Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
Brainaddict said:
ok to an extent you are right .. immigration has been used for centuries as a weapon against union organisation .. massively e.g. in scotland in the 19th century directly to break strikes e.g. in dundee
BUT from 1945 to thatcher tehre was a social compromise/welfare state social democracy system in europe from all parties .. thatcherism broke this system as part of the world bank/neoliberalism project which we see labour carry on with to day .. it is true that thatcherism didn't rely on immigration in the first stages of CCT anti union programme .. there weer a clear 3 million on the dole then .. she didn't have too .. the unemployed now are less keen to take the shit wages on offer .. hence the need for immigration
Up till this post people had been saying that we shouldn't divide people up on the basis of "race".
Then you went and posted this:
Care to explain why we should divide people up on the basis of so-called "race"? Because as far as I can see you are the only person on this thread who has implied we should.
Then you went and posted this:
tbaldwin said:
Care to explain why we should divide people up on the basis of so-called "race"? Because as far as I can see you are the only person on this thread who has implied we should.
a absolutely fundamnetal thing is being sort of missed here .. we all agreed that we want a better world?? yes .. ok how do yopu get to that ?? surely the only way ( and i wait for swp to disagree with there As andPs here!!) is from the bottem up ??? it is really only possible to change the world fundamnetally by building power in the factories and w/c communities .. so how do we do that ?? deny people a say on housing allocation?? deny people having the chilren get housed in their own communities?? deny w/c people the right to a decent job?? deny people the power to stop workers coming into their workplace at alower wage?? no otherwise we are not better than liberals bewoaning what is wrong but with no strategy for change .. we all agree that racism is wrong and evil .. but we have forgotten why w/c racism exists .. it is not just a mimicing of the upper classes but based in material world .. we want to destroy racism?? well you will not do it by moralism but by materialism and changing power
TeeJay said:
Teejay. I was asked what i thought of migration on the basis of race.
My reply was honest in that i find it preety shit that so many White south africans and Australians who have had many advantages come to London and take jobs while so many people born and bred here including many Black and Asian people are out of work.
I dont really have a problem with people looking at how migration effects people of different races, do you?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
no - immigrants were used, not imigration per se. (even tho they are obvoiusly connected). These people were used to try and undermine lolcal wages, but the best of way of stopping that is to ensure tht they have the same wages as other workers - then it becomes pointless for the bosses to try and import labour in such a way.durruti02 said:
this is of course partly true, if quite a step back from the orignial proposition that immigration was a central part of the destruction of the unions. But the same argument I put before still holds - if we fight together for 'proper' wages for all, then this type of situation would not happen. OIf it weren't imigrants, it would (probably) be another group, that has been the history of capitalism.
How do migrant labourers differ from the previous reserve army of labour -women?
belboid .. you say "...no - immigrants were used, not imigration per se. (even tho they are obvoiusly connected). These people were used to try and undermine lolcal wages, but the best of way of stopping that is to ensure tht they have the same wages as other workers - then it becomes pointless for the bosses to try and import labour in such a way..."
ok lets put you on the spot .. would you have supported the dundee workers on general strike .. yes .. and what would you're attitude have been as the bosses bought in immigrants to break that strike ..
if we ever wish to build a movement you have to support people in the here and now!!!
privatisation has just been slowed down strike breaking
ok lets put you on the spot .. would you have supported the dundee workers on general strike .. yes .. and what would you're attitude have been as the bosses bought in immigrants to break that strike ..
if we ever wish to build a movement you have to support people in the here and now!!!
privatisation has just been slowed down strike breaking
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
ffs! of course i'd support their innate right to scab! jeeeesus, what an argument! [fights urge to insert rolleyes..]
overwhelmingly immigrants to not come in to scab in that explicit manner - on the rare occasions that they do, they should be met with a fuck off great picket line, and an attempt to recruit them to it.
What would you do - tell them to fuck off 'home'? That would hardly be a way to build class solidarity, and would more likely shore them up behind the bosses.
You are absoluitely right that the central task is supporting peolpe in the here and now, which is in no small part why this 'argument' is abstract nonsense.
overwhelmingly immigrants to not come in to scab in that explicit manner - on the rare occasions that they do, they should be met with a fuck off great picket line, and an attempt to recruit them to it.
What would you do - tell them to fuck off 'home'? That would hardly be a way to build class solidarity, and would more likely shore them up behind the bosses.
You are absoluitely right that the central task is supporting peolpe in the here and now, which is in no small part why this 'argument' is abstract nonsense.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I'm saying you're being a bit hypocritical. now emmigration/immigration is going in the other direction you want to ban it.tbaldwin said:
As far as poaching workers is concerned, no socialist is saying this is a good thing. when socialist are explaining how immigrants benefit Britain they are not doing this to justify the poaching of skilled workers from the Third World, doing this to counter the argument that immigrants are a drain on the British economy, and represent a threat to British workers to a lowering of wages terms and conditions.
The short answer to your question about poaching Third World skilled labour is not to ban them, it is to make the "Third World" work enviroment a more attractive option.
Rmp3
ResistanceMP3 said:
1 How does that make me hypocritical? Its nonsense and you know it.
2 Hardly the point is it. The point is that mass migration makes the world a more unequal place.
3 Your short answer is going to take a bit longer than we might like.
In the mean time yoor arguing for mass migration which leads to the people who can moving from poorer countries. It means Doctors Teachers and Engineers etc moving to richer countries as ac heap option to those countries training their own.
In the next decade the SWP etc will all change their position on this issue.
At present what they say is a complete joke.
belboid said:
yes but the left do not support people in the here and now .. otherwise we would not be having this thread .. the left come out with boolcks like refugees welcome here .. they not not support or be active in w/c communities .. they argue that sons and d's is racist .. etc etc etc
it is maybe unfair to use strike breaking as an example but we please stop and think for a second
we all hate scabs ok .. right well most w/c people see their jobs for life gone .. their lower wages .. the impossibility of getting a house/flat etc etc .. and quite clearly the restructuring of the economy has been done in th last few years using immigration.. so it is not suprising that there is resentment ..
where i work it is clear .. what were well paid jobs a few years back are now being done as cheap labour by agency .. a few students but mostly immigrants
where i live the flats that families could have had are now occupied by the immigrants who do the low wage jobs .. needed for restructuring uk capitalism inc ..
yes yes yes of course this is just opart of it .. BUT IT IS THE BIT THE LEFT ALWAYS MISS OUT .. and those damn w/c types seem to notice that ..
cockneyrebel said:
this is a smoke screen cr ..
it might seem daft that one child should have a 2/3 bed room flat ( estates aound here don't generally have 4/5 bedrooms
!!) but will they not have kids themselves?? why should they end up in a hostel to get a flat later .. and why should only middle class people be able to hand down flats /houses??
but really what is being said here is that to build a movemnet that can change the world w/c communities need to /should be able to assert a right to control housing ..
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I think you are confusing the SWP for this nebulous 'left'.
The loss of 'jobs for life' had nothing to do with immigration - it wasn't imigration or immigrants that attacked the printers, dockers, miners, etc etc. And it was that that destroyed the 'job for life'.
once those jobs had been destroyed - and the wages in many other industries massively cut back - after that, migrant labour was used, in some cases, to work for the poverty wages that the companies considered necessary to maintain a profit. Obcviously in many cases they arelying, and could pay higher, but in many others, it is most likely true that they are the only wages payable to make 'normal' capitalist profit. And it isn't just migrants doing those jobs - it can be students, new workers, who weren't used to those higher levels of wages, or it can be the same people, those who can only get one of these jobs on lower wages. Often migrants are used as they are seen as more pliant, and less able to assert their rights. Well, the answer to that is surely to help them assert their rights. Not to tell them, however nicely, that they are 'stealoing our jobs' - how does that build solidarity?
I missed your earlier comment before, re women - apologies.
In such an instance I would argue for oppositon to any worker undercutting the 'going rate'. But I'd argue against them as workers not as women, or migrants, or temp workers, or whatever.
The loss of 'jobs for life' had nothing to do with immigration - it wasn't imigration or immigrants that attacked the printers, dockers, miners, etc etc. And it was that that destroyed the 'job for life'.
once those jobs had been destroyed - and the wages in many other industries massively cut back - after that, migrant labour was used, in some cases, to work for the poverty wages that the companies considered necessary to maintain a profit. Obcviously in many cases they arelying, and could pay higher, but in many others, it is most likely true that they are the only wages payable to make 'normal' capitalist profit. And it isn't just migrants doing those jobs - it can be students, new workers, who weren't used to those higher levels of wages, or it can be the same people, those who can only get one of these jobs on lower wages. Often migrants are used as they are seen as more pliant, and less able to assert their rights. Well, the answer to that is surely to help them assert their rights. Not to tell them, however nicely, that they are 'stealoing our jobs' - how does that build solidarity?
I missed your earlier comment before, re women - apologies.
so you would oppose the introduction of women if it was done in a way to lower wages. Note the way you have said tht - you haven't said you would demand that al lworkers are paid the same whatever their sex (or nationality etc) - but you have said you will oppose their right to work to maintain your living standards. How does that help build solidarity between men and women in order to strengthen the fight against lower wages generally? it is another divisive measure - and we all know that it is when we, as a clas, are divided, that the bosses are strongest.
In such an instance I would argue for oppositon to any worker undercutting the 'going rate'. But I'd argue against them as workers not as women, or migrants, or temp workers, or whatever.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
for at least the third time - i think that open borders means that people are not 'trapped' in the country to which they migrate for a time. Being able to come and go, means that most people do return to their country of origin after a spell abroad - as happens now within the EU.tbaldwin said:
I believe that a well run scheme to give such workers training in a properly funded hospital/school/whatever could give them valuable experience which they can take back to thier home countries and use for all thier countryfolk.
All organised 'poaching', especially when it is done in an attempt to undercut UK working conditions, should be oppossed, and indeed outlawed.
Similar threads
