John Cruddas MP .. alleges government pushing immigration to undermine unions etc
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
belboid said:
please answer the q. mate
do you or do you not agree or disagree with what john cruddas says about immigration being part of neo liberalism??.
i am NOT for immigration controls in the way you think they can only be .. i am for good old 'restrictive practices' that benefit the working class. There are many other examples of these that libertarians attack for being anti this or anti that that are essential for w/c organisation in the area of health and safety , the closed shop , sons and daughters etc
you can not build a revolution on what you want to happen .. you can only build it from the base ( and please don't say "of SW says that" .. they do not do it) and that means giving handing creating power for people
you need to have faith in people ..
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Knotted said:I did say I was only going to talk about one element of the dialectic, and you grasped and accepted my point "economic base and ideological superstructure are dynamically inter-related" "That's not to say that ideology can have no effect on the real life process".OK but don't say I didn't warn you.
In my view the Heraclitan aspect of Hegelian dialectics is the dodgiest aspect, I think stasis is just as dialectical as dynamism - but I'm being a bit obscure here and I accept that the recognition of a dynamical social world is important.
I don't believe what you say is an example of dialectics - briefly, economic base and ideological superstructure are dynamically inter-related.
You have stated thesis: "Sometimes The economic base may play a more determinate role"
And anti-thesis: "At other times it can be the ideological/governmental/social superstructure"
*But* as you leave it, each is just the negation of the other. Where is the synthesis (the negation of the negation)?
Dialectics always sees the thesis as primary. If it were not then the negation of the anti-thesis would be the thesis. That is, the negation of the negation is just the thesis as in classical logic.
Besides, Marx was pretty clear in the German Ideology:
"In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process."
That's not to say that ideology can have no effect on the real life process, it is just that the materialist dialectical method must start with the real life process.
Quite possibly this is a fundamental weekness in Marx and dialectics. However I think that the materialist monist statement:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
is still more powerful than the eclectic statement:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles and ideological struggle as well."
and this is where the dynamic is important. Socialist assess the balance of class forces/struggle, I/sw don't think the State of affairs of inter-working-class conflict is at the same level as that Marx was describing in your quote, and so we place the emphasis on the ideological struggle rather than the struggle at the base, AT THE MOMENT.
PS. I think that your quote from The German Ideology, is misplaced in our conversation. That is talking about where ideas/philosophy comes from, and is specifically directed the arguments of Hegel etc, that ideas exist without material existence. in our discussion on social evolution the base and the superstructure are THE inseparable whole, which is slave society, feudalism, capitalism. The base does not negate, the superstructure, capitalism negates feudalism. the whole base and superstructure is negated by a different base and superstructure. I have to go now, and this is getting off the central point I try to make. Sorry to cut short.
ResistanceMP3 said:
this is a eye opening and astonishing admission .. and one that suggests to me you/SW are really out of touch .. that indeed your head is in the heavens and not on earth .. and one that shows that SW are neither socialist nor workers
please please please rmp3 .. read other threads like snadges .. and above all talk to people ..look agin at the BNP results in yorkshire .. not isolated votes as in barking but widespread and clearly w/c
yes of course there is clearly an ideological war waging ( the base and super structure are indivisible) .. but it only gains pace victories recruits thru its relation to the material war it comments ( so scummyly) on .. the ideological war could not happen could not be happenning if it did not have the actual material process of neo liberalism in the workplace/industry/work
durruti02 said:
I don't agree with you when you say you favour positive discrimination in favour of local workers in a closed shop union.
Moreover closed shop is only ever going to be a partial solution. The question is border controls and I think the 'solution' is workers control of borders, but that's a programmatic not a strategic position.
People in general.Binkie said:
Binkie said:
That's because I needed two or three sentences and I was trying to snappy. I'm just saying that slogans that are applicable to all and are applicable at all times are not useful guides to action. Prioritise problems as they arise and integrate them into the broader perspective.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
knotted. Could you explain to dur & baldy, that all Marxists, including Socialist-Worker, have discussed many times how capitalists CAN USE IMMIGRATION TO CREATE CONFLICT, please. He seems to believe you. I recognise why he is sticking on this point, but I am not prepared to go further with him until him and Mr Baldwin accept the fucking obvious.
If you don't mind, you might also convince him that Socialist-Worker is fully familiar with Thatcherism, neoliberalism, Hayek, and their views on immigration. (edited to add. SW is familiar with the fact that neo Liberals want immigration as a means to create a flexible labour market.)
If you can convince them of this, perhaps then we could move on to the topic of why it doesn't appear the front page.
If you don't mind, you might also convince him that Socialist-Worker is fully familiar with Thatcherism, neoliberalism, Hayek, and their views on immigration. (edited to add. SW is familiar with the fact that neo Liberals want immigration as a means to create a flexible labour market.)
If you can convince them of this, perhaps then we could move on to the topic of why it doesn't appear the front page.
durruti02 said:rmp3i have never denied SW talks of conflict in the class
.. of course this is one aim of the capitlaists .. but SW never ever anywhere state that capitalists USE immigration to create that conflict ( and to undermine unions and wages) as marx and john cruddas argue
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
this is what I find so dishonest about your debating tactics, you have totally misunderstood what I have said, make no attempt whatsoever to question my comments and clarify, and do not hesitate before going on to make cheap points. I have no interest whatever in winning the argument. What I really like about knotted's comments, is he has made me think about my own views. I'm not saying you shouldn't debate in the style you do, but I just find it boring.durruti02 said:
PS. (I am not saying the " forum version of online quake" can not be fun now and again
)TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Knotted said:I knew you would be hanging on my words with bated breathResistanceMP3 said:
feel free to respond to the points I made. I am honestly enjoying our discussion. though I strongly disagree with you more now than I did at the beginning, thank you for making me examine my beliefs.
I will not take up your kind offer to read the German ideology, I am happy MY understanding of the dialectic is correct, and yours is wrong. I am also happy with my understanding that your support for border controls is wrong. But please convince me I am wrong, for there is no better lesson and to learn from your mistakes.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Knotted said:FOUL!durruti02 said:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
and that appears to be the crux - and one which marks you out,m not as a socialist, but as a narrow old trades unionist, or rather craft unionist, defending the privileges of his members at the expense of the class as a whole. the aristocracy of labour n all that.durruti02 said:
At the end of the day (or whichever cliche you might prefer) the argument actually seems to come down to the old one, of reform or revolution. Thosee arguing for controls on immigration are for the former, simply trying to find a slightly nicer form of capitalism to struggle alo9ng in, rather than trying to overthrow it.
I think you've forgotten the point comrades!
belboid said:
Sorry but thats just silly... So Revolutionaries shouldnt care what people say cos they have their minds made up anyway.....
How can you have a workable Revolution if you dont want to trust the views of the majority of people?
Durrutti is arguing for a Class Interest position.You seem to be arguing from the position of someone thoroughly indoctrinated in Liberal thinking.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
out of 60 million, how many people do you think believe we should have a revolution tomorrow?tbaldwin said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
tbaldwin said:
ResistanceMP3 said:
tbaldwin said:
that is not very good way to conceal the fact your opinions do not make any sense. You know full well the majority of people are not at this moment for a revolution, so if revolutionaries should only pay attention to "the views of the majority of people", we shouldn't be revolutionaries. revolutionaries, Be That the Wright Brothers of socialists, by being revolutionary do not conform to "the views of the majority of people". If they did, they wouldn't be revolutionary would they? They would be conservatives.
ResistanceMP3 said:
revolutionaries, Be That the Wright Brothers of socialists, by being revolutionary do not conform to "the views of the majority of people". If they did, they wouldn't be revolutionary would they? They would be conservatives.
Quite an interesting idea for a new thread here..... To my mind the majority of the population are way to the left of the SWP etc on major issues like Crime,Migration etc.
In a poll in the 90s it found most people would like to see more Socialist planning and even 16% of Tory voters thought it would be good!
Revolutionary groups are usually made up of people who are deeply conservative.
They are anti working class, despising views and aspirations that they view as "reactionary" etc
A lot of peoples views are motivated by a sense of injustice. Including Daily Mail readers. The Left only seems to connect with the injustice felt by a very small minority of Guardian/Independent readers.
ResistanceMP3 said:knotted. Could you explain to dur & baldy, that all Marxists, including Socialist-Worker, have discussed many times how capitalists CAN USE IMMIGRATION TO CREATE CONFLICT, please. He seems to believe you. I recognise why he is sticking on this point, but I am not prepared to go further with him until him and Mr Baldwin accept the fucking obvious.
If you don't mind, you might also convince him that Socialist-Worker is fully familiar with Thatcherism, neoliberalism, Hayek, and their views on immigration. (edited to add. SW is familiar with the fact that neo Liberals want immigration as a means to create a flexible labour market.)
If you can convince them of this, perhaps then we could move on to the topic of why it doesn't appear the front page.
rmp3 ...why do you continue to ignore the differrence between the idea that capitalists use immigration to create conflict ( we all agree here and need to debate it no further) to the idea that capitalist use immigration to cut wages and undermine the unions .. yes linked but fundamentally differrent and needing a differrent response
you further state that sw are 'familiar' with the idea neo libs use immigration etc etc ..good .. i'd be worried if they were not ... so why does this not appear or be discussed in your papers/prop???
ResistanceMP3 ... FOUL!:D and your support for immigration controls is very close to what another famous socialist said when he left the Labour Party for the BUF.:D[/QUOTE said:dear oh dear ..all this way into a thread where i have never argued ( and do not belive in arguing for ) immigration controls ( and check other threads to if you want) and you are repeating the old lie that that is what i support ..poor ..and then to throw in a facist smear .. please do better!
to repeat .. i support a workers/TU campaign against the use of cheap labour/ in favour of local priority in employment ( actually environmentally progressive too ) / a campiagn to reduce the 3 million jobless total/ to stop the state and tory capitalists using immigrants as cheap labour/ to stop those scum deliberately campaigning/advertising abroad for labour/ to reintroduce the closed shop to start rebuilding workers control of the shop etc etc etc etc
ResistanceMP3 said:this is what I find so dishonest about your debating tactics, you have totally misunderstood what I have said, make no attempt whatsoever to question my comments and clarify, and do not hesitate before going on to make cheap points. I have no interest whatever in winning the argument. What I really like about knotted's comments, is he has made me think about my own views. I'm not saying you shouldn't debate in the style you do, but I just find it boring.
PS. (I am not saying the " forum version of online quake" can not be fun now and again
rubbish mate .. i have not misunderstood you (though yes i did make cheap points .. sorry .. but i find your position incredible for a marxist/socialist or whatever ) .. you clearly said that these problems are ideological and not material .. you stated this quite clearly ..see your qoute below ..
" ..and this is where the dynamic is important. Socialist assess the balance of class forces/struggle, I/sw don't think the State of affairs of inter-working-class conflict is at the same level as that Marx was describing in your quote, and so we place the emphasis on the ideological struggle rather than the struggle at the base, AT THE MOMENT. "
unless you have expressed yourself badly that is the only way i can interpret what you have said
i do not understand your last comment
belboid said:
no belboid .. as one who , using my 1970's SWP education, has looked at how change can occur and seen that it can only come from the base and that can only come from workers gradually creating power ( and yes linked in with wider struggles ) .. otherwise what is your strategy??
.. it is indicitative of the isolation of the left from the class in general and your reactionary leninists elistism that you designate what i say/ my position in the way you do
.. actually it is the opposite .. you and the other student revolutionaries are in reality just rebels .. your policies can and will not give us change ... you fail to see, that in reality to create a revolution doesn't just mean shouting slogans it means building power in the day to day at the very base
what you and your colleagues do , you not only demand that the w/c stop complaining/stop being racists/facists and accept that the state/tories are right to undercut their lives by using immigration ... which denies people power and fucks people off big time .. hence BNP vote etc etc you would also deny them the ability to control the work palces thru things like the closed shop ..
i despair that you can not see that you are being reactionary and anti w/c
ResistanceMP3 said:
few cos they see revolutionaries as like SWP/RESPECT fighting for the rights of muslim terrorists in belmarsh ( how ever true that is or is not )
mate the left has never been weaker in this country .. we are at a year zero ... we NEED to reconnect!!!
we willonly do that if we stand up of r people over the most mundain things .. sometimes we will disagree with people .. that is part of the fking process ... but we have to trust we have to have faith we have to belive our ideas will out
ResistanceMP3 said:
revolutionaries, Be That the Wright Brothers of socialists, by being revolutionary do not conform to "the views of the majority of people". If they did, they wouldn't be revolutionary would they? They would be conservatives.
so did not lenin say the paper should smell of the workers vodka??
is there a differrence between a rev who listens to people
and one who thinks they have all the answers .. that they knowe it all .. it seems to me that the left SW are on thin ice thinking they know it all ... when so few people seem to support them ..
Similar threads
