Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
Anyone found an actual real-life link between immigration into the UK, unemployment, lack of housing and lower wages yet? I will be happy to look at any links, studies, evidence etc. Or is it still just a matter of people shouting "cretin" at me and talking about concentration camps?
TeeJay said:
no it's not ..
ok what i am saying is that
1) who out there would produce a report that says immigration is bad for w/c people .. AND then get it published?
2) can you really argue that having immigrants ( ot anyone else) work at minimum wage does not depress wages .. and especially when you look at GG and Irish Ferries?
3) that while lowering wages, a la thatch , can rejuvenate an economy and hence boost GNP .. this can still be with a lowering of the standard of living of the majority of the w/c?
4) do you really not think there is a link with Thatch doing away with security of tenure of w/c people .. via doing away with sons and daughters points .. and via council house sales .. and the need for more housing for immigrants??
5) do you not see a link with privatisation .. and outsourcing/CCT etc .. and immigration .. the formner could not have worked without the later ..
Sorry I'm new to these boards and this thread has a million pages so excuse me if I say something that's already been said but just to answer the points made above...
You are arguing that we should fight with other poor people of different nationalities (and what is a nationality anyway? an imaginary identity IMO) for crumbs from the capitalists' table. These's plenty enough to go round for us all to live in affluence, problem is it's being spent on rich people's second homes and other luxuries and investments, not that immigrants are somehow stealing it.
Many nationalities are easier to recruit to unions than British workers - Poles for example, and as long as they are unionised with us, they can't depress wages, right? We need to organise with them, not try and keep them out. The government is committed to selling off social housing and is doing so all over the country - this is why the working class doesn't have affordable housing, not immigration. And even if immigrants are stealing 'our' jobs, keeping them out won't solve the problem, the jobs will just move overseas.
And how does gate gourmet and irish ferries prove your point? The gg workers were immigrant workers prepared to take on the anti-union laws more than any current group of 'indiginous' workers i can think of, and there was a marvellous show of solidarity by the mainly white baggage handlers. this is the kind of activity that will raise our standard of living, not lower it. And as far as i know the irish ferries dispute involved latvians refusing to take irish workers jobs - another fine example of internationalist w/c solidarity that should be built on, not used as an anti-immigration argument.
We need to raise the standard of living for us all by uniting with these people, not trying to keep them out. And every time you say that immigrants are reducing our standard of living you let the capitalists off the hook - why do you think Murdoch is so keen for us to hate asylum-seekers? It may or may not benefit the CBI to let immigrants into the UK, but it DEFINITELY benefits them to have us blame the immigrants for our lower wages, crap housing etc. I'm not saying you're racist but fight the real enemy, don't fight for the rich man's crumbs.
You are arguing that we should fight with other poor people of different nationalities (and what is a nationality anyway? an imaginary identity IMO) for crumbs from the capitalists' table. These's plenty enough to go round for us all to live in affluence, problem is it's being spent on rich people's second homes and other luxuries and investments, not that immigrants are somehow stealing it.
Many nationalities are easier to recruit to unions than British workers - Poles for example, and as long as they are unionised with us, they can't depress wages, right? We need to organise with them, not try and keep them out. The government is committed to selling off social housing and is doing so all over the country - this is why the working class doesn't have affordable housing, not immigration. And even if immigrants are stealing 'our' jobs, keeping them out won't solve the problem, the jobs will just move overseas.
And how does gate gourmet and irish ferries prove your point? The gg workers were immigrant workers prepared to take on the anti-union laws more than any current group of 'indiginous' workers i can think of, and there was a marvellous show of solidarity by the mainly white baggage handlers. this is the kind of activity that will raise our standard of living, not lower it. And as far as i know the irish ferries dispute involved latvians refusing to take irish workers jobs - another fine example of internationalist w/c solidarity that should be built on, not used as an anti-immigration argument.
We need to raise the standard of living for us all by uniting with these people, not trying to keep them out. And every time you say that immigrants are reducing our standard of living you let the capitalists off the hook - why do you think Murdoch is so keen for us to hate asylum-seekers? It may or may not benefit the CBI to let immigrants into the UK, but it DEFINITELY benefits them to have us blame the immigrants for our lower wages, crap housing etc. I'm not saying you're racist but fight the real enemy, don't fight for the rich man's crumbs.
I repeat, i'm not calling you racist but as an anarcho-syndicalist i'm pretty shocked to see you using the name Durruti and making an argument like this. Durruti believed passionately in international solidarity and died for those beliefs, would have been well pissed off with his name being associated with these daily mail type opinions. 
Surely the unions in any sector where wages would be negatively impacted has a duty to at least research this and could use it to lobby the government over this new "points system" for skilled workers - regarding sectors which are claimed to have a skill shortage.durruti02 said:
There are also any number of people doing PhDs or other research who are totally free to study the impacts of immigration both in the UK and elsewhere, and can submit their research to academic journals.
Are you suggesting that this kind of research is being systematically suppressed or is not allowed? Or are people here just not bothered enough to go and look for it?
The fact is that I have seen some stuff that might back up people's arguments - for example some of the parts of the studies that I have already referenced on this thread - and have been amazed that noone here has actually quoted things back at me. This is one of the resaons that I had to conclude that certain people hadn't even looked at the studies that I had cited, and had simply denounced them as biased and ideological without having read them.
All these are valid *theoretical* points: I agree that theory would suggest that there are negative impacts - "winners and losers". What I am interested in is seeing who these winners and losers are in real life, rather than just buying into a theory and looking no further.durruti02 said:
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
sihhi said:
Germany bitterly regretted the gastarbeiter solution to their problems with filling certain jobs, when they were prevented from sending them home at the end of their contracts.
magnifico said:
magnifico .. unlike i suspect yourself i am a trade union member of over 20 years and i shop steward for most .. in that time i have worked with and supported workers of all differrent nationalities .. again unlike i suspect yourself .. apologies if i am wrong
fair play if you have not read the thread .. it is long but interesting .. it was started to expose the liberal myth that immigration is neccessarily and specifically noiw, good for the w/c .. the main points are that immigration under capitalism is a capitalist process .. as are all processes under capitalism .. and is geared to producing the best terms of exploitation for the capitalists .. this seems undisputable but so many so called anarchists and syndicalists (who appear often tbh to have little connection with the w/c) argue , in terms of immigration , that the bosses are right .. for the free movement of labour .. this is aimed at being and is usually deeply damaging to labour organisation , but whose role however, as you correctly state, is to work openly with immigrant workers and organise them ..
the conclusions are that in all spheres the w/c needs to 'take control' .. and this will mean of housing allocation/of recruitment as well as wages and terms and conditions ..
what would be your anarcho-syndicalist arguements to my post to TJ above??
and ps durruti was not a liberal ..
.....TeeJay said:Surely the unions in any sector where wages would be negatively impacted has a duty to at least research this and could use it to lobby the government over this new "points system" for skilled workers - regarding sectors which are claimed to have a skill shortage.
THE UNIONS LEADERS ARE COWARDS AND PART OF THE DEAL .. YOU KNOW THAT !.. THERE ARE THOUGH MURMURS ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENNED WITH gg AND IRISH FERRIES
There are also any number of people doing PhDs or other research who are totally free to study the impacts of immigration both in the UK and elsewhere, and can submit their research to academic journals.
FAIR PLAY BUT THEY DO NOT GET THE COVERAGE THAT PRO GOVT./CBI ETC REPORTS WILL GET
Are you suggesting that this kind of research is being systematically suppressed or is not allowed? Or are people here just not bothered enough to go and look for it?
JUST LIKE WITH SO MUCH OF SOCIETY IT WILL BE A COMBINATION .. AND THERE IS A DEFINATE FEAR OF BEING LABELED RACIST
The fact is that I have seen some stuff that might back up people's arguments - for example some of the parts of the studies that I have already referenced on this thread - and have been amazed that noone here has actually quoted things back at me. This is one of the resaons that I had to conclude that certain people hadn't even looked at the studies that I had cited, and had simply denounced them as biased and ideological without having read them.
OOPS .. GIVE ME THEM AGAIN .. I COME AND GO WITH U75 .. I MISSED THAT
TeeJay said:
absolutely .. but i am not talking theoretically .. i am always talking about what i see and experiance in my life and work where i live etc .. and it is outrageously clear of the negative impacts immigration has had lately, NOT OF ITS OWN but AS PART OF THE THATCHERITE package of privatistation etc etc
magnifico said:I repeat, i'm not calling you racist but as an anarcho-syndicalist i'm pretty shocked to see you using the name Durruti and making an argument like this. Durruti believed passionately in international solidarity and died for those beliefs, would have been well pissed off with his name being associated with these daily mail type opinions.
durruti would i suspect have been more pissed off seeing his name associated with the liberals who today carry the black and red and black flags ..
Can International Migration Solve the Problems of European Labour Markets? (nb .pdf file!) by Herbert Brücker, German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) Berlin/Institute for Labour Market Studies (IZA) Bonn (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe publication).
The local labour market effects of immigration in the UK (nb .pdf file!) by Christian Dustmann, University College London.
WORLD MIGRATION 2005 - Costs and benefits of international migration (nb .pdf file!) International Organization for Migration, Geneva.
Sasaferrato said:
Fundamental difference of opinion isn't it. Some sections of capital and the German right see Turkish residents in Germany as a resource they no longer "need" and would like rid of. For the monst part though, people get on with each other. Areas of Germany with worst unemployment have the LOWEST leavel of non Germans living there. Funny that isn't it.
Fine 'durruti'02 don't answer my points just come out with personal abuse and wave your cock around about what a good trade unionist you are have a fucking medal. I am actually a trade unionist and i work with many people from other nationalities not that this makes any difference to whether my position on the basic anarchist and socialist principle of internationalism is correct or not. and no i haven't been a trade unionist for 20 years, i'm not old enough, maybe this makes you automatically right in any argument or maybe it just makes you senile.
Of course capitalism encourages immigration sometimes, it needs it if it has a labour shortage or something, sometimes it tries to halt it, if you'd been paying attention to all the tory, labour and tabloid demonisation of asylum seekers you would realise that my position advocating a borderless world is not 'agreeing' with the neo-liberals.
How arguing that it is the capitalists, not the working class of other nationalities that is keeping us poor makes me a liberal i do not know, but thank you i am aware that Durruti wasn't a liberal, that's why he was a member of the International Workers' Association which believes that the working class have no country unlike yourself who argues that the british w/c should 'take control' of immigration policy and make it more reactionary. you are basically saying "they're coming over here, stealing our jobs, stealing our housing" and trying to couch it as some kind of progressive argument. the reason i brought up Durruti was so that any casual observer to these boards wouldn't mistakenly associate your cretinous views with anarcho-syndicalism.
Of course capitalism encourages immigration sometimes, it needs it if it has a labour shortage or something, sometimes it tries to halt it, if you'd been paying attention to all the tory, labour and tabloid demonisation of asylum seekers you would realise that my position advocating a borderless world is not 'agreeing' with the neo-liberals.
How arguing that it is the capitalists, not the working class of other nationalities that is keeping us poor makes me a liberal i do not know, but thank you i am aware that Durruti wasn't a liberal, that's why he was a member of the International Workers' Association which believes that the working class have no country unlike yourself who argues that the british w/c should 'take control' of immigration policy and make it more reactionary. you are basically saying "they're coming over here, stealing our jobs, stealing our housing" and trying to couch it as some kind of progressive argument. the reason i brought up Durruti was so that any casual observer to these boards wouldn't mistakenly associate your cretinous views with anarcho-syndicalism.
sorry, didn't mean to be so rude, these message board thingys seem to bring out some strange evil side of me i didn't know i had.
just thought it was a bit low to start calling me liberal and imply that i was some kid who doesn't know what their talkin about just cos i'm defending what seems to me to be an orthodox socialist/marxist/class struggle anarchist position. no need for rudeness though.
just thought it was a bit low to start calling me liberal and imply that i was some kid who doesn't know what their talkin about just cos i'm defending what seems to me to be an orthodox socialist/marxist/class struggle anarchist position. no need for rudeness though.
magnifico said:sorry, didn't mean to be so rude, these message board thingys seem to bring out some strange evil side of me i didn't know i had.
just thought it was a bit low to start calling me liberal and imply that i was some kid who doesn't know what their talkin about just cos i'm defending what seems to me to be an orthodox socialist/marxist/class struggle anarchist position. no need for rudeness though.
fair play but you called me names first!! .. which you appear to have edited from your post
magnifico said:
please re read some of this thread .. many of these arguments have been had already .. primarily there is NO blame being directed at economic migrants and especially not at refugees .. the blame is being directed entirely at capitalism which uses and abuses humans in all arenas .. and trying to find answers to rebuilding class power .. which alone can defend people ..
Your argument is flawed.
Firstly it is impossible for w/c people to take control of immigration through their areas. Immigration involves people entering this country as a nation, until w/c control the nation they won't be able to stop people entering it.
Secondly taking control as you put it sounds far more reactionary, what does this 'taking control' mean? Not allowing immigrants to enter w/c areas as they will be using resources which should only be for the "british" w/c? The no borders argument is that we should embrace immigrants, that we should join with them in struggle against a capitalist system which prevents the free movement of people (labour) as that is how it can depress wages in the developed world and exploit people in the developing world. How then does that play into the hands of reaction?
Capitalism DOESN'T want free movement of people, if it did then it would have it, but it doesn't. The majority of the worlds population cannot move freely. Even within the EU, aren't the populations of new member states prevented from travelling here? Sure the bosses want a small reserve army of labour but not a massive one which no borders would allow, as this would prevent the exploitation of workers restricted to one country as all workers could travel anywhere and the bosses would be forced to pay the same wages as workers couldn't be confined to whatever shitty wages were paid in their country as they could up sticks and go somewhere else.
Sure this potentially sounds like a neo-liberal exploitation dream, workers everywhere paid the same low wage, but to get open borders would require large struggles by w/c across nations and the international solidarity built up through this struggle would massively aid the international w/c in fighting against this. Also with open/no borders international Unions could be created much more easily, allowing workers to combat exploitation internationally in ways they are unable to do when restricted by national boundaries.
*Left wing wet dream* International solidarity strikes, first Europe wide then globally co-ordinated by unions organised across borders with truly international leadership.
I would argue that this is far more worthy than simply struggling for working class control of areas, which just reinforces the nationalism of the w/c and goes against attempts to build international solidarity.
.....Sucram said:Your argument is flawed.
Firstly it is impossible for w/c people to take control of immigration through their areas.
well hey lets give up then!
Immigration involves people entering this country as a nation, until w/c control the nation they won't be able to stop people entering it.
initially of course .. but where do you start .. it is just if not far more ludirous to demand something like 'no borders' .. we have to start somewhere .. and it is a good to analyse what 'they' are doing to know what we should do .. and over the last period that has been housing liberalisation, outsourcing using low paid often immigrant workers ect etc
Secondly taking control as you put it sounds far more reactionary, what does this 'taking control' mean?
it means workesr ..black and white in a factory or housing estate/street demanding not just good wages or clean streets but control/influence over jobs/recruitment and housing allocation.. how on earth is this reactionary .. indeed it is more rectionary that you question the w/c/peoples right to this ..
Not allowing immigrants to enter w/c areas as they will be using resources which should only be for the "british" w/c?
.. this is about rebuilding worker power .. this is not a debate about resources .. though that is important too .. both IWCA and SF in ireland quite rightly argue for increased resources for areas where immigrations are used by capitalism ..
The no borders argument is that we should embrace immigrants,
tell that to people who can not get jobs and housing .. however right the arguement may be
that we should join with them in struggle against a capitalist system which prevents the free movement of people (labour) as that is how it can depress wages in the developed world and exploit people in the developing world.
i agree absolutely with the above .. but that has nowt intrinsically with a demands in the here and now for no borders
How then does that play into the hands of reaction?
because 99% of w/c people see the processes involved in current capitalism .. quiete rightly see this as 'no borders' and wrongly then blame immigrants rather than capitalism
Capitalism DOESN'T want free movement of people, if it did then it would have it, but it doesn't.
actually yes capitalism does not want no borders as it is still to an extent nation based .. however the borders in this country are delibertely far more open than both the 'no borders' liberals and the press and govt will admit ..
The majority of the worlds population cannot move freely. Even within the EU, aren't the populations of new member states prevented from travelling here?
where do you live???? it can not be london or any major town in the uk
Sure the bosses want a small reserve army of labour but not a massive one which no borders would allow, as this would prevent the exploitation of workers restricted to one country as all workers could travel anywhere and the bosses would be forced to pay the same wages as workers couldn't be confined to whatever shitty wages were paid in their country as they could up sticks and go somewhere else.
possibly true .. and how were you acheiving no borders again?
Sure this potentially sounds like a neo-liberal exploitation dream, workers everywhere paid the same low wage, but to get open borders would require large struggles by w/c across nations and the international solidarity built up through this struggle would massively aid the international w/c in fighting against this. Also with open/no borders international Unions could be created much more easily, allowing workers to combat exploitation internationally in ways they are unable to do when restricted by national boundaries.
oh i see large struggles by the w/c .. and how and why ?? if you do not start at the base where are you starting?????
*Left wing wet dream* International solidarity strikes, first Europe wide then globally co-ordinated by unions organised across borders with truly international leadership.
ditto
I would argue that this is far more worthy than simply struggling for working class control of areas, which just reinforces the nationalism of the w/c and goes against attempts to build international solidarity.
if i was being mischevous i would say this is a racist attitude
No borders isn't raised on its own. Its not some sort of cure all. Its combined with demands for greater investment and, as you said, w/c control of housing, spending, jobs etc.
Sure those are good demands, but why can't you combine them with demands for no borders?
Yes and you rebuild it by challenging the divisions in the w/c created by racism and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the media/government/bnp.
I'm part of my local no borders campaign group so I do that. And I argue that people won't be able to get those things while the w/c is divided and bosses use divisions between the w/c and immigrants to get them to scab on each other and undermine each others power.
Yes it does cause by raising demands for no borders you highlight that it is capitalism which uses borders and nations to exploit workers and that no borders is something which will aid the w/c, not make its condition worse as people think it will now.
No, they see it WRONGLY as "no borders" and blame immigrants, and by raising the demand for their actually being no borders we show them how it is borders which allow capitalism to do what it does now, not the supposed lack of them.
Yes they are open but only for capitalism and its wants, they are not open to everyone which is the reason why demand they get rid of them completeley.
First, what does that have to do with anything? Secondly, I live in Leeds.
Setting up no borders campaign groups, starting asylum seeker campaigns to bring together immigrants and the local w/c to campaign together on these issues. How are you achieving workers control?
Where do you think we are starting? Who else do you think we try and involve in our campaigns except local workers, youth and immigrants? We know that its only pressure from the w/c which can bring about no borders so we campaign to involve the w/c in struggle.
cockneyrebel
New Member
And he's off......
It would be easier for shallow lefties if people didnt point out the contradictions in what they say. As a shallow leftie who believes in Workers Power you like the previous poster believe in Workers Control under the firm leadership of the vanguard.cockneyrebel said:
Its a pile of shit.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I don't know what happened to that link, here is a proper one. It's an audio file for you to listen to. http://www.themightyowl.com/marxism2005/immigration-racism-and-refugees-elane-heffernan.mp3tbaldwin said:
I would be interested in your opinion on what is said.
ResistanceMP3
ResistanceMP3 said:
Crikey, How many times did she use the word NASTY. Kind of sums up Pathetic Racist Liberals. There answer to the problems of the world is REFUGEES WELCOME HERE. But that is hardly a Socialist answer.
Didnt the SWP used to be called International Socialists? Why have they turned into National Liberals?
Similar threads
