this is just like your maths on immigration. Just because two things reside next to each other, does not mean there is cause and effect. name a Revolutionary party in Britain that has inspired the majority of people to revolution? in fact anywhere in the world. now name me how money revolutionary parties there has been. You and I know Mr Baldwin is talking bollocks so stop defending him.durruti02 said:
couldn't agree with you more.
you may be right. But there is one thing 4 sure, SW spends more time listening to those people, than they do examining the minutiae of inter-left politics. SW try to do what Lenin said, whether they are successful, will only be proven in the making of history.durruti02 said:
Read Post 281. I clearly say SW is familiar with the fact that many neo Liberals want to use immigration to cut wages and undermine unions. You even say that in the second half of your post.durruti02 said:
ResistanceMP3 said:
) i see in you many a swper/milie/@ who knowslittle beyond what they have learnt over the years in their particular cult .. what is good about HI ( and CW in the 8ts ) is the broad mix of experiances that we have all had .. ResistanceMP3 said:Read Post 281. I clearly say SW is familiar with the fact that many neo Liberals want to use immigration to cut wages and undermine unions. You even say that in the second half of your post.
go on, admit the fucking obvious, that SW is quite familiar (obvious to most people beside you and Mr Baldwin) with Thatcherism.
ResistanceMP3 said:Read Post 281. I clearly say SW is familiar with the fact that many neo Liberals want to use immigration to cut wages and undermine unions. You even say that in the second half of your post.
go on, admit the fucking obvious, that SW is quite familiar (obvious to most people beside you and Mr Baldwin) with Thatcherism.
what was you saying about revolutionaries not listening to people? Not accepting the possibility they may be wrong? There is no possibility whatsoever you could have misunderstood what I must saying?durruti02 said:
do you think the BNP are fighting on the streets, or on the ideological level?go on! I know you can do it. Admit the fucking obvious, SW is familiar with Thatcherism.durruti02 said:
you see, here's another difference between yours and my debating styles. When I am wrong, I admit it. I apologise for addressing that post to you. For some strange reason I got you mixed up with knotted, who does it seems support immigration controls, along with Mr "carrot and stick" Baldwin.durruti02 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!
in fact in reality I agree with all and that, because I don't think you need to discriminate to achieve "local in employment". If you achieve that kind of unity, and a big enough stick to force the employers not to discriminate against local workers, that will automatically exclude immigrant workers. it is just a different way of achieving what you want.
ResistanceMP3 said:what was you saying about revolutionaries not listening to people? Not accepting the possibility they may be wrong? There is no possibility whatsoever you could have misunderstood what I must saying?
just think about this. Do you think interworking class conflict will get worse if there is an economic depression?
.. did i not suggest a drink?why don't you come to Marxism 2006?durruti02 said:
that is when I will be in London.I think you might have missed this edit of the previous postdurruti02 said:
so after several months of trying to get you to accept that Marxists DO understand the agenda of the neo-Liberals, with all that effort, the best I am going to get is " so please as you are so familiar with thatcherism/neo liberalism "?durruti02 said:fair play .. i may be wrong .. it is importnat to understand that .. but i am in my mid 4ts i have been through many groups including as i said a good grounding thru the swp from 1977 to 1984 the CW and much as well .. i am not a toy town or student 'revo' .. my ideas are based on not just coming from a socialist/LP family but 20 years of working and living in east london .. and i meet many many people who are left wing by nature who are solid trade unionists who despair and dispise the left for being out of touch .. ( and they are better people than most lefties @s out there to my mind .. ) and that is what is interesting about HI and similar people that we are far more enquring / far more analytical COS WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL the answers .. as you should have picked up my solutions are practical and cumulative .. not sloganeering ones
i do not think i am misunderstanding you .. we have a denbate over whether the current immigration is a deliberate part of a neo liberal agenda .. i see you agreeing that immigrati0on can cause conflict ( agree but NOT what is being discussed) and is see you patronisingly saying that 'of course we know what thatcherism is' .. was that the q?
so please as you are so familiar with thatcherism/neo liberalism
do you think that the current wave of immigration is part of that?
on the ideological thing again .. to repeat .. you can not mount an ideological campign IF there is not a material basis to do so .. you can argue with knotted about hegel and marx as much as you like but that is the deal
p.s. are you rude
they are a inseparable whole, the base and the superstructure. you cannot indeed talk about the ideological battle without reference to the base, but in social evolution vice versa is also true. The situation is dynamic. Sometimes the superstructure can become such a fetter, restraining the economic base, it can lead to the ruin of the contending classes.
again, I have said all the way through, there is no point moving on to why SW does not emphasise this, until we can agree on the basics.durruti02 said:yep just saw it .. but think i've had enough for the day!!
and i think you may have missed an edit .. something about a q. un answered ..
ResistanceMP3 said:
that the SWP are anti capitalist?? i clearly accept that .. but within limits and this discussion is about that 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.
ResistanceMP3 said:Knotted said:FOUL!
It wasn't intended as a foul.On philosophical level at least you really are very close to RCP/LM. Plus I think they're still interesting and were still gutsier than most up until the demise of LM.
ResistanceMP3 said:
no thanks for your interjection. At least you seem able to convince him of things better than I can.Knotted said:
durruti02 said:
durruti02 said:I have never said that in SW and Marxism are synonymous. I have just been trying to point out for the last six months, ALL MARXISTs I KNOW OF, understand that immigration is part of the system, capitalist seek to exploit that, and will even seek to increase immigration if they can gain from it. It is what the Americans call a "no Brainer".
I disagree. It is nothing to do with fear. SW do not put immigration has THE KEY COMPONENT, because we don't believe it is THE KEY COMPONENT, AND, our strategy for undermining the capitalist exploiting workers local or migrant, depends upon building unity between local and migrant workers.
it is dead simple. I want you to accept this;i honestly am not sure what you want me/us to acceptResistanceMP3 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.
look, clearly what we are talking about here is subjective. One person is going to look at the situation, and draw one conclusion, another the opposite. That's the first thing. It is not a case of SW being frightened to say something, or you being frightened to face the difficult arguments with your friends, it is just a difference of opinion. So how do I look at it?
SW has said to itself, look, there is no mass strikes at the moment. The ruling class offensive is drip drip drip, rather than all out. In the main, though obviously this is not the entire story, but in the main at the moment the class struggle is taking place on the ideological level, rather than on the streets. That is a really. Does this mean SW doesn't think there is ANYTHING happening at the material base? No of course it doesn't.
What does this mean for barking, IN MY OPINION? I would say there are clearly material problems of shortage of housing. There will most likely be problems with poor wages, terms, and conditions in employment. Obviously there will be a plethora of material problems, that the drip drip drip offensive of the employers has created. Now let's just say for argument's sake that the people of Barking DO blame these material problems on immigrants, and that is why they have voted BNP (in reality, the study you have presented, suggests the situation is more complicated.). The question is, why do they blame immigrants? And the second question is, are immigrants actually to blame for these material problems/shortages/etc?
let us take the first question first. Now, why do those who blame immigrants, blame immigrants instead of the capitalists? In my opinion this is not just to do with the ideological, and the superstructure (by the way, in my opinion the superstructure isn't just the ideology. The superstructure is the class relationships, Church, schools, government, in short ALL the structures of A society, slave Society, feudalism, capitalism.) people do come to conclusions because of their real material existence, experiences. People do observe real material difficulties, placed amongst areas of high immigration, and come to the conclusion there is cause and effect, BUT.........
I always say when discussing the situation with people who blame immigrants, "do you think, that if all the immigrants went home tomorrow, all these problems would disappear"? Unless they are a real hardend racist almost everyone will agree that these problems will not disappear. The bosses/capitalist/ruling class, whatever you want to call them, will not deal with the situation, in fact they cannot deal with the situation because of competition for a profit, unless the working class forces them to. And so it is in the interest of both local and migrant worker, WHO ARE IN BRITAIN, to unite and fight the real cause of the problem the bosses/capitalism. The unity you build for fighting the bosses in the here and now, is exactly the same unity you need to change the constant struggle against the capitalist, into a struggle with an end, revolution.
Now, though I accept SOME PEOPLE will come to their conclusions that immigrants are to blame because of their everyday experiences, I think even your own study you have presented from Cruddas suggests this is a minority of people. Your own study suggests that places the BNP does best is not where the immigrants reside, but in the areas next to. In fact your own study suggests, in the areas with high levels of immigrants familiarity with them creates a less concern about immigrants. Familiarity with immigrants reduces fear. I would suggest that the thing that increases fear of immigrants in those areas with less immigrants, is the ideological battle that is being waged by the ruling class. Would you seriously suggest that the 10-year campaign started by the Tories, when immigration was really only the concern of the hardcore minority racist 10 years ago, has no effect whatsoever? I believe if you study the Tories campaign, and opinion polls on the topic of immigration, you can clearly see a pattern of politicians stimulating a witchhunt against the "asylum seekers", in just the same way as the capitalist in Karl Marx day stimulated the campaign against the papist's.
The capitalist want to increase immigration, at the same time want to blame immigrants, instead of being blamed themselves, for the problems of capitalism. I think we have to break the cycle, not add to it by in any way suggesting immigration/immigrants are somehow responsible for the material problems of working-class people.
"1) the material world, including our social existence, is prior to our ideas about it." that is exactly what I said, Marx is talking about where ideas come from, he is not talking about the existence of the dialectic in the material world. He is making a riposte to the suggestion by Hegel (started by Aristotle wasn't it) that ideas, philosophy, has a material existence. in fact they argue the idea existed before everything material. However, this is what you forced me to think about, aren't both Hegel and Aristotle correct to some extent? What I mean is, yes the dialectic is purely an idea, a mental tool with which to understand the world, but isn't it also observable in the material world? Can we not observe the dialectic in the Acorn and of the oak tree. Isn't the dialectic of observable in nature before the existence of man, and after the existence of man? From big bang to "big bounce"? (the "big bounce", is a recent theory that there have been previous big bangs to this one.)Knotted said:
it may not be your argument, but it will be the conclusion of anyone with two brain cells to rub together from what you are saying.tbaldwin said:
ResistanceMP3 said:it may not be your argument, but it will be the conclusion of anyone with two brain cells to rub together from what you are saying.
Problem, poor housing, education, health, wages etc. Solution, "use a stick to deter immigrants". Conclusion, immigrants are the cause of the problem.
that's right, I remember now, it is okay for you to call me disgusting names like Liberal, but if I suggest your ideas are comparable to fascism you start to cry.tbaldwin said:
you know what they say don't you, "don't give it if you can take it".
