exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:
Of course the system is at fault, we agree on that, I am arguing that in the current climate other factors exacerbate the flaws in that system.
Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
Of course the system is at fault, we agree on that, I am arguing that in the current climate other factors exacerbate the flaws in that system.
exosculate said:
Funilly enough you are asking which migrants I support and percentages. I asked tbaldwin to say whether he was still going to allow "old" or "new" EU Citizens to continue to work in Britain and he hasn't replied.
Don't think I've suggested a hierachy anyway.
It's all a bit theoretical but I'm for "no borders" now in the same way I'm for overthrow of capitalism now.
--------------
But of the total sum of influences that make housing hard to get and pay low, how much of that can be "blamed" on immigration? VERY small I'd wager.
So even IF stopping immigration had some effect it would be marginal on the well being of the indigenous working class AND have the negative effect of dividing workers based on ethnicity or citizenship.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:
So its a meaningless platitude and you infact can't state a realistic position. Which is exactly why I have been arguing no borders arguments are pie in the sky at the present time.
exosculate said:
No it's not "meaningless".
People get at the sharp end of migration all the time: From the drowned cockle pickers to the forced prostitutes to those who badly injure themselves at Ceuta and Melilla.
So people talk about those issues and when you are in the discussion you can talk about WHY people move, who uses them, who exploits them and link the problems of migrants up with the problems of the indigenous.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:
So you just talk about things that happen is a supportive way - we all do that. But you don't take a proper position on immigration strategy at a national level.
exosculate said:
What's "proper" ? What you agree with?
I chose NOT to go into politics as a career when I realised that they are mostly all lying bastards propping up the system. I'm not going to start having "wiberal"
Grauniad reader fantasies about how I would make it all a bit more fluffy.A "national" level?
How Insular! You've got to look at it a bit beyond Dover!exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:What's "proper" ? What you agree with?
I chose NOT to go into politics as a career when I realised that they are mostly all lying bastards propping up the system. I'm not going to start having "wiberal"
A "national" level?
A position - any position - as long as its a position - that would be proper.
We are talking about the UK - so national is the appropriate word here.
You're just clutching at squirms.
exosculate said:
Are you?
I'd suggest that you have to think of it in at least EU terms.
I'm not going to formulate some kind of liberal-left proposal for steering migration to make it work best for capitalism and fluffy enough for wiberals to accept.
Certainly there are issues like housing, regional development, education, access to health services, enforcement of working conditions and minimum wages, a fairer immigration service etc etc etc etc that all need to be tackled within the current framework.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:
The clue was the word Thatcherite in the opening title
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:
Who are you - an ex NUS hack?
Yes "Thatcherite" and yes it is in UK politics forum but thinking about the issue purely in reference to the UK is living in the past or do you like the old headline "Fog in Channel, Continent isolated" ?
Who I am or what I've done is utterly irelevent.
It was the labour party's support for the campaign against refugees in the early 90s that prompted me to leave the party and I haven't looked back.
Who I am or what I've done is utterly irelevent.
It was the labour party's support for the campaign against refugees in the early 90s that prompted me to leave the party and I haven't looked back.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Isambard said:Yes "Thatcherite" and yes it is in UK politics forum but thinking about the issue purely in reference to the UK is living in the past or do you like the old headline "Fog in Channel, Continent isolated" ?
Who I am or what I've done is utterly irelevent.
It was the labour party's support for the campaign against refugees in the early 90s that prompted me to leave the party and I haven't looked back.
OK so you agree you are wrong on the first one and no amount of smileys changes that.
Secondly - your pompous I could have been a political contender made me ask - is all. I don't care who you are.
Are you accusing me of vanity? Becasue I said I decided not to go into politics as a career when I realised what bastards most politicians are?
Admitting I'm wrong?
About what?
Whatever the thread's title (and "Thatcherism" is a term also used outside of Britain) discussion of migration purely in terms of the UK is far too narrow. The fact that migrants come from somewhere already means that there's another country involved.
exosculate said:
Isambard said:
Admitting I'm wrong?
About what?
Whatever the thread's title (and "Thatcherism" is a term also used outside of Britain) discussion of migration purely in terms of the UK is far too narrow. The fact that migrants come from somewhere already means that there's another country involved.
tbaldwin said:
Re-write hstory?
WHAT UTTER BOLLOCKS!
The Conservative government saw attacking refugees as a way of diverting attention from the failures in society: Poor housing, low pay etc etc etc.
After months of media scare stories of the "Albanians Eat Queen's Swans" variety they introduced a new harsher Asylum Bill.
The Labour Party was already on the way to "modernising" itself into the travesty it is today and suported the new law in an attempt to "out tory the tories".
Labour in government are doing the same as the Tories did and they did in opposition: Pushing the argument that it is those "nasty foreigners" who are to blame for low pay or bad housing rather than the system they support.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I agree.exosculate said:
I don't know for certain because I have not been involved in a couple of years, but I'm pretty certain the SWP has an open borders position, I know I do. But this has absolutely nothing to do with saying Britain should have open borders so Britain can rape developing countries of their most skilled labour. The argument about pointing out the fact that British capitalism needs to rape skilled workers from developing countries, is not to support it, but to take on the racist argument that immigrants only the come here to be a drain on society. Pointing out the fact that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, is antiracist, not pro capitalist raping. So the open borders position too is an anti racist/libertarian/anti state power arguments, rather than a nationalist or economic argument as Mr Baldwin seems to believe.
Do I think mass immigration will increase or decrease in working class unity at the moment? I don't think there is a simple straightforward answer. The situation is very complicated. Many historians have pointed to the positive effects of economic migration upon the organised working class in the 1930s. But I don't think the actual act of immigration will have an affect one way or the other at the moment is. I only think if the right is able to sell the idea that immigrants are responsible for inequalities and scarcity among working-class people this will indeed decrease working class unity. But there is no way you can buy off the situation in my opinion. If you banned immigration tomorrow this would not satisfy the right. It would only encourage them to make even more demands. And why shouldn't they, you've already conceded that immigrants are to blame, so why not get rid of the rest. Because without doubt even if you did ban immigration tomorrow the situations of scarcity and inequality amongst working-class people would not improve. So there would just be a vicious circle of attacking one group then another for being responsible for scarcities and inequality, when the real enemy is the class enemy, capitalism.
Now you may think I am just being a socialist worker clone, but you haven't shown me anything that proves immigrants are responsible for inequality and scarcity among working-class people. And you haven't explained how banning people coming to this country will create working-class unity. (Or even play a part in some process of creating working-class unity)
ResistanceMP3
"how does backing from an anti racist position the demands of the right for immigration controls, unite the working class to create pressure in the here and now, for gains in the here and now? (Forget revolution. This question is about creating working-class unity now!)"
ok .... and it seems to me that , as i have stated all along that immigration is NOT just a natural process but one encouraged by capitalism and its stae , for the purpose of cutting wages BUT CRUCIALLY TOO, breaking community/workers organisation
NOone in the swp or RPM£ etc etc would disagree that that is what thatcherism / neo liberalism is about .. so why can you not see how immigration is part of that
.. 2 examples from this year cry out .. gate gourmet and as john malcolm has pointed out , Irish ferries ( is that the right company ?)
.. and an area the swp ignore.. working class communites where again NOT just immigration but council house sales .. break up of mining steel etc have taken much power away from people
leftwingers should see things thru the frame work of 'power' .. what increases/ what decreases , workers/peoples power ..
it is clear .. and really no one has come up with any real stuff that this neo liberal process is neither happening nor that immigration is a key component
and yes as always, what can we do .. what will increase peoples power ( and will give them confidence to take on bigger issues)
it has to be assserting control over recruitment in workplaces .. saying for example that preference should be given to local people .. to family etc etc
it has to be asserting control over housing allocation .. saying fro example that preference should be given to local people family etc etc
IS THIS WRONG .. IS THIS RACIST .. HOW DOES THIS WEAKEN THE WORKERS MOVEMENT?
ok .... and it seems to me that , as i have stated all along that immigration is NOT just a natural process but one encouraged by capitalism and its stae , for the purpose of cutting wages BUT CRUCIALLY TOO, breaking community/workers organisation
NOone in the swp or RPM£ etc etc would disagree that that is what thatcherism / neo liberalism is about .. so why can you not see how immigration is part of that
.. 2 examples from this year cry out .. gate gourmet and as john malcolm has pointed out , Irish ferries ( is that the right company ?)
.. and an area the swp ignore.. working class communites where again NOT just immigration but council house sales .. break up of mining steel etc have taken much power away from people
leftwingers should see things thru the frame work of 'power' .. what increases/ what decreases , workers/peoples power ..
it is clear .. and really no one has come up with any real stuff that this neo liberal process is neither happening nor that immigration is a key component
and yes as always, what can we do .. what will increase peoples power ( and will give them confidence to take on bigger issues)
it has to be assserting control over recruitment in workplaces .. saying for example that preference should be given to local people .. to family etc etc
it has to be asserting control over housing allocation .. saying fro example that preference should be given to local people family etc etc
IS THIS WRONG .. IS THIS RACIST .. HOW DOES THIS WEAKEN THE WORKERS MOVEMENT?
durruti02 said:
If there is one council flat you'd give it to the healthy "local" applicants or the family of an athsmatic immigrant child who need to get out of a damp crowded flat?
But anyway, it's been pointed out time and time and time agains that it is NOT immigrants who have casued the housing problem.
Oh look there's problems with housing and low pay where the level of immigrant population is zero. So there are other factors at work!
Isambard said:
you are missing the point badly mate ... did you really not read any of this thread???? .. do you really think that i and TB etc do not understand that there is more to housing than immigrants !!!!!!!
.. the point is about how we can build a movement that will create a world in which there is no shortage of flats .. in which immigrants are NOT FORCED to move from the homes and families to be able to live
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
but you have to acknowledge Mr Baldwin that I don't think anybody on the left in this forum has denied that the pillage of skilled labour from developing countries is deleterious to those countries, and I don't think there is anybody who's not aware that capitalist benefit from lower wages and higher rents. we ARE aware of these class arguments, as you put it, and we use them. What we don't agree with is YOUR none class arguments, that somehow immigrants are responsible for scarcity and inequality amongst working-class people. we point to the ones who are really responsible, those benefiting from lower wages and higher rents. And we also say that the class response is not to ban workers, will to ban capitalist bosses through trade union organisation from falling wages and discriminating out of self-interest. If bosses cannot discriminate and pay low wages to some, then they cannot divide and rule us. this is the class argument in my opinion.tbaldwin said:
Now on the international sphere, again it is not true that the left do nothing about the issue. You might want to look at this website http://www.labourstart.org/
Now can you explain to me what you're saying about ruling class ideas? Are you saying they don't exist? Working-class people vote Conservative, so are you saying that revolutionaries and the left cannot just dismiss their ideas and we have to accept capital punishment, homophobia, sexism etc etc? If the left has to accept the banning and immigration because some working-class people agree with it, why not all those other things?
And lastly, and you just had a bit more meat on the bones of how banning immigration will build working-class unity?
ResistanceMP3
durruti02 said:
I think people for 101 reasons will STILL move around the world after the "revolution".
Right now we need to get the forces on "our" side as large and a unified as possible to see that the enemy is the system and the exploting class. That means not letting the agents of the exploiting class (whether they are called Thatcher or Blair) use racism and nationalism to divide us.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
you have just dismissed the entire history of the human race. It has even been suggested that destruction of the Neanderthals, the vast majority of megafawna, was due to immigration. The human species as it is today would not exist as it is without immigration.durruti02 said:
from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
how does an attacking workers instead of bosses strengthen the working class movement? I didn't spot this explanation.
Rmp3
Just talking about Britian for a minute. The working class in Britain already contains a large number of people who are ethnic minorities or non-citizens. So the argument would be running "Well you're here now but we want to keep "your sort" out becasue it's people like YOU who are responsible for poor housing, low pay etc.
Great way of building working class unity eh?
Great way of building working class unity eh?
Similar threads
