Obviously those who have retired have paid their dues and deserve their retirement. Christ alive I can’t believe this needs spelling out to you.
Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?
- Thread starter mojo pixy
- Start date
Absolutely
No, it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. That’s the caricature of a person that is doing their best to avoid engaging with the substance and just wants to make up an easy straw man to tilt at instead.
Besides, as I already noted, class is not about classifying individuals as this or that. It’s about understanding how the different roles that groups of people have in society give them different types and quantity of power over other groups. And this means those groups frame the same events in different ways, and prioritise different outcomes in response.
Because what I’ve just described is power in society.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I'm a little curious as to which countries have a culture of male only groups hanging around outside all day or if that behaviour is product on not being able to work or being out of work
But I am responding to someone who is talking about a very ground level, visual change. The amount of posts in the thread doesn't matter.
You know, your reply almost borders on food not being an "itellectual" or "enlightened" enough position to come from despite the example being the kind of subject that most people can have some kind of tangible, universal, relationship to. Its a practical example to which people can relate, and therefore a good one.
Incidentally, if you take immigrant communities you often find that food is one the most precious and important elements of their culture and therefore as a result an important cultural thing to share and bond over. Literally, bruh, calling food not one of the best examples to a Latin American or South East Asian could be quite offensive to them. Most Latin Americans would take what you've said as a call to action to eat Abuelas food.
And you’re saying that as somebody that has actually attempted to use his work to perform analysis? Because it really doesn’t come across that way. It comes across as somebody who wants to dismiss a knowledge system out of hand because engaging with it seems like too big a job. As I said up top, I think you simply don’t understand this stuff, yet you’re very ready to dismiss it as irrelevant regardless
No. This is a misunderstanding
You are merely describing what Marx also described. Plus there have been 150 years of Marxian theorists that have come subsequently that have improved and refined on it.
I do. I understand where you are coming from and why better than you do, I suspect. And yes, that is patronising. I can live with it.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
When Edie is asked direct questions they come back with they are still thinking about it and they aren't a politician or academic. ( Or don't answer them) Or say they are a correspondent relaying information to I presume out of touch far left who they think post here. But these comments may or may not be what they think themselves as they are thinking aloud.
I must say I've been starting to skip a lot of posts on this thread due to this. It gets a bit tiring to deal with.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
They're either full of shit or on a wind-up, or both.
Last edited:
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Yes, got to keep it simple for the thicko chavs, eh?
Which is all very well but to the people mentalchik is talking about, not the thugs but the people uneasy with the pace of change, what good is this critique. Understanding it's the fault of government etc, etc, most people get that. It doesn't change what they see on the ground, their immediate day to day. Maybe they just need a few pamphlits or pontificating posts to read.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thing is the conversation then gets deflected onto other issues.
Not having a go at Edie in particular here but for me that is a concern I have with immigration. Immigration becomes the pole around which political issues that have little or nothing to do with immigration get discussed.
This goes back to the posters here who have made good argument that there is a danger that discussing immigration can lead to inadvertently conceding the terrain on which a lot of issues are discussed to the right.
I don't care if you patronise me. I'm engaging with you in good faith so educate me, talk to me like I'm a moron in baby terms if you have to, because I am struggling to see how the majority of the middle class as we tend to define it today aren't actually just working class with a better salary and therefore one in the same. Or is what you're referring to more about "poor and not poor", which I think is a distinct thing.
To you, is a degree educated professional in some company working class or middle class? And do you really believe that they are not subject to the same power structures as someone who is stacking shelves in a super market?
The majority of the middle class aren't landlords, don't use private healthcare, and aren't privately educated. They don't have power. Most of the small business owners are subject to national and multinational brands wiping them out and are competing on completely unequal terms.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I have put posts about what its like on the ground in previous pages. As have others.
BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's really about people being to good to take jobs. It's true there is nothing wrong with being a crew member at a fast food restaurant, or a store assistant. I hate that those roles are always brought up in these conversations and it basically reinforces why taking those jobs are seen as "less than" in the first place. Lots of people find those jobs absolutely fine and they work for them as an individual.
I think that there are issues with the idea of working jobs, even if you hate them, and this being a duty. I know you didn't say that explicitly, but quite often the narriative is that people should accept any job as it's a duty and we have to contribute so if you hate it well tough. A CEO recently told someone I know during recommissioning that it would be alright as they "will have a job, but you might hate it." Which showed a complete disconnect from the reality of what hating your job actually means, and particularly when you are not being fairly compensated for it and can't easily find a new one.
Hating your job has serious consequences for peoples wellbeing, and it also ends up being an issue for colleagues. Such a high proportion of people I support hate their job and become really unwell so I'm against the idea that any work is good, and a duty if it is also making you unwell.
A lot of the people I see through work are also well paid and in jobs that are seen as desirable - trying to reframe work with people like that is really difficult, but sometimes important. I think the way we look at work in this country is harmful and leads to people working far beyond their means until they become unwell and drop out of the labour force completely.
I do think there are other ways to "contribute" towards society. There's lots of unpaid work such as bringing up children (future labour force) and mutual aid stuff that people can do too be a part of their society, but would be looked down upon normally as not enough. Lots of paid jobs actually do very little to contribute towards society, and many of the jobs that were seen as key roles during covid were actually undervalued and underpaid. We need to ensure that if we are forcing people into work due to a "duty" that we are finding them roles that are paid a liveable wage with good work conditions rather than forcing them into roles that make them unwell as that just repeates the cycle.
I saw a book the other day called "Rest is resistance" which I need to read as I think it relates heavily to my work.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I've posted here some criticism of how multiculturalism works on the ground in previous posts
In central London where I live as a White British person I'm in minority. ( About 25 percent of local population).
I haven't been told I'm a racist or have fallen for right wing lies.
maomao
普費斯
I think Marx described that part of the working class who are well-off enough to benefit from capitalism and who are therefore anti-revolutionary as the 'labour aristocracy'.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
These are all issues created by government policy and NHS under-funding
These are problems created and worsened by greedy landlords and anti-social behaviour (often in the case of fly-tipping IME, small business owners who want to avoid disposal fees)
I'm not denying as you say 'people are angry' and 'people are struggling' - I'm struggling too, and I'm angry too - but why should I believe that's because of immigration/immigrants, rather than because of shitty government policy?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Godwin's Law by page 50....surprised it wasn't sooner tbh
Yes I know. My response was to brogdale who was answering mentalchik. i.e. telling people who are uneasy about the pace of change, seeing a seemingly large number of people with different language, different culture, who for obvious reasons, may socialise amongst themselves, that it's all neoliberal blah, blah, is pointless. Most of them probably realise this but it doesn't change their emotional response to change.
I live in an urban area, which has several takeaways, Turkish, Thai, Indian, Polish shops etc. Lots of Spanish people live in the same building. This is all good and fine to me but I grew up in London. If I were older, lived in a smaller place most of my life, with a level of cultural homogeny, perhaps I would feel different, as described by many posters. It's worth trying to understand that feeling and not handwave it all away with but yeah Marx, blame the govt, just suck it up, do you only like fish and chips or sommat.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Only in your fevered imagination tbh, it's almost like you want everyone who disagrees with you to be far right so that you can comfort yourself with the blanket of your own towering moral superiority.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Amazed this needs spelling out, but this thread has made for some entertaining reading in the meantime.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The last time there was a large influx of people was when EU people could come here ( one of whom is now my partner)
I could see on the ground the large numbers. Denied by the Blairite government.
It was quite sudden influx of people. And yes even I was concerned about effect.
However as I gradually got to know them ( mainly Poles) they got to be my friends.
I don't now what else to say
I'm getting irritated with repeated refrain on this thread about out of touch people who don't understand the concerns about immigration.
Ive lived in the middle of it. Somehow despite saying this the same old refrain is posted here about not understanding peoples concerns.
I have concerns. However that does not mean I oppose immigration.
When I have asked what exactly do people with concerns want do not get an answer.
For example if people are concerned about cultural differences. Such as groups of males hanging around because that is there culture not ours then perhaps an immigration policy that limit those who come from such a different culture. Specify which particular parts of world should be subject to this limitation and put it into immigration law.
Those who have expressed concerns or expressed them on behalf of other - any comments?
I could see on the ground the large numbers. Denied by the Blairite government.
It was quite sudden influx of people. And yes even I was concerned about effect.
However as I gradually got to know them ( mainly Poles) they got to be my friends.
I don't now what else to say
I'm getting irritated with repeated refrain on this thread about out of touch people who don't understand the concerns about immigration.
Ive lived in the middle of it. Somehow despite saying this the same old refrain is posted here about not understanding peoples concerns.
I have concerns. However that does not mean I oppose immigration.
When I have asked what exactly do people with concerns want do not get an answer.
For example if people are concerned about cultural differences. Such as groups of males hanging around because that is there culture not ours then perhaps an immigration policy that limit those who come from such a different culture. Specify which particular parts of world should be subject to this limitation and put it into immigration law.
Those who have expressed concerns or expressed them on behalf of other - any comments?
Last edited:
This isn't a policy think tank. Peoples gut reaction to seeing change is worth recognising and unpacking of itself isn't it? And actually I think you have alluded to something that helps. More mixing, social events. The atomised nature of modern society, lonlyeness epidemic, particularly amongst older and poorer people, all exacerbates the notion of other, and forming of ill founded fears. Of course a lack of resources, housing, healthcare is going to make that worse.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
After 58 pages I would have thought we could have got to the point where suggestions could be made
This is after all a politics board.
There is no middle class, structurally speaking. Today’s structural analysis tends to focus on the following groups defined by the way that their field of activity creates, in Bourdieu’s terms, a particular “habitus”, or internal model of the world that creates particular dispositions, behaviours and meanings:
- Those who work in industries that have been “Taylorised”, ie the “scientific management” of time and motion studies has allowed for the embodied knowledge of individual workers to be externalised into the system. This means the workers are readily replaceable. It also, however, allows for collectivisation — individuals do not feel they can improve their individual lot without the class as a whole also being raised. The bedrock of the old left.
— Those who have gained some social capital that means they are in charge of the first group, as low level managers, foremen etc. This individual’s position is precarious — they are in constant danger of falling back into the first group. This fosters both an individualised set of interests and a desire to create cultural differentiation from the first group. Classic “working-class” Tories.
— Children from the above groups who then acquired intellectual and cultural capital, e.g. by going to university, but do not have the social capital required to turn this into financial capital. This group is also defined by social mobility and precarity — they seek to exit the groups they came from but the lack of social capital tends to create a downward mobility in respect of this expectation. The result is an individualised set of interests combined with a social resentment that their aims have been thwarted. Asu such, forms the bulk of the modern Labour Party and “progressive” movements — neoliberal in world-conception but angry that “meritocracy” hasn’t meant they personally are in charge.
— Sole traders, small capital etc, who tend to employ themselves and one or two others at most. Much of what I would write here is similar to the second group above, but this group is more defined also by a distrust of systems that would benefit large capital, which includes regulation and red tape. Individualistic, but prone also to form special interest groups that have the appearance of solidarity, albeit without ideological substance
— The professional managerial class. A stable class, who make decisions on behalf of the owners of capital. Key differentiator is a lack of precariousness — children of the PMC will end up as PMC regardless of how poorly they do at school. Have an assumption that they are the rightful rulers, and look down on aristocratic owners of capital that they view as fools. Those running the Labour Party exemplify the PMC — Blair, Starmer etc.
— Owners of capital, who do not have to get involved in the management of that capital, but can simply live off the proceeds. The classic bourgeoisie.
— Those unable to sell their labour, and thus must rely for survival on, eg, state benefits.
Note that specific individuals will often move between groups during their own lifetime — particularly the first four of them. Groups 2-4 are defined by precariousness and mobility, in fact. Class is not some essentialised identity attached to the self, and that is why it is meaningless to spend your time trying to allocate individuals to buckets. Class is a way of understanding why certain groups might react in certain ways to certain situations.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Not having a go here but you say this isn't a policy think tank then proceed to make policy suggestions. Which are worth entertaining imo.
I don't think many people would disagree that there are a lot of people who may see themselves as culturally middle class, often because they don't do physical work, but who could be regarded as structurally working class.
But the small business owner who employs ten people does have power. They may not have the same power as more successful capitalists but their interests are more aligned with them then they are with those they employ. If those ten workers decided to unionise and agitate for better wages or conditions that would become apparent very quickly. It is in the business owner's interests to prevent that happening and they will align with other, bigger capitalists to do so.
Fair enough. I meant really on the detail of immigration control. Certainly I think more can be done to have communities talking to each other. How that's done without it just happening organically or not part of some cringey council lead thing, I'm not sure about off top of my head.
Similar threads
- Poll
