Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[tbaldwin]

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.

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

Again i have to repeat that i am not blaming immigrants for making things worse,but i am blaming immigration.
Its a very important difference. And i should not really have to repeat it time after time but......
Another important point of course i would argue against anybody who dismisses ideas like capital punishment,homophobia and sexism.
Personally i would be in favour of capital punishment anyway but homophobia and sexism can not be dismissed,you have to argue against both on the basis of respecting people have different influences and experiences.

 

[durruti02]

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.

how does an attacking workers instead of bosses strengthen the working class movement? I didn't spot this explanation.

Rmp3

RM the first part of your qoute is the most irrelevant and anti left wing thing said on this whole thread!!!!! Are you really saying you do NOT believe that the dominant dynamic in this world is capital /capitalism and that consequently that most of what happens is NOT caused by capital capitalism!!

we are not taliking about neanderthals!!! we are talking about the processes of today .. how many people bar the middle classes emigrate out of choice ( and many of the m/c are forced to follow capital too)

did the irish move to america by cos they fancied a change?? do all the poles come here just to check out the London Eye? did all the auf viedersehen geordies just fancy germany for a few months?

working class people move primarily because the economic system we have thrives on inequality .. it thrives on creating conflict in countries whixch encourages movemnet .. it thrives on imperialism that creates wars in e.g. congo for computer related resources .. and encourages movement etc etc

economic migration is logical only to liberals .. and when we still have liberalism the freedom to emigrate out of choice is left only to the middle classes

.. jesus what ever happen to marxism!!

 

[geeta]

It is obvious that immigration makes the world a more unequal place. People should just be honest about it.

 

[tbaldwin]

It is obvious that immigration makes the world a more unequal place. People should just be honest about it.

I think there has been a fair bit of honest debate on here and the real headbangers like Cockney Rebel etc swam for shore when they realised how out of their depth they were.

 

[tbaldwin]

working class people move primarily because the economic system we have thrives on inequality .. it thrives on creating conflict in countries whixch encourages movemnet .. it thrives on imperialism that creates wars in e.g. congo for computer related resources .. and encourages movement etc etc

economic migration is logical only to liberals .. and when we still have liberalism the freedom to emigrate out of choice is left only to the middle classes

.. jesus what ever happen to marxism!!

Excellent post Durrutti!!

 

[Isambard]

Cockney Rebel etc swam for shore when they realised how out of their depth they were.

TBH, that's abit rich coming from someone whose political arguments have the depth of one of your Dear Leader Tony Blair's crocodile tears. I expect he was bored off his tits by your lack of an argument that will stand up.

 

[tbaldwin]

TBH, that's abit rich coming from someone whose political arguments have the depth of one of your Dear Leader Tony Blair's crocodile tears. I expect he was bored off his tits by your lack of an argument that will stand up.

The debate has shown just how little some people have considered the consequences of mass migration.Some of those people are quick to condem others as Racist. But support policies that " take the skilled workers from developing countries that they need most"
And no amount of abuse or innuendo,can disguise that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RM the first part of your qoute is the most irrelevant and anti left wing thing said on this whole thread!!!!! Are you really saying you do NOT believe that the dominant dynamic in this world is capital /capitalism and that consequently that most of what happens is NOT caused by capital capitalism!!

we are not taliking about neanderthals!!! we are talking about the processes of today .. how many people bar the middle classes emigrate out of choice ( and many of the m/c are forced to follow capital too)

did the irish move to america by cos they fancied a change?? do all the poles come here just to check out the London Eye? did all the auf viedersehen geordies just fancy germany for a few months?

working class people move primarily because the economic system we have thrives on inequality .. it thrives on creating conflict in countries whixch encourages movemnet .. it thrives on imperialism that creates wars in e.g. congo for computer related resources .. and encourages movement etc etc

economic migration is logical only to liberals .. and when we still have liberalism the freedom to emigrate out of choice is left only to the middle classes

.. jesus what ever happen to marxism!!

besides it being slightly undialectical, ie immagration controls, I don't have a problem with most of your comments about capitalism, just a problem with your comment about immigration not being natural.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Again i have to repeat that i am not blaming immigrants for making things worse,but i am blaming immigration.
Its a very important difference. And i should not really have to repeat it time after time but......

Sorry, I will rephrase that so you can answer the point.

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 immigrantin is 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.

Another important point of course i would argue against anybody who dismisses ideas like capital punishment,homophobia and sexism.
Personally i would be in favour of capital punishment anyway but homophobia and sexism can not be dismissed,you have to argue against both on the basis of respecting people have different influences and experiences.

I agree, and that is what I'm doing. I am arguing that though you have different experiences to me, and different viewpoint, you are wrong, because you have not furnished me with any proof or argument to substantiate your position that blaming immigration for scarcity and inequality amongst working-class people will produce working class unity.

ResistanceMP3.

 

[tbaldwin]

Sorry, I will rephrase that so you can answer the point.

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 immigrantin is 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.
I agree, and that is what I'm doing. I am arguing that though you have different experiences to me, and different viewpoint, you are wrong, because you have not furnished me with any proof or argument to substantiate your position that blaming immigration for scarcity and inequality amongst working-class people will produce working class unity.

ResistanceMP3.

If you accept the rules of supply and demand? Then it follows that some people will benefit from the increased supply of labour and others will lose out.
In UK terms the people most likely to lose out are those competing for jobs and housing,if you cant be honest about that,you have no chance of building real working class unity.

 

[TremulousTetra]

If you accept the rules of supply and demand? Then it follows that some people will benefit from the increased supply of labour and others will lose out.
In UK terms the people most likely to lose out are those competing for jobs and housing,if you cant be honest about that,you have no chance of building real working class unity.

of course, but i repeat this is a problem of capitalism not immigration. The supply and demand of labour will always fluctuate, why shouldn't it? The thing is instead of just throwing people on the scrapheap when the rich do not have use for them, the economy should be managed to satisfy human need, not ruling class greed. For me to place the blame elsewhere would be to be dishonest, just create scapegoats out of working-class people, and strengthen the right in their divide and rule tactics.

Why do you think that capitalist countries have immigration controls? I mean if we were to believe Durritos one-sided analysis, why haven't all the capitalist countries abolished immigration controls?

ResistanceMP3

 

[tbaldwin]

Good article in the gutter press today on migration and care.
The papers the Guardian the article is by madeline bunting.

 

[tbaldwin]

of course, but i repeat this is a problem of capitalism not immigration. The supply and demand of labour will always fluctuate, why shouldn't it? The thing is instead of just throwing people on the scrapheap when the rich do not have use for them, the economy should be managed to satisfy human need, not ruling class greed. For me to place the blame elsewhere would be to be dishonest, just create scapegoats out of working-class people, and strengthen the right in their divide and rule tactics.

Why do you think that capitalist countries have immigration controls? I mean if we were to believe Durritos one-sided analysis, why haven't all the capitalist countries abolished immigration controls?

ResistanceMP3

Why do you think that George Bush is pro immigration? or the CBI?
The right have always been pro migration, at the same time as trying to sound "tough on immigration"
Migration is part of unrestricted capitalism. The right have gone from supporting slavery to supporting economic slavery.
Imperialism today is very much about plundering the third world of its most valuable resource, skilled labour.
You can not pretend to be against Capitalism at the same time as supporting economic migration which is a crucial part of it.

 

[Isambard]

The right have gone from supporting slavery to supporting economic slavery.

Bingo!

You've put your finger right on what RMP3 and I have been saying for the last umpteen pages.

One's attitudes to migration and migrants DON'T necessrily tally with ones' position on the right or the left.

I'm basiclly a "no borders" but on the left. Some who are for migration are capitalists.

You are basicly against migration and define yourself I believe as a socialist.
While there are thers who are against migration who are racists and fascists.

You are looking for easy answers and making easy statements that don't necessarily stand up.

 

[tbaldwin]

Bingo!

You've put your finger right on what RMP3 and I have been saying for the last umpteen pages.

One's attitudes to migration and migrants DON'T necessrily tally with ones' position on the right or the left.

I'm basiclly a "no borders" but on the left. Some who are for migration are capitalists.

You are basicly against migration and define yourself I believe as a socialist.
While there are thers who are against migration who are racists and fascists.

You are looking for easy answers and making easy statements that don't necessarily stand up.

The point is that what people think is a left wing position on migration,is totally wrong.
I dont care how many so called fascists are against mass immigration.
But i do care that so called Socialists have such a shit line on mass immigration.
I am not looking for easy answers, just honest ones.
The more honest people are about economic migartion the better as far as i'm concerned. The tide is slowly turning as weve seen on this thread with even a member of the SWP admitting that "econmic migration makes the world a more unequal place" and the Guardian printing an article like the one in the paper today.

 

[Isambard]

I dont care how many so called fascists are against mass immigration.
But i do care that so called Socialists have such a shit line on mass immigration.

Jesus, you can't have your fucking cake and eat it!

There are some on the left (you) who are anti- migration.
There are some on the right (eg BNP) who are nti-migration.

There are some on the left (me) who are not anti-migration.
There are some on the right (eg CBI) who are not anti-migration.

You have yet to prove that those of us on the left who are not anti-migration have a "shit line". Your arguments don't stand up.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why do you think that George Bush is pro immigration? or the CBI?
The right have always been pro migration, at the same time as trying to sound "tough on immigration"
Migration is part of unrestricted capitalism. The right have gone from supporting slavery to supporting economic slavery.
Imperialism today is very much about plundering the third world of its most valuable resource, skilled labour.
You can not pretend to be against Capitalism at the same time as supporting economic migration which is a crucial part of it.

there has never been such a thing as a free-market under capitalism, and there has never been such a thing as a free flow of immigration under capitalism. the capitalists have always wanted to manage the flow of immigration, so it suits their economic needs.

you see this is the whole problem with this simply premise of your thread, if increased immigration is part of Thatcherism, why didn't Thatcher abolish immigration controls? Why has "The right have always been pro migration, at the same time as trying to sound "tough on immigration" "? why do immigration controls exist?

ResistanceMP3

PS. it is not a any thing unusual for a member of the left to think that economic migration makes the world and more in unequal place. where as anybody from the left contradicted this in this thread? that imperialism rapes the third world is a left-wing argument, not something you have just invented.

 

[tbaldwin]

You have yet to prove that those of us on the left who are not anti-migration have a "shit line". Your arguments don't stand up.

Proof? Well i think that some people will never accept anti migration arguements but. As the arguement has gone on a lot of their prejudices and ignorance have been confronted. Even some of the pro migration people have had to admit that "economic migration makes the world a more unequal place"
Nobody has really put forward a sustainable arguement for mass migration. But ther have been some really good arguements put forward by durrutti etc that have smashed holes in the Liberal lefts head in the sand attitude to the issue.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Proof? Well i think that some people will never accept anti migration arguements but. As the arguement has gone on a lot of their prejudices and ignorance have been confronted. Even some of the pro migration people have had to admit that "economic migration makes the world a more unequal place"
Nobody has really put forward a sustainable arguement for mass migration. But ther have been some really good arguements put forward by durrutti etc that have smashed holes in the Liberal lefts head in the sand attitude to the issue.

you keep saying this, but where has anybody denied this?

 

[Isambard]

their prejudices and ignorance............the Liberal lefts head in the sand attitude to the issue.

For the holy mother of God!

I LIVE in an area with a population that is 30% immigrants.

I see the local housing situation worsenered MUCH more by privatisation, gentrification than immigration. I gave you an example above of an aquantance of mine back selling herself for heroin down the station after she lost her flat, not due to immigration but becasue it got privatised for the indigenous middle classes moving into inner city areas.

I've quite a few friends and aquaintances who are immigrants, possibly around 50% or so. The boyf of a mate of mine and his sister are from Poland and I was going to use them as example in a bit.

I AM AN IMMIGRANT!

So the smear that we're "ignorant" and have out heads in the sand you can shove up your trolling Blairite arse!

 

[tbaldwin]

What does any of that prove isamabard??
Your an Immigrant who lives in area of relativelly high migration.... And what?
And to call me a blairite,shows you really have not been paying any attention.

 

[Isambard]

What does any of that prove isamabard??

That opposition to your views on migration does NOT mean "ignorance" or "head in the sand" as you accused us of.

 

[tbaldwin]

That opposition to your views on migration does NOT mean "ignorance" or "head in the sand" as you accused us of.

What i meant (put it clumsily probably) is that the Liberal Left constantly talks as though anyone straying from the Liberal line on migration must be ignorant but that is simply not the case.
The Liberal left position on mass migration is dishonest. Everybody with any sense can see that it makes the world a more unequal place and that the consequences for people competing with migrants is very different for those who benefit from their presence.

 

[Isambard]

The Liberal left position on mass migration is dishonest.

How is it dishonest?

We have said yes, there are implications for the countries people leave.
We have said yes, the bosses will TRY and use it to force down wages and that we need working class UNITY to stop that and to stop the bosses dividing us.

the consequences for people competing with migrants is very different for those who benefit from their presence.

You have yet to prove that migration either lowers wages or makes affordable housing less available available to the indigenous population to any significant degree.

 

[tbaldwin]

How is it dishonest?



You have yet to prove that migration either lowers wages or makes affordable housing less available available to the indigenous population to any significant degree.

Prove? So if your so keen on proof,find me an argeument that stands up to any sort of scrutiny that migration does not have more serious consequences for working class people.

It obviously does have if you are competing for lower paid jobs or housing.If you dont understand that you really have your head in the sand or your just being very dishonest.

 

[Isambard]

I will come back later on the jobs issue.

For the housing issue:

The role that migrants play in making affordable housing less available is imvho minimal. The largest role is played by privatisation, gentrification, bad management of housing stock and the worship of the "house prices".

As it has been pointed out above, the are X thousand empty residential properties in the UK. The government is even detroying houses to force "housing markets" to "become more bouyant".

I'll repeat it again: Five years ago there wasn't the the number of newly immigrated Poles in London that there are now. Was getting affordable housing easy? No.

 

[tbaldwin]

erm
Isamabard,do you believe in supply and demand theories...

 

[Isambard]

Isamabard,do you believe in supply and demand theories...

In an abstract sense yes.

The problem with housing is that it is SUPPLY that has been forced down rather than demand rising rapidly.

Demand has also of course risen due to the way that more and more indigenous people choose to live alone.


------------------------------

I’d dispute that immigrants take away jobs from the indigenous population or force down pay.

Of course that is what the bosses would like; a surplus of labour
Unemployment was used as a threat during the Thatcher years and one of the reasons a section of capital is in favour of greater migration is that they’d like to force pay down.

Standing shoulder to shoulder with your work mates is what is needed to protect pay and conditions not the allegation “they come over here, steal our jobs” etc.

Looking specificly at London for a moment and seeing it purely as a “supply and demand” situation: In recent years there had been a scarcity of plumbers, electricians etc. Rates of pay went up and many people found it hard to get someone to put a new bathroom put in etc. As pay stagnated in many office based jobs, the papers were full of stories of well to do middle class boys not going to university but learning a trade. Enter the Polish plumber etc etc. Who is he taking a job off? Well in fact new jobs are created because there was a higher demand than supply.

If I want some clothes mended I give them to an immigrant neighbour to fix.
She charges half the price of a shop. But is she “stealing” the work of the shop? No, she’s undercutting by working in her home and its cash in hand so no shop landlord or the government’s getting a cut of a little bit of work to supplement her income.

Another example; my mate’s boyfriend’s sister.
She’s living in, working a household help to a married couple in their 80s (I don’t know their social background) She’s on relatively better money than she would be in Poland even IF she could get a job. And the elderly couple are getting the care they need because they couldn’t afford to get care officially because of the price. So who is losing out here?

Given the fact that it seems the nationalist-right have cleaned up in Sunday’s elections and he’s from a Jehovah Witness family , I’m pleased as hell my mate’s boyf has managed to get out of Poland as well.


-----------------------------

I'd say migration is similar to the issue of the EU in that diffrerent sections of the "left" and different sections of capitalism are divided.

 

[tbaldwin]

I’d dispute that immigrants take away jobs from the indigenous population or force down pay.

Of course that is what the bosses would like; a surplus of labour
Unemployment was used as a threat during the Thatcher years and one of the reasons a section of capital is in favour of greater migration is that they’d like to force pay down.

Standing shoulder to shoulder with your work mates is what is needed to protect pay and conditions not the allegation “they come over here, steal our jobs” etc.

.

Standing "shoulder to shoulder with your work mates" is just empty leftie rhetoric if your a plumber or cafe worker and seen the rates of pay go down as the competition has increased.

Polish migration has pushed down wages in a number of areas. Plumbing being the most obvious one. And the huge number of White South Africans and Australians are also keeping loads of Black people out of work.

It doesnt matter how people try to dress this up, this is thr truth of what is really happening now.

 

[Isambard]

Empty rhetoric from your side.

I'd dispute the size of the role ole of immigration in the UK forcing pay down although agree that that is the goal of one section of the employing class.

IF white Australians or South Africans or Poles were getting jobs before indigenous black Britons purely on the basis of their ethnicity that would be racism. I VERY much beleive there are "scales of xenophobia / racism", a racist employer wouldn't want black employees anyway.

You are also making the BIG mistake in assuming that on a "jom market" the unemployed automatically match with the jobs available. That is NOT the case.