Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[tbaldwin]

RMP3 So you want all carrott and no stick to deter economic migration?
How do you expect anybody to take that seriously?

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3 So you want all carrott and no stick to deter economic migration?
How do you expect anybody to take that seriously?

I did say;

right, let's not see this as an argument, but you have asked me a question, and so I expect you to try and understand honestly what I am saying. I am not saying you will have to agree with me, but at least you should be able to understand what I really think, instead of attacking some caricature.okay?

you see this is why this thread has taken 33 pages, and nearly 1200 posts, to hammer out one of the most basic and obvious arguments of the Marxist analysis of immigration. Do you Durrito Exo accept this is at least my real Marxist analysis, or are you going to still insist I am being dishonest? If we cannot agree such simple and basic things, and accept that each of us are honestly framing their arguments, how can you expect to have a serious debate about immigration?

(Again I will repeat, I do not know anybody on the revolutionary left who does not hold a similar view to this. Exo, if you want to make me aware of somebody, please do so.)

 

[tbaldwin]

It seems a bit dishonest to me RPM3 to pretend that you are against economic migration but then take the position that the only thing that can be done is worldwide revolution.
The Left are shit on the subject,i think you know that but struggle to admit it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It seems a bit dishonest to me RPM3 to pretend that you are against economic migration but then take the position that the only thing that can be done is worldwide revolution.
The Left are shit on the subject,i think you know that but struggle to admit it.

I know you think that. I think you put your argument most honestly. but if you're not prepared to believe a word I say, there is no point having the debate, you are clearly not capable.

so unless you are prepared to accept I've framed my arguments honestly, there is no point in taking the debate further. I will leave you to your dogmatism. go in peace.

 

[durruti02]

I never, actually, said you was.

btw can you point to anybody in SW, or any of the other revolutionary left organisations who does not think that the Neo Liberals support for immigration is not based on the assumption it will undermine the labour movement?

so if you all do why have you not 1)put it on the front cover of your paper!

2)gone to barking ( and all other points) ..

3)and explained that to people??

 

[durruti02]

Your version of `socialaism`, basically state capitalism, is dead and you cant bring it back as it doesnt work. Even the left of the labour party had to fight the unions, the unions were/are right wing. most of them will scab on each other at the drop of a hat, the closed shop fucked over the poor, created trade cliques and was overtly racist on some cases, the dock strike being the most obvious.
I think its great to see you trot out cliches like "Liberal Supremacist", use bold and capitals to highlight your weak arguments.
The left missed a huge chance in the 60s and 70s to create a more equitable planet, to beat your right-wing allies to the punch over `globalisation` and head it off. Instead they fought over the crumbs, scabbing and betraying each other at every turn, the Electricians Union anyone, the support for the miners anyone? Unionism made great strides in the 30s-early50s. After then it became a rightist structure and your two dimensional thinking is a good example of it.

If you are so assured about how in touch with "the working clas" (hahah what a mug phrase that is, only muppets use it) then get out on the doorstep and show us...it was people like you who betrayed them the first time round, who are betraying them now in France et al and are the ones who opened up the way for the NF in the 70s and the BNP now. Useless gobbers who think they can tell everyone the shining path. I wanna see you get out of the street and sell your pamphlets.

Oh and by the way how does your economic programme differentiate from the BNPs?

you like many on the left misunderstand the differrence between unions ..as in the ordinary member and Unions ..as in the leadership

the ordinary member did not create right wing trade unions .. the state created this social contract .. time and time again union members were fked by the leadership

also again you misunderstand unions .. yo see them as exclusive .. you say the closed shop was against the poor?? .. we pray tell me what the fk are working people suppossed to do .. let their wages be driven down and be gratefull for it??

i do not quite get what it is what you want in the world .. but what i can tell you is this .. if ordinary people are not 100% involved .. if it is not based on trade ( or better industrial ) unions and community.tenats and residents groups .. it will not come about

and please tell us also why the phrase w/ is for mugs??

 

[durruti02]

so I ask durruti02 tbaldwin exosculate, to give me examples to substantiate and clarify their thesis, and what do you get? Nothing. Not only that, you suggest I'm "not being honest", when there could be no possible reason be dishonest, and you give no evidence to substantiate your accusations.

this is what I find so interminable and dishonest about the debating style of durruti02 tbaldwin exosculate. I'm sorry, but I do. I offer to sit down go through the debate, but you will not go beyond your strawman accusations. You will not back up your arguments with any hard facts and hard analysis. And what's worse you won't make any attempt whatsoever to try and understand that, my opinions, that you are attacking.

as i have said before mr rmp3 .. i am not on here regularly .. so sorry no instantaneous replies from me

i have given many many many examples .. from marx talking about chinese labourers in the late 19thC, to the use by capitalists of irish labourers ( the qoute SW always only half qoute!! ) to cesar chavez standing against illegal immigraton , to the effect on public and private sector wages ( yes yes yes of course as part of cct/bv) etc to all balders examples of nurses and job losses in third world countries .. and the votes for the bnp in west yorkshire and to

what more do you want??

 

[durruti02]

Immigrants should be absorbed into working class organisation and struggles, not working class organisation reacting against them. Utter stupidity. Immigrant labour will come here, they are needed by the requirements of a lot of employers, and yes they do compete with workers here for low paying jobs, but I would rather show solidarity with an unskilled/skilled worker from another country, in gaining changes to working and living conditions, through unionisation etc, than pandering to the middle classes you claim to despise. The negative affects of immigration on working class organisation might be something employers want, through division, but keeping immigrants out is not going to happen. Employers want low paid workers. And they should be on our side, to kick the employers in the teeth.

ryaazan .. not a single person on this site has argued against the idea we should attempt to unionise immigrant workers and fight alongside them ..

and rmp3 .. this is what the left is pumpimg out ... that to be against the use of immigration to undercut terms and conditiions is to be anti immigrant

 

[durruti02]

well I have to say I am disappointed too, instead of responding to posts I make directly to you, you respond to posts where I take the Mickey out of exo for his piss poor attempt at debating. I have the patience to go through the debate with you honestly, it is a shame you haven't responded in kind.

apologises i get tired sometimes .. but equally i think you have not been entirely straight ..

haven't got a clue what you're talking about, I am not saying the SW is the true left.

fair play .. do you support a party/group?

I'm sorry to laugh, but it is difficult to take his caricature of what we do seriously. However, as I have already said the relationship of the working class to the revolutionary left is a different topic from the line the revolutionary left should take on immigration.


if you go back to the start of this thread you will see i argue the things are actually integrally linked .. no contact with the people .. false position on day to day issues

in my opinion, it is too simplistic and analysis to blame the rise in some aspects of right-wing politics on the left. The real story is far more complicated. I also think you exaggerate.

yes .. but as i have always said .. immigration was and remains the bit the left always missed out in their critique of neo liberalism ( not globally but locally)

you haven't been reading have you? I have been agreeing with you and Mr Baldwin all the way through the thread about the neo-economic libralist. What's more on many occasions I have said, I don't know anybody who disagrees with you from the left about this agenda. the idea that capitalists will use anybody, women, immigrants, even children to undermine workers organisation/pay/terms and conditions is an absolute basic of Marxist analysis. You and Baldy are telling us nothing we do not accept.

so why do we not ever see it mentionned by the left in black and white .. the only place i have seen it mentionned is in a SP discussiondoc that got posted a while back

It is your "nonsolution" we all disagree with.

what workers action on closed shop ??? you say that is a non solution?????

in fact I will throw out a challenge again, can you point to anybody in SW, or any of the other revolutionary left organisations who does not think that the Neo Liberals support immigration is not based on the assumption it will undermine the labour movement?

no as i do not mix regularly with them .. so i challenge yo .. show me in print where SW or anyone discusses this in any depth

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8027

this is the closest i have found .. it still does not come out loaud and clear and say .. in headline .. STOP THE CAPITALISTS USING IMMIGRATION FOR CHEAP LABOUR .. why??

btw you need to reread the article you posted from the MP to understand how you are wrong about Tony Blair.

que??

......

 

[durruti02]

I know you think that. I think you put your argument most honestly. but if you're not prepared to believe a word I say, there is no point having the debate, you are clearly not capable.

so unless you are prepared to accept I've framed my arguments honestly, there is no point in taking the debate further. I will leave you to your dogmatism. go in peace.

i accept you believe this .. what i find it hard to belive is that the you and SW and all or whoever think they can ever change the world if they can not be honest ( not you personally ) in their papers and propaganda

 

[exosculate]

Hello Baldy & exosculate;
once again, I do not know anybody from the "open Borders brigade" on the left, who would disagree with this. All the way through from Karl Marx to Socialist-Worker. (exo this is part of the caricature I am talking about. The strawman argument if you want. I have tackled this argument by explaining the left accepts this view between 10 and 40 times.)
the general thrust of your argument Marxist's accept, as you can see from the comments of Karl Marx reproduced by Durrito on the topic. I think I have also mentioned to you a very good film on the topic, "The Killing Floor", a study of a American slaughterhouse labour relations in the time of several waves of economic migrants. However, we wouldn't say the deleterious effects are just a product of migrant labour, we would place that migration in a social context and say that the deleterious byproducts existed only because of the class relationships of capitalism.(Exo, as above.)
That is not actually true. We are against the penalisation of immigrants, thus against immigration and border controls which penalise migrants economic or otherwise. this does not mean we are not also against the enforced migration through economics. (Exo, as above.)
I don't think there will be any arguments from the SW for the penalisation of migrants. But they're very well maybe articles to outline the deleterious effects the migration of some of the more skilled labour from developing countries has on those countries. And I am sure there are many studies, such as that of "the killing floor"

you are absolutely right, there is indeed a contradiction at the heart of the Marxist argument on immigration. On the one hand Marxist do accept there can be deleterious consequences from immigration, economic migrants. On the other hand, we do NOT think it is POSSIBLE or even desirable to stop or penalise immigrants. If you do not attack the Marxist argument with recognition of this contradiction, you are not attacking what I and many others on the left really think, you are attacking a caricature, on a strawman argument of your own creation Baldy.

(okay Exo?)

Very nice, I can work on a summary like that. But not right now.

 

[exosculate]

See Post 1199.

I will say as an opener however:-


The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class.

The British working class at this point in history do not want open borders. You cannot impose a position on their behalf, when you do you alienate.

Its all about living in a real world where your political outlook has no connection with the 'class' and therefore you have to connect where you can or you will exacerbate the problem. Which is what most of the 'left' do on issues such as these in my view.

 

[exosculate]

ryaazan .. not a single person on this site has argued against the idea we should attempt to unionise immigrant workers and fight alongside them ..

and rmp3 .. this is what the left is pumpimg out ... that to be against the use of immigration to undercut terms and conditiions is to be anti immigrant

I would call it pro working class rather than anti-immigrant.

 

[TremulousTetra]

i accept you believe this

No you don't. You have already said, you do not think that I am playing straight. And even here you go to say;

. what i find it hard to belive is that the you and SW and all or whoever think they can ever change the world if they can not be honest ( not you personally ) in their papers and propaganda

if I "can not be honest"? What is the point of debating with you? You're not even listening to what I am saying. You're not even researching your own argument properly, or understanding properly the research you present to us. you have just created your own strawman, and you seem like you are going to continue attacking it no matter what I say to you.

if you are not prepared to accept, that post 1199 is my honest and straight position, and attack that real argument, instead of your strawman argument, I will leave you to your dogmatism. Go in peace.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class.

couldn't agree with you more. I was listening to Chris Bamberry last night, who went further than that and said, "there is no such thing as socialism from above, what we need is a rank and file organisation of activists".

The British working class at this point in history do not want open borders. You cannot impose a position on their behalf, when you do you alienate.

the fact that the emancipation of the working-class, has to be the act of the working-class, does not automatically mean the working class is always right.the working class has supported powelism, the oppression of women, imperialism. It is possibly a minority of their support, but members of the working-class have also supported fascism.

Its all about living in a real world where your political outlook has no connection with the 'class' and therefore you have to connect where you can or you will exacerbate the problem. Which is what most of the 'left' do on issues such as these in my view.

you might be surprised to hear, if you develop this argument properly, I may agree with you.

At least you seem to be attempting to address my real position. In that case I will ask you a question. How will the working-class stop migration?

 

[audiotech]

It is possibly a minority of their support, but members of the working-class have also supported fascism.

A few disparate elements, but certainly not the organised working class, who are often the most militant in their opposition to fascism.

 

[Gmart]

If immigration, or freedom of movement for labour is not allowed then the companies will move abroad and even more jobs will be lost.

Immigrants primarily work very hard and add to the country. It is overly simplistic to just blame the immigrants of course, but many want and will vote for easy answers.

Maybe a better education system would help? With equality of opportunity and working towards jobs which are needed but maybe that's another discussion

 

[durruti02]

rmp3 .. you are being over sensitive .. i believe you are generally being honest .. i am entitled though, as your take on the swp is so alien to most peoples, to think that you are not being entirely straight concerning their stance .. if things are as you say why do we not see this reflected in SW , the paper ??

.. if you are being 100% straight in your argueing techniques etc ( which sadly i am not always ) i apologise .. and you can now answer my bloody posts!


especially the arguement that while you maintain the swp etc agree with 'my' position .. when i search the swp web site i get exactly the opposite .. please explain this apparrent contradiction

i think ex's post of 7.40 yesterday is spot on is absolutely spot on

 

[TremulousTetra]

you see this is my big problem dur, the debate is boring because it doesn't seem to move on from the absolute basics that have already explained to 'you' many times. I do not understand how you do not think I haven't already answered your posts. Perhaps you could enlighten me by explaining how your own research about Karl Marx, does not concur with what I had said, that there can be inter-working class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that CAN accompany immigration (sometimes).

 

[tbaldwin]

I know you think that. I think you put your argument most honestly. but if you're not prepared to believe a word I say, there is no point having the debate, you are clearly not capable.

so unless you are prepared to accept I've framed my arguments honestly, there is no point in taking the debate further. I will leave you to your dogmatism. go in peace.

Nope your wrong its not that i dont believe a word you say,its that im pointing to the contradictions.
I think you have a real problem.On one hand you recognise that economic migration makes the world a more unequal place on the other you dont want to be seen as anti immigration ( cos that is seen as nasty and reactionary)
You have shown a lot more honesty and intelligence than shallow lefties on this subject but you still cant find the courage to break away from the nonsense they spout on the subject.

 

[durruti02]

you see this is my big problem dur, the debate is boring because it doesn't seem to move on from the absolute basics that have already explained to 'you' many times. I do not understand how you do not think I haven't already answered your posts. Perhaps you could enlighten me by explaining how your own research about Karl Marx, does not concur with what I had said, that there can be inter-working class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that CAN accompany immigration (sometimes).

absolutely .. and we must be open and honest about them .. and show reasons and processes and solutions .. because if we don't the bnp surely will

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nope your wrong its not that i dont believe a word you say,its that im pointing to the contradictions.
I think you have a real problem.On one hand you recognise that economic migration makes the world a more unequal place on the other you dont want to be seen as anti immigration ( cos that is seen as nasty and reactionary)
You have shown a lot more honesty and intelligence than shallow lefties on this subject but you still cant find the courage to break away from the nonsense they spout on the subject.

you have no idea what I think, honestly you don't. I absolutely swear on everything I cherish most, my opposition to the "anti-immigration" argument, has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to be seen as nasty and reactionary. I have been there and done that. In my lifetime I have supported the "anti immigration" argument. In fact in my lifetime I've supported racism. I have been intellectually won away "from the nonsense" of both them positions, because of my loyalty to, and wish to advance my class, the working class.

now I'm fully prepared to accept the possibility that my analysis and strategy of immigration may be flawed. But I'm not prepared to take the debate forward from here until you concede my opinions are just as honestly held as yours, and the obvious possibility that you might be wrong.

PS. A bit of background about myself may make you aware how absurd your comments are.

I suffered an industrial injury at the age of 24. By this time I was married, had bought my first investment property, from the wages I received from industrial cleaning (you know, acid washing, sand blasting, etc).I've gone through an apprenticeship as a mechanic, to find the wages would be about 40 to 50 a week, when I could 120 week industrial cleaning. By 1984 I was on 180 a week. so by this point I was quite won away from any socialist leanings I had had when I was about 17-18 (1977-88).

Even though I have had socialist leanings, there is always the ability to hold contradictory ideas within one's head. The National front were active in my area. My family were quite racist, I don't mean fascist. In fact my mother and father were antifascist because of the war, though not actively. So being anti immigration, and soft racist came quite natural to me. It is hard to characterise my racism, but like many working class people, I think it was not so much a hatred of "others", more a pragmatic acceptance of what seemed to be the dominant view, and somewhat a relief that they suffer of it instead of me.

I first came into contact with Socialist-Worker after my accident, through my physiotherapist.and I distinctly remember after I had been partially won to Socialist Workers analysis of class conflict, thinking "I like the way these people analyse the world, they seem to have the right idea how working-class people can fight for what they produce, it is just a shame they cannot drop all this Liberal guilt complex for black people etc."

So you see, I fully understand your argument, because it is what I USED TO argue it myself.(though I wasn't quite as Liberal as you are, I did not give a shit about Third World countries.)

 

[tbaldwin]

Your not the only person here who has changed their position on Immigration. Before getting involved on the left i would come out with standard Liberal shit on "How Immigration was good for the UK etc" Giving the subject more serious thought and arguing what i thought was right with freinds etc, made me reexamine some of the shit i was coming out with.
I grew up around a lot of fairly Racist people and just tended to oppose everything they said without really thinking it thru.
And i certainly didnt see the full implications of supporting mass economic migration.
I had been taken in by a kind of Cowboys and Indians world where suddenly you realise that the Cowboys were the BAD GUYS. But the World is never that simple and to change it means looking beyond some of the reactionary nonsense that the Left comes out with on issues like Immigration.

 

[TremulousTetra]

absolutely .. and we must be open and honest about them .. and show reasons and processes and solutions .. because if we don't the bnp surely will

I think I've made it very clear over the last couple of days that our analysis and even strategy on immigration, is virtually the same. There is one key difference in the strategy, equalisation instead of discrimination. In my opinion this is what we should be debating. I have put my position, feel free to counter.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Your not the only person here who has changed their position on Immigration. Before getting involved on the left i would come out with standard Liberal shit on "How Immigration was good for the UK etc" Giving the subject more serious thought and arguing what i thought was right with freinds etc, made me reexamine some of the shit i was coming out with.
I grew up around a lot of fairly Racist people and just tended to oppose everything they said without really thinking it thru.
And i certainly didnt see the full implications of supporting mass economic migration.
I had been taken in by a kind of Cowboys and Indians world where suddenly you realise that the Cowboys were the BAD GUYS. But the World is never that simple and to change it means looking beyond some of the reactionary nonsense that the Left comes out with on issues like Immigration.

but can you see the difference in the debating styles? I do not describe your arguments is nonsense, except when I quote your own words back at you. I concede the possibility I may the wrong, but you displayed no such open-mindedness. It is not that I am not prepared to try and explain the ALREADY ACCEPTED contradictions in my argument, it is that I find such an exercise impossible because you're not prepared to take the time, answer the questions, and look at the arguments with an open mind.

PS. In fact you haven't been honest enough to concede you were unaware of the perfectly rational contradictions in my argument, it has took me six months to win a partial recognition of.

 

[tbaldwin]

If you ask me say 7 staraight questions i will try and answer them for you. But probably not today. I think you are trying to engage in an honest debate but that doesnt mean i accept your views and neither do i accept that most on the left have given the issue ANY serious thought.

 

[tbaldwin]

RPM3, Im still waiting for 7 straight questions.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RPM3, Im still waiting for 7 straight questions.

you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. You started a thread on this topic. You have asked people to explain their different opinions on the topic. I was offering to have an honest and genuine dialogue, asking questions and discussingg the SW position, so you could understand it as I do. I was not offering to convince you with seven straight questions. I don't think you are genuinely interested in the SW position. You have made your mind up, and you are not going to change it. That is okay with me. Go in peace.

 

[TremulousTetra]

absolutely .. and we must be open and honest about them .. and show reasons and processes and solutions .. because if we don't the bnp surely will

I agree, so could you answer my question I asked earlier?

you see this is my big problem dur, the debate is boring because it doesn't seem to move on from the absolute basics that have already explained to 'you' many times. I do not understand how you do not think I haven't already answered your posts. Perhaps you could enlighten me by explaining how your own research about Karl Marx, does not concur with what I had said, that there can be inter-working class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that CAN accompany immigration (sometimes).

 

[durruti02]

I agree, so could you answer my question I asked earlier?

"you see this is my big problem dur, the debate is boring because it doesn't seem to move on from the absolute basics that have already explained to 'you' many times. I do not understand how you do not think I haven't already answered your posts. Perhaps you could enlighten me by explaining how your own research about Karl Marx, does not concur with what I had said, that there can be inter-working class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that CAN accompany immigration (sometimes)."

not quite sure your point here .. i think it is that i do not accept a marxist would just say what you have said above

.. marx .. re chinese in New York and irish in England in the 19th C .. stated quite clearly that the bosses USED immigration against the organised w/c .. this goes beyond what you are stating above , that immigration simply causes intra class conflicts