismissing anyone they dont like the sound of as "knee jerk reactionaries"
Its good that U75 has some really genuinelly radical voices on this subject like durrutti,and some members of the IWCA.

The politics of a group like Workers Power has been completely and utterly exposed as nonsense.

 

[Patty]

Its one of the most concise pieces of work on the failure of Bolshevism in my view. And most importantly -it correctly merges Stalin and Lenin into one figure.

The right use all sorts of ideas incorrectly - the intention is important in Orwells work - its basically a left critique of Stalinism and it really doen't matter how they present it.

Im essence, yes. Same goes for tbaldwin's comments. I feel though that the faliure of the Russian revolution, in so far that it quickly became dominated by the Bolsheviek hierachy is far more complex.
Along with 1984 it would be a good book for any one who may be thinking of getting involved with the Leninist/Trotskyist parties of today to read but it's sweeping metaphoric generalisations leave much to be explained.

 

[Patty]

I agree with what you said in bold but don't quite get what you're saying in the bit in italics after that.

I think we agree in general but differ in our approach of real-life discussion of migration
I've argued for:
1. clear aims of naturalisation/legalisation for all false paper/illegal migrants especially in a setting where "false document" and "legit" workers work side by side.
2. using explanations that stress why currently working-classes are shafted but government and UK plc benefit (from migration at present)-- using the idea of workers' control or working-class residents' control of living + housing decisions

I don't really understand what you don't understand about that.

Both of the above points are sound. I could really improve my own aproach to the subject by taking those things on board.
I often deal with the immigration issue on the basis of who i'm talking to. If it's a local and openly racist BNP supporter I feel it's more imortant to discredit their ideas on the basis of who controlls local resourses, cirtainly not immigrants themselves.
If it's someone with a genuine greevence about the fact that local resourses are insufficiant and that their is no room or resourses spare for immigrants to take, I try to make the point that we are all in the same boat. It's matter of indentifying a common cause of both the immigtrants problems and the problems of longer standing residents.
It's hard to generalise, and whith out providing scripts of a number real life conversations it's hard to give a fully rounded idea of my approach. Perhaps because I don't usually work on the basis of putiing forward demands. And perhaps thats a weakness.

Perhaps something that has been missing from this thread has been the issues facing many immigrants in this country. They are amoungst the most exploited and victimised sections of the working class. From forced prostitution to open hostility against them or just the plain insecurity of the work that they have to take. These issues are taken in to acount with your above damands,Shhi. I don't accept that they are here as a reserve of scab labour as some people sugested ealier.

 

[lastmanineurope]

Of course immigration is part of a so-called neo-liberal agenda. Blair's third way is really a hybrid of elitist corporate cronyism and elitist fabian socialism. Immigration serves a number of purposes for the elite:

-dissolution and unbalancing of traditional communities (with excessive immigration)
-increases labour market (rather like the feminist agenda pushed by the elite in order to 'bring women into the public domain' i.e. increase the number of wage slaves and increase available labour)
-pushes the 'new world order' multiculturalist/internationalist agenda for cultural, economic and political 'harmonisation' (merging)
-justifies stricted border controls, ID cards, employment regulation etc.
-temporarily sustains the (false) economy our country is based on further (debt and exploitation of the third world aren't enough)


The one overriding theme in everything the elitists do is to increase their power and control, and this issue is no different. Their (so-called) 'left wing' agenda exploits immigration just like the 'right' do, except the 'left' use it to justify what I have mentioned above. This allows them to call all opponents racist.

Another point worth making is that they only use the free market when it suits them. They use socialist protectionist methods (non-EU import tariffs, farm and fishery subsidies, 'national security', drug prohibition, minimum wage, taxation etc.) when it suits them, meanwhile pushing a free market agenda abroad and almost exclusively amongst crony corporatists and through the IMF, World Bank and WTO which is ultimately a political objective operating through an economic and 'humanist' front. Their is also the issue of the economy being run by a private bank, who the government are almost entirely at the mercy of.

 

[Dhimmi]

-increases labour market (rather like the feminist agenda pushed by the elite in order to 'bring women into the public domain' i.e. increase the number of wage slaves and increase available labour)

I disagree, the increase in available labour in the UK by employing women has been historically driven by the industrialisation of war.

 

[lastmanineurope]

War, as well as allowing the bankers to increasingly indebt the nation, has simply provided further ostensibly legitimate grounds for the advancement of the Keysnian/statist model. The ultimate goal of this model is to turn every human being into labour force, or 'human capital' as Blair puts it.

The interests of crony corporatists and the state are the same. By increasing the labour market you increase the output and also create wage or benefit dependency and breakup traditional closed organisations such as the supposedly 'male-dominant' family. The implied message behind it is what was above the Auchwitz concentration camp - "arbeit macht frei" (work makes one free). By bringing more people into the labour market you then have more control over them, and create greater revenue in taxes and increase production. The feminist agenda was pushed by the Fabian society through the likes of Pankhurst and Engels.

Unless you believe we are at war with terrorism, we are not currently at war. Therefore the interest of the elite is still to maximise output; having liberated females from the tyranny of housework into the free world of work, a further source of labour is required to fuel the machine and further inflate the economy to build it up for the crash. Although the first 'liberation' revolution came in wartime, the post-WWII liberation of women was advanced through feminism and capitalist materialism.

 

[tbaldwin]

Perhaps something that has been missing from this thread has been the issues facing many immigrants in this country. They are amoungst the most exploited and victimised sections of the working class. From forced prostitution to open hostility against them or just the plain insecurity of the work that they have to take. These issues are taken in to acount with your above damands,Shhi. I don't accept that they are here as a reserve of scab labour as some people sugested ealier.

I think its very appealing for Liberals to look at Immigrants as deprived etc and yes often in terms of the UK they are amongst the most deprived but in world terms they are nowhere near the bottom of the pile.
I suppose the way you look at it comes down to whether your really a serious Internationalist or a Liberal.

 

[sihhi]

I don't really understand what you don't understand about that.

Both of the above points are sound. I could really improve my own aproach to the subject by taking those things on board.
I often deal with the immigration issue on the basis of who i'm talking to. If it's a local and openly racist BNP supporter I feel it's more imortant to discredit their ideas on the basis of who controlls local resourses, cirtainly not immigrants themselves.
If it's someone with a genuine greevence about the fact that local resourses are insufficiant and that their is no room or resourses spare for immigrants to take, I try to make the point that we are all in the same boat. It's matter of indentifying a common cause of both the immigtrants problems and the problems of longer standing residents.
It's hard to generalise, and whith out providing scripts of a number real life conversations it's hard to give a fully rounded idea of my approach. Perhaps because I don't usually work on the basis of putiing forward demands. And perhaps thats a weakness.

Perhaps something that has been missing from this thread has been the issues facing many immigrants in this country. They are amoungst the most exploited and victimised sections of the working class. From forced prostitution to open hostility against them or just the plain insecurity of the work that they have to take. These issues are taken in to acount with your above damands,Shhi. I don't accept that they are here as a reserve of scab labour as some people sugested ealier.

Re Para1. Fair enough- you have to change your approach given different circumstances.

Re Para2.
No one is suggesting immigrants have entered Britain with a desire to/ in order to be scabs. There are many different motivations:- from the Ghanain doctor who wanted to send his children to private schools in Britain because it was "the best education in the world"- to Polish bus-drivers that want to send back more money to the family.

ReItalics. It sounds like a banal truism.

In other words- Can you name a section of the working-class that is
not "most exploited and victimised"?

Incidentally I could have made the claim that "'white' indigenous British working-class people" are amongst the most exploited and victimised sections of the working-class. But you would have (correctly) pointed out that this would be just fixating on one part of the working-class over another.

I've argued for legalisation of immigrants without papers, for workplace rights of workers wherever they come from, against work permit system that means migrants are in hands of bosses etc etc...

I don't know why you think the experience of migrants has been left out of this thread. It hasn't- both the experience of immigrants and emigrants to/from Britain and people already resident in Britain has been refered to.

 

[Patty]

I think its very appealing for Liberals to look at Immigrants as deprived etc and yes often in terms of the UK they are amongst the most deprived but in world terms they are nowhere near the bottom of the pile.
I suppose the way you look at it comes down to whether your really a serious Internationalist or a Liberal.

What are you proposing?
I'm taking part in a debate about the effects of immigration on the wc in Britain and about the best approach to be taken to theese issues amoungst coommunities.
So tell me, how would an internationalist deal with this amoungst their community? As opposed to my apperently liberal approach in recognising the inequalites that stare me the face?

 

[Patty]

Re Para1. Fair enough- you have to change your approach given different circumstances.

Re Para2.
No one is suggesting immigrants have entered Britain with a desire to/ in order to be scabs. There are many different motivations:- from the Ghanain doctor who wanted to send his children to private schools in Britain because it was "the best education in the world"- to Polish bus-drivers that want to send back more money to the family.

ReItalics. It sounds like a banal truism.

In other words- Can you name a section of the working-class that is
not "most exploited and victimised"?

Incidentally I could have made the claim that "'white' indigenous British working-class people" are amongst the most exploited and victimised sections of the working-class. But you would have (correctly) pointed out that this would be just fixating on one part of the working-class over another.

I've argued for legalisation of immigrants without papers, for workplace rights of workers wherever they come from, against work permit system that means migrants are in hands of bosses etc etc...

I don't know why you think the experience of migrants has been left out of this thread. It hasn't- both the experience of immigrants and emigrants to/from Britain and people already resident in Britain has been refered to.

I wouldn't count the Ghanan doctor as working class.
I used the words "amoungst the most exploited sections of the working class" because many working class immigrants face extra difficulties in regurds to language barriers,illiteracy, predujice, illegality many "illegals" are working in the sex trade or in illegaly dangerous and low paid jobs. Im not saying that British workers are not facing difficulties though.

You seem to have taken my comment about the immigrant's experience being neglected to heart. It was more a general comment on the thread. I think that there has been an imbalance in how this subject has been discused.
I only had to mention the oppresion of immigrants in the UK to be acoused of being a "liberal" (tbaldwin)

 

[tbaldwin]

What are you proposing?
I'm taking part in a debate about the effects of immigration on the wc in Britain and about the best approach to be taken to theese issues amoungst coommunities.
So tell me, how would an internationalist deal with this amoungst their community? As opposed to my apperently liberal approach in recognising the inequalites that stare me the face?

Well by broadening it out to look at the international consequences of migration for a start.
Looking at why rich countries prefer to take skilled workers from poorer countries rather than train their own.
Look honestly and openly at how mass migration effects different classes in society. The more you have the more likely you are to benefit from mass migration but the less you have the more you are in competition for jobs and housing.

The left take the middle class liberal view handed down by the people most likely to benefit from cheap migrant labour with nannies,cleaners etc who are more likely to eat out at restauraunts.
They dont take the views of people competing for Jobs and Housing.

Im an Internationalist and look at mass migartion as something that makes the world a much more unequal place.
No Socialist should ever defend policies that mean we "take the people poorer countries need most"
Those that do are far more guilty of racism than the people they condemn as Racists.

 

[Epicurus]

No Socialist should ever defend policies that mean we "take the people poorer countries need most"

I take it this phrase “take the people poorer countries need most” refers to professionals; such as Doctors, nurses, teachers and the like?

When you say “take” what do you mean? Remove or accept?

Do you not defend these peoples right to move to another country and make a good living and improve their life for them and their family?

 

[Pigeon]

Well by broadening it out to look at the international consequences of migration for a start.
Looking at why rich countries prefer to take skilled workers from poorer countries rather than train their own.
Look honestly and openly at how mass migration effects different classes in society. The more you have the more likely you are to benefit from mass migration but the less you have the more you are in competition for jobs and housing.

The left take the middle class liberal view handed down by the people most likely to benefit from cheap migrant labour with nannies,cleaners etc who are more likely to eat out at restauraunts.
They dont take the views of people competing for Jobs and Housing.

Im an Internationalist and look at mass migartion as something that makes the world a much more unequal place.
No Socialist should ever defend policies that mean we "take the people poorer countries need most"
Those that do are far more guilty of racism than the people they condemn as Racists.

For the love of fuck.

I know you only have 2 default statements on this whole debate, which you repeat ad nauseam (#1."Middle class liberals benefit from cheap migrant labour- nannies, cleaners etc" #2. "Immigration means that we take the people poorer countries need most") but, for christ's sake please, before you post them up yet again tomorrow, try to consider the screamingly fucking obvious fact that they don't represent anything producing a coherent analysis,no matter how often you repeat them.

THAT IS BECAUSE THE CLEANERS EMPLOYED BY MIDDLE-CLASS LIBERALS ARE ACTUALLY RATHER UNLIKELY TO BE BRAINSURGEONS, ARCHITECTS OR FUCKING ROCKET SCIENTISTS.

If only for a change, just try thinking before spouting one of your 2 pat phrases. You never know- you might enjoy the experience.

 

[tbaldwin]

I take it this phrase “take the people poorer countries need most” refers to professionals; such as Doctors, nurses, teachers and the like?

When you say “take” what do you mean? Remove or accept?

Do you not defend these peoples right to move to another country and make a good living and improve their life for them and their family?

1 Yes
2 Well whether its encouragement or economic slavery or remove or accept is open to interpretation.
But it definetely is TAKE.
3 On an individual basis they are just doing what anyone else might do given the circumstances and i dont blame them at all far from it.
But politically the effect that has is very negative so i can harly support it as a political solution.
Individually it can be good for them but for the wider population it is not a good thing.