Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[Isambard]

]do you not think that the world would be a better place if people had control over the processes that dominate their lives??

Of course I do. The freedom for everyone to go where they like goes hand in hand with a fundamental change of the world operates on a global basis.

 

[Pigeon]

IThe alternative to it is freedom of movement for those that can afford it.

Which is almost as shitty a proposal as freedom of movement for no one.

 

[tbaldwin]

Which is almost as shitty a proposal as freedom of movement for no one.

Freedom of Movement for those that can afford it, just makes the world a more unequal place.
It means "poorer countries losing the people they need most"

Those people who believe that economic migration is a good thing will always back Liberal free market policies. But plenty of people on here realise who benefits and who suffers from those policies.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Freedom of Movement for those that can afford it, just makes the world a more unequal place.
It means "poorer countries losing the people they need most"

Those people who believe that economic migration is a good thing will always back Liberal free market policies. But plenty of people on here realise who benefits and who suffers from those policies.

I don't think anybody in the SWP would have a problem with acknowledging the fact, that under the present economic system "freedom of movement" is mainly procured by those who can afford it.

I don't think anybody in the SWP would have a problem acknowledging the fact that poorer countries are losing their most skilled labour to richer countries through the process of economic migration.

I don't think there is anybody in the SWP who fails to recognise that the policy of freedom of movement from the left, coincides with the policy of freedom of movement of the libertarian economic liberalists.

but I also don't know anybody in the SWP who thinks lining up with the BNPand Margaret Thatcher on immigration policy and scapegoating immigrants for the inadequacies of British capitalism will do anything to address the above problems. you have yet to convince me.

ResistanceMP3

PS. If you are going to attack people's analysis, it is useless creating straw men.

 

[tbaldwin]

I don't think anybody in the SWP would have a problem with acknowledging the fact, that under the present economic system "freedom of movement" is mainly procured by those who can afford it.

I don't think anybody in the SWP would have a problem acknowledging the fact that poorer countries are losing their most skilled labour to richer countries through the process of economic migration.

I don't think there is anybody in the SWP who fails to recognise that the policy of freedom of movement from the left, coincides with the policy of freedom of movement of the libertarian economic liberalists.

but I also don't know anybody in the SWP who thinks lining up with the BNPand Margaret Thatcher on immigration policy and scapegoating immigrants for the inadequacies of British capitalism will do anything to address the above problems. you have yet to convince me.

ResistanceMP3
PS. If you are going to attack people's analysis, it is useless creating straw men.

Your last sentence really says it all...Straw Men....
Who exactly has lined up on here with the BNP and Thatcher?
And who has scapegoated Immigrants?

I think ive made it clear over 25 pages that i am not blaming migrants. Economic migration though as you have started to acknowledge though is not a good thing.
And that is what this thread is about. It certainly doesnt strike me that anyone has come on here just to scapegoat migrants.
On the contrary Durrutti etc have all shown they understand why people want to move but recognise that has a wider effect.

 

[Isambard]

It certainly doesnt strike me that anyone has come on here just to scapegoat migrants.

I'm not calling you racist tbaldwin but you have blamed migrants for the lack of affordable housing and the struggle to get a job with a decent wage.



RMP3 - thanks for the succinct argument.

 

[tbaldwin]

I'm not calling you racist tbaldwin but you have blamed migrants for the lack of affordable housing and the struggle to get a job with a decent wage.



RMP3 - thanks for the succinct argument.

Er No I havent, My arguements are not blaming migrants.
And your "not calling me racist" erm whats that about?

 

[Isambard]

Er No I havent,

You have said that migrants make it harder to get housing and work.
Do I REALLY have to bother to trawl back and quote you?

I'm trying to make it clear: In the same way that the left's argument for freedom of movement happens to coincide with neo-liberalism to an extent. You opposition to freedom of movement happens to co-incide with what racists and fascists say.

I think you are wrong in your arguments rather than that you are a racist.

 

[exosculate]

scarce resources + more people = even more scarcre resources.


Abstract notions like wages should be better or there should be more housing - when its not going to happen at present is meaningless. Which is why open borders arguments are meaningless.

People need to start taking some real world tablets, and then start engaging with the world as it is now.

 

[Isambard]

Ok, lets throw all the Poles out of London tomoorow shall we?
Yeah, getting a home or a job is gonna get much easier!

 

[tbaldwin]

No.
I blame migration and point out the effects it has not only in this country but internationally. That is not the same as blaming migrants. As ive said over and over again, who can really blame anyone for wanting to improve their lives , i can't and i haven't.
If youve got any doubts look through the 26 pages and you will find that my arguements are not directed against migrants themselves.

 

[tbaldwin]

Ok, lets throw all the Poles out of London tomoorow shall we?
Yeah, getting a home or a job is gonna get much easier!

It would be easier for some. Or do you think that the Jobs currently done by Poles in Labouring,Plumbing and Catering etc would simply disappear.

 

[exosculate]

Ok, lets throw all the Poles out of London tomoorow shall we?
Yeah, getting a home or a job is gonna get much easier!

Wages would increase sharply. Demand on housing would decrease.

But its not about throwing people out anyway its about tackling absurd notions from people like yourself that the world is now ready for open borders.

 

[exosculate]

No.
I blame migration and point out the effects it has not only in this country but internationally. That is not the same as blaming migrants. As ive said over and over again, who can really blame anyone for wanting to improve their lives , i can't and i haven't.
If youve got any doubts look through the 26 pages and you will find that my arguements are not directed against migrants themselves.

Indeed.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You have said that migrants make it harder to get housing and work.
Do I REALLY have to bother to trawl back and quote you?

I'm trying to make it clear: In the same way that the left's argument for freedom of movement happens to coincide with neo-liberalism to an extent. You opposition to freedom of movement happens to co-incide with what racists and fascists say.

I think you are wrong in your arguments rather than that you are a racist.

precisely! T. Baldwin is allowed to point out where our arguments coincide with some of those on the right, but we are not allowed to reciprocate.

scarce resources + more people = even more scarcre resources.


Abstract notions like wages should be better or there should be more housing - when its not going to happen at present is meaningless. Which is why open borders arguments are meaningless.

People need to start taking some real world tablets, and then start engaging with the world as it is now.

what scarce resources? You are falling hook line and sinker for the capitalist argument that there are scarce resources. But this is not true. There are not scarce resources, modern society is more plentiful than we have ever had before. What there is is an inequitable and inefficient production and distribution of resources. The problem isn't immigrants or immigration the problem is capitalism.

Your last sentence really says it all...Straw Men....
Who exactly has lined up on here with the BNP and Thatcher?
And who has scapegoated Immigrants?

I think ive made it clear over 25 pages that i am not blaming migrants. Economic migration though as you have started to acknowledge though is not a good thing.
And that is what this thread is about. It certainly doesnt strike me that anyone has come on here just to scapegoat migrants.
On the contrary Durrutti etc have all shown they understand why people want to move but recognise that has a wider effect.

you have lined up with Margaret Thatcher and the BNP. You have identified a problem that doesn't exist, like the BNP and Margaret Thatcher, and then recommend a ‘solution’ ending immigration that will not only not work but will actually make the situation much worse, like the BNP and Margaret Thatcher.

ResistanceMP3

 

[TremulousTetra]

No.
I blame migration and point out the effects it has not only in this country but internationally. That is not the same as blaming migrants. As ive said over and over again, who can really blame anyone for wanting to improve their lives , i can't and i haven't.
If youve got any doubts look through the 26 pages and you will find that my arguements are not directed against migrants themselves.

so if you don't blame the migrants why do you want to ban the migrants? Surely any sort of ban should be placed upon the capitalist not the worker?

you might wish to sugar coat your arguments, but in the end you are doing exactly the same as Margaret Thatcher and the BNP, arguing to stop immigration because it creates economic problems, when it doesn't, capitalism creates the problems.

ResistanceMP3

 

[Isambard]

Wages would increase sharply. Demand on housing would decrease.

So back before the noticeable immigration of Poles to London from (say) 2001 it was easy to get a well paid job and reasonably priced housing for indigenous working class Londoners was it?

 

[exosculate]

So back before the noticeable immigration of Poles to London from (say) 2001 it was easy to get a well paid job and reasonably priced housing for indigenous working class Londoners was it?

Labouring on building sites haven't changed rates noticeably for several years. I cant think why. Many other things like this. More demand on housing without increased supply - increases costs - its too obvious for words.

 

[exosculate]

precisely! what scarce resources? You are falling hook line and sinker for the capitalist argument that there are scarce resources. But this is not true. There are not scarce resources, modern society is more plentiful than we have ever had before. What there is is an inequitable and inefficient production and distribution of resources. The problem isn't immigrants or immigration the problem is capitalism.

ResistanceMP3

There are scarce resources because of the system we live under - agreed. Whilst that isn't changing we have to all live in the real world. So simply saying open borders whilst there is a capitalist system in place is ridiculous. To think anything else is the realm of the cuckoo.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There are scarce resources because of the system we live under - agreed. [/quot] AGREED!

Whilst that isn't changing we have to all live in the real world. So simply saying open borders whilst there is a capitalist system in place is ridiculous. To think anything else is the realm of the cuckoo.

the first point is, I am not just simply saying open borders. I am saying we need to locate blame where it needs to be located, with the system, as we'd agreed. And so therefore we need to change the system, not just open borders. so that I think we are agreed upon.

now you're saying we have too also deal with the problem within the confines of the present system. but if the scarcity's are a product of the system, simply closing borders will not ameliorate them. give me some evidence why I should believe a closing borders will reduce scarcity. Did it reduce scarcity in the 1930s?(obviously there was still immigration then, but it was at a much lower level than today.) (also you need to read Adam Smith on the Wealth of Nations, as to where wealth comes from.)

in fact I would argue that stopping immigration would make the situation, scarcity, much worse. Because it would play into the divide and rule tactic of the ruling class and the fascist. Just because you and Mr Baldwin have an anti racist argument against immigration controls does not give you hegemony over the political process that will take place with any ban on immigration. antiracist should oppose all immigration controls not because they are any solution for the problems of scarcity that capitalism creates, but because weakening the racist divide and rule argument strengthens, through unity, the working class. through unity the working class can then bring about real solutions in the here and now, fighting unitedly so they do not pay the price of the capitalist economic crisis. fighting for better housing. Fighting for better wages. Fighting for better conditions. Is the only way working class people can achieve gains within the capitalist system, and then create the conditions to smash the capitalist system. And we can only do this black and white, gay and straight, men and women, together!

ResistanceMP3.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Wages would increase sharply.

What would happen is more jobs would go abroad.

Demand on housing would decrease.

There are currently 700,000 empty homes. Houses are being knocked down rather than built in some parts of the country. It's got fuck-all to do with immigration.

 

[exosculate]

There are scarce resources because of the system we live under - agreed. [/quot] AGREED!
the first point is, I am not just simply saying open borders. I am saying we need to locate blame where it needs to be located, with the system, as we'd agreed. And so therefore we need to change the system, not just open borders. so that I think we are agreed upon.

now you're saying we have too also deal with the problem within the confines of the present system. but if the scarcity's are a product of the system, simply closing borders will not ameliorate them. give me some evidence why I should believe a closing borders will reduce scarcity. Did it reduce scarcity in the 1930s?(obviously there was still immigration then, but it was at a much lower level than today.) (also you need to read Adam Smith on the Wealth of Nations, as to where wealth comes from.)

in fact I would argue that stopping immigration would make the situation, scarcity, much worse. Because it would play into the divide and rule tactic of the ruling class and the fascist. Just because you and Mr Baldwin have an anti racist argument against immigration controls does not give you hegemony over the political process that will take place with any ban on immigration. antiracist should oppose all immigration controls not because they are any solution for the problems of scarcity that capitalism creates, but because weakening the racist divide and rule argument strengthens, through unity, the working class. through unity the working class can then bring about real solutions in the here and now, fighting unitedly so they do not pay the price of the capitalist economic crisis. fighting for better housing. Fighting for better wages. Fighting for better conditions. Is the only way working class people can achieve gains within the capitalist system, and then create the conditions to smash the capitalist system. And we can only do this black and white, gay and straight, men and women, together!

ResistanceMP3.

All the above sounds like pie in the sky politics. Of course we should argue for a better world, we are a long way from it. And silly arguments about increasing immigration because that has no impact and its the system that impacts on people is ridiculous in the current climate and will connect with very few and is therefore very meaningless. We need to be arguing to improve the conditions for working class people here already, that will not be helped by open borders. You seem unable to comprehend that to climb a flight of stairs you do not begin at the top step. And all your patronising nonsense about read Adam Smith - what is it with you - someone doesn't agree then they are clearly less well read and sophisticated.

Frankly you sound like an SWP clone!

 

[exosculate]

What would happen is more jobs would go abroad. There are currently 700,000 empty homes. Houses are being knocked down rather than built in some parts of the country. It's got fuck-all to do with immigration.

Really service industry jobs would go abroad - tell me how does one outsource cleaning, cooking or carrying bricks around building sites?

Empty homes are not going to be released en masse at present - sure we should argue for it - but lets not hold our breathe at the moment.

And the knocking down of housing in the North has little to do with acute housing shortage elsewhere.

Council housing however is now more oversubscribed than ever by people from abroad - with no increase in stock. Whats that Mrs Patel you have to wait another 3 years for that transfer - don't worry its the world capitalist system thats causing that. Oh - OK then.

 

[TremulousTetra]

All the above sounds like pie in the sky politics. Of course we should argue for a better world, we are a long way from it. And silly arguments about increasing immigration because that has no impact and its the system that impacts on people is ridiculous in the current climate and will connect with very few and is therefore very meaningless. We need to be arguing to improve the conditions for working class people here already, that will not be helped by open borders. You seem unable to comprehend that to climb a flight of stairs you do not begin at the top step. And all your patronising nonsense about read Adam Smith - what is it with you - someone doesn't agree then they are clearly less well read and sophisticated.

Frankly you sound like an SWP clone!

Whoa, whoa, whoa! feel free at any point to substantiate your argument that stopping immigration will ameliorate scarcity, when you've already conceded that scarcity is caused by the system, capitalism. Give me any reason why the people who run this country after stopping immigration would change their ways of hundreds of years, and suddenly start looking after the white English working class?as really old hippie says, capital is going to do what capital does, search for profit. If you restrict the rate of profit, by causing a labour shortage to increase wages and the provision of accommodation, capital will just go out of the country.

so in agreeing with the banning of immigration you are just from an antiracist position, bolstering the right wing's arguments that immigration is the problem, when the problem is really capitalism, (which I remind you you have already conceded). you are handing them an excuse, and a mythical 'solution'. The problem of scarcity has never been solved within the capitalist system, and never will, because it is endemic.

Now what I am talking about has got nothing to do with pie in the sky, and everything to do with winning jam today. I am talking about the strategy of how you win the unity amongst working-class people to fight for their own ends. our numbers is our strength. that's why the people who rule this country spend so much time and effort on making sure we are divided. So, how will banning immigration unite working-class people gay and straight, black and white, woman and man?

with regard to Adam Smith, he said workers create wealth, the more workers you have the more wealth creation you have. It doesn't matter whether those workers are black or white. I think this fundamental truth undermines the whole argument from Mr Baldwin and yourself.

ResistanceMP3.

PS. I do not argue for increased immigration. increased immigration is not a solution. There is no solution, because the systemically created scarcity is innate to the system.

 

[exosculate]

Well

Whoa, whoa, whoa! feel free at any point to substantiate your argument that stopping immigration will ameliorate scarcity, when you've already conceded that scarcity is caused by the system, capitalism. Give me any reason why the people who run this country after stopping immigration would change their ways of hundreds of years, and suddenly start looking after the white English working class?as really old hippie says, capital is going to do what capital does, search for profit. If you restrict the rate of profit, by causing a labour shortage to increase wages and the provision of accommodation, capital will just go out of the country.

Scarcity is not fixed within capitalism - do you deny housing was more available 30 years ago? You talk about this abstract capitalism like it has fixed parameters - housing alone shows this is not the case. The jobs that are being kept at a low wage are jobs that don't leave the country i.e cleaning.

so in agreeing with the banning of immigration you are just from an antiracist position, bolstering the right wing's arguments that immigration is the problem, when the problem is really capitalism, (which I remind you you have already conceded). you are handing them an excuse, and a mythical 'solution'. The problem of scarcity has never been solved within the capitalist system, and never will, because it is endemic.

I am arguing that neo-liberalism left to its own devices encourages greater scarcity of resources and lower wages, if we can't overthrow capitalism, which at present looks likely, we have to argue against its worst excesses i.e against the beo-liberal agenda. We therefore have to understand that immigration can impact on others already here - and that this can be a problem. Again capitalism and its impact on scarcity are not fixed


Now what I am talking about has got nothing to do with pie in the sky, and everything to do with winning jam today. I am talking about the strategy of how you win the unity amongst working-class people to fight for their own ends. our numbers is our strength. that's why the people who rule this country spend so much time and effort on making sure we are divided. So, how will banning immigration unite working-class people gay and straight, black and white, woman and man?

Immigration that impacts on scarce resources will never achieve a position of working class unity. Quite the opposite infact. I again am arguing against open borders. immigration legal and otherwise will happen regardless.


with regard to Adam Smith, he said workers create wealth, the more workers you have the more wealth creation you have. It doesn't matter whether those workers are black or white. I think this fundamental truth undermines the whole argument from Mr Baldwin and yourself.

More wealth may be created but if it is not used to improve housing etc for many people. then it is assisting those wealthy individuals alone who need those resources the least. I take it you are aware that affordable house building is at an all time low. Not likely to change either.


ResistanceMP3.

PS. I do not argue for increased immigration. increased immigration is not a solution. There is no solution, because the systemically created scarcity is innate to the system.

Scarcity in the system varies dependent on the pressure from below - it is not fixed. That does not mean revolution is around the corner.

 

[Isambard]

Serious question for tbaldwin and to a certain extent exosculate:
Have you done the Political Compass? What was your score?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Exosulate, like Mr Baldwin, you are creating divisions between me and you that don't exist. I agree with all you have to say in post #655. Of course the rate of scarcity of working-class people varies within capitalism. Of course in the post-war era working class people were comparatively better off than they had been in other times. And crucially, of course the level of scarcity working-class people suffer is dependent upon the level of pressure from below. That is my whole point, that we need to solidify, and unite the pressure from below. My question to both you and Mr T. Baldwin is, how does backing from an anti racist position backing the demands of the right for immigration controls, unite the working class to create pressure in the here and now, for gains in the here and now? (Forget revolution. This question is about creating working-class unity now!)

ResistanceMP3.

PS. The rate of scarcity, exploitation, does vary within capitalism, but scarcity, exploitation, is innate to the system. And it is this central contradiction of the system, that creates its own gravedigger. BUT, whether this contradiction achievement socialism or barbarism is around the corner, is irrelevant to the strategy of how we fight back today imho.

 

[tbaldwin]

Serious question for tbaldwin and to a certain extent exosculate:
Have you done the Political Compass? What was your score?

I did the political compass. Cant remember my score. Thought it was really shit. The problem is a lopt of people fit into the political compass because they have picked their channel, me im a bit of a channel hopper.
Libertarian on some issues,Authoritarian (according to that wanky compass) on others.

The problem like this issue is that Libertarian views on Immigration are not Left wing they are Right wing. That so many people seem to have fallen for them is really sad.

 

[tbaldwin]

so in agreeing with the banning of immigration you are just from an antiracist position, bolstering the right wing's arguments that immigration is the problem, when the problem is really capitalism, (which I remind you you have already conceded). you are handing them an excuse, and a mythical 'solution'. .

ResistanceMP3.

PS. I do not argue for increased immigration. increased immigration is not a solution. There is no solution, because the systemically created scarcity is innate to the system.

Immigration is part of the problem not the solution. Nobody has argued that is the whole problem.
If you want to win working class unity i think its best to do it on the basis of honesty. And the truth is economic migration makes the world a more unequal place.

 

[Isambard]

I ithink the compas is good becuase you get a lot of different questions and they all determine your score. I'd be genuinely interested inyour scord if you did it again.

Also, you seem to be mixing up the terms, the compass counts left and right as economics, capitalism versus socialise eceonomy and up-down as the authoritarian-libertarian issue. so you can land anywhere on both axes rather than it being simplistic "left-right".