Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

Yes, the problem is not "work" (or, more generally, activity). Activity is how we express ourselves and thus achieve contentment. The problem, rather, comprises three problems inherent to the institutions derived from modern (and neoclassical) economics. First, work is subject to hierarchical rule, which comes from the (completely empirically baseless) notion that people are opportunistic and need to be controlled. Not only does that, paradoxically, actually act to increase acts of individualistic opportunism, not suppress them. It also alienates workers from the products of their work, which inhibits flourishing. Second, work is viewed as "pain", in the sense that it contains negative utility and must be compensated for by money so that the worker can consume. That is baked into all economic models, and it creates a social reality in which humans are unable to experience flourishing through activity, which is fundamental to being human -- the model creates reality as well as describing it. Third, reproductive labour (the work done to sustain our lives) is viewed as unproductive. This inhibits the ability to take joy from self-care and the care of others. The combination of these three problems, which collectively disembody human efforts and creativity as "labour power" to be exploited, turn us towards passive consumption rather than expression through activity. The way to solve it is to tear down the capitalist institutions that create the paradox.

The idea that large numbers of claimants are lazy or don't want to work has never been true anyway. There are numerous reasons for long term unemployment and none of them include laziness. It's much more to do with the damage that society inflicts on a lot of people and the precarity of poverty.

There are lots of people with substance misuse problems, often rooted in abuse (the venn diagram of addiction and childhood abuse is almost a perfect circle). There are kids, usually in areas of high unemployment, who have become alienated and disengaged. There are traumatised people in refuges and hostels, care leavers who have had awful childhood experiences, people who are homeless, people with criminal records that mean they are unlikely to be offered a job (sometimes understandably) and those with either diagnosed or undiagnosed physical or mental health conditions that don't meet the threshold for sickness/disability benefits. There are people who are just a bit eccentric, who might not have great social skills, or other issues, who genuinely find getting and keeping a job very difficult. To tie things back in, many of those from these groups are likely to have been drawn into the recent riots.

There is virtually no structural support and no real will to tackle the conditions that create people in these circumstances. Finding stable housing and work that pays a liveable income is hard if you come from nothing or have lots of other shit going on in your life. The idea that every human, no matter what their background and who they are, can be turned into a competitive and diciplined worker just by applying the right pressure is a neoliberal fantasy - as is the idea that the market will automatically create jobs tailored to those who are disabled, sick, carers or whatever.

Politicians and those in the media who dismiss these people as scroungers or workshy have no concept of what their lives are like. They imagine if they found themselves in that situation they would just stop drinking, smarten themselves up, go on a course, or get a job and work their way up to prosperity. They are baffled that these people don't do the same. They have no concept of the psychological damage poverty causes, or the daily relentless stress some people are under, or the very real barriers that are often placed in people's way if they try to improve their lives.

That's why the only answer they can come up with is more pressure, more benefit sanctions, more prosecutions, more cuts, anything to make their lives worse in the hope that this will push people to stop shirking and go out and thrive like a proper neoliberal subject. In reality they are demolishing people and we have just seen an example of the social costs of that for everybody.
 
Just catching up with thread. I'm not sure when it turned into the 'let's have a go at Edie' thread but that's how it's coming across.

Sure, disagree and discuss and all that but it does feel a bit too personal and like a pile-on right now.
With respect Sue this isn't the first time that you've interjected to defend Edie from criticism in this thread and, despite (I'm sure) every good intention, there's always a danger that such posting will suppress valid discussion and argument. I'm sure that they are forthright enough to speak up for themselves and, if they did indicate that the argument felt like a "pile-on" or was "too personal", I would desist and put them on ignore to stop myself from causing any more distress.

AFAICS, the poster themselves have detailed their own personal circumstances in support of their views posted here and feel that means it is acceptable to reference these back, but if they feel it is all too personal, I assume they'd say so.

I think that multi-convo responses are, to some extent, inevitable for someone posting (extreme) views that run counter to the predominate beliefs held by forum members; that goes with the territory of being a contrarian member, no?
 
Yes, the problem is not "work" (or, more generally, activity). Activity is how we express ourselves and thus achieve contentment. The problem, rather, comprises three problems inherent to the institutions derived from modern (and neoclassical) economics. First, work is subject to hierarchical rule, which comes from the (completely empirically baseless) notion that people are opportunistic and need to be controlled. Not only does that, paradoxically, actually act to increase acts of individualistic opportunism, not suppress them. It also alienates workers from the products of their work, which inhibits flourishing. Second, work is viewed as "pain", in the sense that it contains negative utility and must be compensated for by money so that the worker can consume. That is baked into all economic models, and it creates a social reality in which humans are unable to experience flourishing through activity, which is fundamental to being human -- the model creates reality as well as describing it. Third, reproductive labour (the work done to sustain our lives) is viewed as unproductive. This inhibits the ability to take joy from self-care and the care of others. The combination of these three problems, which collectively disembody human efforts and creativity as "labour power" to be exploited, turn us towards passive consumption rather than expression through activity. The way to solve it is to tear down the capitalist institutions that create the paradox.
Nicely put. I distinguish between "work" and "job". Work is the activity, job is how it is organised.
 
What's new is certainly not in how I summarised this paradox of work in capitalism (although it's not just Marx, it also contains elements of other classical ideas, including Hegel and Arendt). Indeed, that's the very point behind why I suggested to lenguado that he shouldn't be so quick to write off Marx as being some old Industrial Revolution guy irrelevant to the current world. This stuff is all incredibly pertinent to today's world! The detail in how this paradox can be elaborated and potentially resolved is an active area of current research, though. Including, as you put it, the "words of the moment". After all, all developments start out as "words of the moment". The naming of a thing makes it concrete and provides a way to anchor it to other ideas, thus to allow the new idea to become usable as a tool. The notion of "flourishing", for example, requires consideration about what autonomy, agency and capability mean in practice, all of which are crucial if you are going to develop Marx's ideas.

Not suggesting Marx can't be developed btw (and I'm not an expert at all).

Maybe I've been spending too much time on linkedin where everyone seems to congratulate eachother on re-hashing old ideas with new words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pug
With respect Sue this isn't the first time that you've interjected to defend Edie from criticism in this thread and, despite (I'm sure) every good intention, there's always a danger that such posting will suppress valid discussion and argument.
No, the last time I pointed out that you were ascribing views to her she hadn't expressed. And I see you still aren't acknowledging you did so. Which is pretty poor tbh.

As to 'suppressing valid discussion and argument', that seems kind of unlikely given the people posting on this thread. :D
AFAICS, the poster themselves have detailed their own personal circumstances in support of their views posted here and feel that means it is acceptable to reference these back, but if they feel it is all too personal, I assume they'd say so.

I think that multi-convo responses are, to some extent, inevitable for someone posting (extreme) views that run counter to the predominate beliefs held by forum members; that goes with the territory of being a contrarian member, no?
I'm sure you'll carry on whatever so will leave you to it. 🤷‍♀️
 
The idea that large numbers of claimants are lazy or don't want to work has never been true anyway. There are numerous reasons for long term unemployment and none of them include laziness. It's much more to do with the damage that society inflicts on a lot of people and the precarity of poverty.

There are lots of people with substance misuse problems, often rooted in abuse (the venn diagram of addiction and childhood abuse is almost a perfect circle). There are kids, usually in areas of high unemployment, who have become alienated and disengaged. There are traumatised people in refuges and hostels, care leavers who have had awful childhood experiences, people who are homeless, people with criminal records that mean they are unlikely to be offered a job (sometimes understandably) and those with either diagnosed or undiagnosed physical or mental health conditions that don't meet the threshold for sickness/disability benefits. There are people who are just a bit eccentric, who might not have great social skills, or other issues, who genuinely find getting and keeping a job very difficult. To tie things back in, many of those from these groups are likely to have been drawn into the recent riots.

There is virtually no structural support and no real will to tackle the conditions that create people in these circumstances. Finding stable housing and work that pays a liveable income is hard if you come from nothing or have lots of other shit going on in your life. The idea that every human, no matter what their background and who they are, can be turned into a competitive and diciplined worker just by applying the right pressure is a neoliberal fantasy - as is the idea that the market will automatically create jobs tailored to those who are disabled, sick, carers or whatever.

Politicians and those in the media who dismiss these people as scroungers or workshy have no concept of what their lives are like. They imagine if they found themselves in that situation they would just stop drinking, smarten themselves up, go on a course, or get a job and work their way up to prosperity. They are baffled that these people don't do the same. They have no concept of the psychological damage poverty causes, or the daily relentless stress some people are under, or the very real barriers that are often placed in people's way if they try to improve their lives.

That's why the only answer they can come up with is more pressure, more benefit sanctions, more prosecutions, more cuts, anything to make their lives worse in the hope that this will push people to stop shirking and go out and thrive like a proper neoliberal subject. In reality they are demolishing people and we have just seen an example of the social costs of that for everybody.
When I was Unemployed I thought that I was doing a favour to employers by not applying for jobs in their organisations, as I would not be at all reliable.
 
Kinds of things I did when I was an undocumented immigrant in the US years ago. Lots of opportunities. On a personal level, I wish undocumented immigrants in the UK the best of luck. Don't get caught!
You worked eighteen hours a day in a restaurant and payed half of your wages for a bunk in a shared room, sending ninety percent of that home to your family? That sounds like a shit holiday.
 
No, the last time I pointed out that you were ascribing views to her she hadn't expressed. And I see you still aren't acknowledging you did so. Which is pretty poor tbh.

As to 'suppressing valid discussion and argument', that seems kind of unlikely given the people posting on this thread. :D

I'm sure you'll carry on whatever so will leave you to it. 🤷‍♀️
Speaking for myself, yes, I'll carry on posting to argue with Edie unless, as I explained, it became clear that they were uncomfortable with that. I'm not sure what this has to do with you, tbh?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sue
You worked eighteen hours a day in a restaurant and payed half of your wages for a bunk in a shared room, sending ninety percent of that home to your family? That sounds like a shit holiday.
I was there for nearly two years, so I'm not sure 'holiday' is quite the right word for it.

But hey, crack on and tell me about my life. ;)
 
I was there for nearly two years, so I'm not sure 'holiday' is quite the right word for it.

But hey, crack on and tell me about my life. ;)
You claimed to have had the same kinds of experiences and opportunities as undocumented migrants over here. I think that's a pretty obtuse thing to say.
 
Being an island nation, I can see how implementing safe routes is kind of difficult.

I wonder how it's meant to work. Does it involve setting up in close countries (eg: France) or in nearby countries to 'known' trouble spots?

Feels like it can't just be something on the border, or maybe it can.

I don't know.

There are a few things that could be done straight away.

Roll back the legislation brought in by both Tory and Labour governments over past decades that have made life for asylum seekers so hard here.

The hostile environment and dispersal for example.

To do this government will have to stand up to the anti immigrant right.

Then think about more safe routes.
 
No, the last time I pointed out that you were ascribing views to her she hadn't expressed. And I see you still aren't acknowledging you did so. Which is pretty poor tbh.

As to 'suppressing valid discussion and argument', that seems kind of unlikely given the people posting on this thread. :D

I'm sure you'll carry on whatever so will leave you to it. 🤷‍♀️
How dare you try and suppress valid discussion and argument.by contributing to this thread
 
No, the last time I pointed out that you were ascribing views to her she hadn't expressed. And I see you still aren't acknowledging you did so. Which is pretty poor tbh.

As to 'suppressing valid discussion and argument', that seems kind of unlikely given the people posting on this thread. :D

I'm sure you'll carry on whatever so will leave you to it. 🤷‍♀️

brogdale answered the one where he was accused of ascribing views to Edie she allegedly hadn't said in this post. Brogdale clearly showed that this was not the case.

Post in thread 'Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?' Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

Or are you thinking of something different? Have I missed something?
 
Come on get a grip. They are hardly radical or extreme, rather fairly standard conservative views. Left of the current Convservative party by quite some way too.
In the eye of the beholder really. But when I see anyone expressing views that the likes of SYL used to torment the racist riots, I'll call them what I think they are.
 
This is like the Leicester sweatshops.

Sounds like the grey economy might be something urban can agree needs to be addressed urgently.

I’m sure it’s the same all over the country. Deliveroo, UberEats, car washes, exploitative factories, restaurants, barber shops.

What kind of jobs do undocumented Brazilian people work in London Gramsci ?

It’s a massive pull for migrants. Let’s focus on the pull factors.

I'm not going into any details here.

I've already posted suggestion of how to deal with this. Regularise people don't deport them.
.
Anyway going back quite a few years I knew a Brazilian who when there visa ran out did go back. They contemplated staying. But if caught you get banned from country for life. So no they didn't. I can understand why some do chance it.

Illegal immigrants cover a range of people. From those from Vietnam who pay a lot to come here and to pay that off end up working in cannabis farms. Modern day slavery. To the visa overstayers who like it here and decide to chance it.

Modern day slavery is a policing matter . And those caught up in it need support not in the end deportation.

Illegal immigrants are a on a spectrum from modern day slavery to someone just trying to stay here.

Imo putting people on planes isn't the solution.

I was not surprised the first plane was full of Brazilians. Low hanging fruit.
 
In the eye of the beholder really. But when I see anyone expressing views that the likes of SYL used to torment the racist riots, I'll call them what I think they are.

You referring to the look after our own comment? Which you thought meant white people and she later qualified.

The other stuff, is normal one nation conservatism though more progressive re UBI.

Not exactly extreme, radical far right etc. You're frankly being histerical from where I'm sat.
 
There are a few things that could be done straight away.

Roll back the legislation brought in by both Tory and Labour governments over past decades that have made life for asylum seekers so hard here.

The hostile environment and dispersal for example.

To do this government will have to stand up to the anti immigrant right.

Then think about more safe routes.
I think to a large extent the government are the anti immigrant right, sadly.
 
You referring to the look after our own comment? Which you thought meant white people and she later qualified.

The other stuff, is normal one nation conservatism though more progressive re UBI.

Not exactly extreme, radical far right etc. You're frankly being histerical from where I'm sat.
No, not really. If you really want to pick over that part of the thread, I guessed that the "look after our own" sentiment related to white people, because so many that do express that view are racist supremacists. The poster did, as you say, assure me that my guess was wrong and that they meant "everyone who was born and raised here". Setting aside the problematic nature of that particular explanation, i did accept their explanation that it was not racially motivated at face value.

All that said, if you do go around using the same words as the racist scum, it really should come as no surprise when other folk challenge those words. Anyway, enough of this; I expect all this he said/she said is putting people off what is an important discussion.
 
Come on get a grip. They are hardly radical or extreme, rather fairly standard conservative views. Left of the current Convservative party by quite some way too.
Thank you. Absolutely this. It’s indicative of a real bubble to think my views are anything other than fairly mainstream small c conservative, at times left leaning.

Sue don’t worry, I put my experience up here in the same way as Gramsci and others have put theirs, for discussion. I prefer to discuss things like that, because it roots things in reality rather than purely theoretical. I have a thick skin and no one has upset me :)

I can appreciate how your own life story (openly shared here) could inform your traditional right-wing perspectives about 'getting on in life' through self-improvement and hard work; the old "boot straps" notion. But, I'm less clear about how your life experience necessarily translates into anti-immigration/"look after our own" beliefs?
To answer this: because I care about people. And most of all I care about the people of this country. And of those, I care about the people who have had less advantage, the ones who are starting out at the bottom, who need a leg up and opportunity. The kids at my sons school for example.

Where we disagree is that you think you have all the answers, that somehow railing against the world and theoretically discussing some revolution that will never come to pass and some socialist utopia that the 20thC showed again and again would end in authoritarian nightmare is the way forward. Rather than realising that capitalism and democracy (for all its the “least worst” system with faults) has actually resulted in enormous advances in living conditions, wealth, healthcare and freedom.

You seem to take some pitying look at those worse off and think they need saving. It’s the same charity mindset that’s currently ongoing fucking up Africa. Saviour bullshit. I think that giving people opportunities, hope, encouraging a meritocracy alongside freedom that liberal politics give is a healthier way.

It’s not an either or. I do think that there should be a safety net and that safety net should be for children, the ill and disabled, and other vulnerable groups. I also think that people should be allowed to succeed.

I’m mainly interested in levelling the playing field for children. The fucking state of secondary education is appalling. The lack of aspiration, the lack of discipline, the lack of teachers. And looked after children should be top priority in Government and kinship carers and foster carers handsomely supported. The general state of children’s health is poor- a lot of parents don’t even brush their kids teeth ffs. That’s to do with a lack of hope, and more money handed out doesn’t solve hope. Feeling like you and your kids can have a better life does.

We just see the world differently. You blame- well, everything- on “neoliberal capitalism”. I’m more about the balance between personal responsibility and for want of a better term civil responsibility.
 
If the government was "the anti-immigrant right", then why would it allow record number of people to legally immigrate in the past couple of years?
They allow people to an extent because its suits business but hundreds of people have died in the sea because the government - Tory or Labour - won't offer them safe routes. And if they cared they also wouldn't use the racist rhetoric they've been putting out.
 
Could you force make a better world by taking away everyone’s freedom, making everyone work in their state determined job (like they do in Cuba), get paid the same, and if they dissent disappear them? I don’t think so. And I don’t want that world anyway. Give people freedom to make their own life choices, and enough safety net as children to have the opportunity to. That’s the goal.
 
Could you force make a better world by taking away everyone’s freedom, making everyone work in their state determined job (like they do in Cuba), get paid the same, and if they dissent disappear them? I don’t think so. And I don’t want that world anyway. Give people freedom to make their own life choices, and enough safety net as children to have the opportunity to. That’s the goal.
You know that’s not the only alternative, right?
 
No, not really. If you really want to pick over that part of the thread, I guessed that the "look after our own" sentiment related to white people, because so many that do express that view are racist supremacists. The poster did, as you say, assure me that my guess was wrong and that they meant "everyone who was born and raised here". Setting aside the problematic nature of that particular explanation, i did accept their explanation that it was not racially motivated at face value.

All that said, if you do go around using the same words as the racist scum, it really should come as no surprise when other folk challenge those words. Anyway, enough of this; I expect all this he said/she said is putting people off what is an important discussion.

Happy to leave it however, to clarify. My point is ascribing views such as Edie expressed, which are held quite widely. e.g. as radicle, right wing, fascist adjacent as you did earlier, apart from looking rediculous, makes a mockery of any pretence at discussion, unpacking said ideas.

Edited, last line prob not needed.
 
Happy to leave it however, to clarify. My point is ascribing views such as Edie expressed, which are held quite widely. e.g. as radicle, right wing, fascist adjacent as you did earlier, apart from looking rediculous, makes a mockery of any pretence at discussion, unpacking said ideas.

There are actual right wing nationalist cripto fascist out there, we dont' have to invent our own.
Not least when I talk about politics in real life I’m incessantly labelled a fucking Marxist! Because I believe in healthcare funded by taxation and think food stamps are patronising and damaging to self esteem.

Christ if people here had to have a discussion with actual right wingers who really do believe in small state and laissez faire their heads would explode.
 
Back
Top Bottom