John Cruddas MP .. alleges government pushing immigration to undermine unions etc

[Knotted]

"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.)

I wasn't thinking that deeply, but some comments:

I think you are wrong to say that Hegel or Aristotle said that ideas have a material existence - it might be better to characterise them as saying that matter has an ideal existence. I'd have to refresh myself on this, though.

You make a good point about the dialectic being observable in the natural world. Now I would tend to disagree, but you do have Engels on your side.

But anyhow, how about instead of talking about the dialectic as an idea or an observable fact, talk about it as a method?

having said all that, I am not an ideological determinist like Hegel and Aristotle. The superstructure, the class relationships, schools, Church, government and etc, is the fruit of the material base, just like the tree is the fruit of the Earth.(a bit like your glass and table and example). However, unlike the tree and the earth, the destruction of the ideological superstructure can also lead to the destruction of the material base, "the common ruin of the contending classes". Once the superstructure and the economic base become a whole, Slave Society, feudalism, capitalism, neither determines the other, they are a inseparable whole. Together the superstructure and economic base are the thesis feudalism, which can only be negated by a new antithesis a new economic base and superstructure capitalism. If the new whole antithesis, the new superstructure of capitalism had not won in Britain, there would have been the destruction of both the economic base and superstructure of feudalism. which is clearly not the case with a tree resting upon the earth. You can destroy the tree, without destroying the productive potential of the earth below it.(Hope that make sense)

I would say that superstructure and base do not *become* a whole but *are* a whole. I don't think ideology and the economic basis of the ideology are seperable at *any* point in time.

I'm not entirely convinced about the ideological superstructure being the cause of economic collapse as in the collapse of the Roman Empire, but even if it were it would not change the point that the ideological superstructure rests upon (as distinct from is determined by) the economic base. My main point with the glass on the table was that determinism either way is not the central question.

now, as far as I understand it, SW is not arguing that the ideological determining everything. SW is merely arguing that at this moment in time the emphasis in the class struggle, what is happening in the class struggle, what is observable, is a lack of material struggle mass strikes and an out right capitalist class offensive, whilst at the same time there is a massive struggle over ideas. The anti-war movement, the anticapitalist movement, UNFORTUNATELY, are more of an ideological struggle rather than mass strikes, occupations, etc. How does this relate to immigration? See my previous response to dur.

I disagree here. It seems obvious to me that both mass strikes and the anti-capitalist movement, for example, are simultaneously economic and ideological, which is not to say there are no differences.

My unfortunate message is that ugly ideological phenomenon like racism in the working class cannot exist unless it rests upon the real social existence of the working class. This is not to say it cannot be overcome, just that it can't be talked away.

 

[durruti02]

no thanks for your interjection. At least you seem able to convince him of things better than I can.

I would say my position is this. I think firstly, immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalist seek to exploit that fact. I also know for fact, capitalist will attempt to increase immigration when it suits them, in times of labour shortage.

finally you have answered the q. ! .. in fact i think knotted is spot on with this ..

" I think that when durruti talks about capitalists using immigration he really means capitalists encouraging or seeking to increase immigration. I think that you mean that immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalists can seek to exploit this fact."


you have said you do not believe that the current wave of immigration is a part of the current capitalist form of neo liberalism .. [" ..I think firstly, immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalist seek to exploit that fact."]

you slightly qualify this by suggesting capitalists use immigration in times of labour shortage .. well, as i am sure SW quite rightly points out, there are 3 million unemployed in the uk currently .. i would suggest that there immigration has therfore another function than what you suggest.

but in terms of your first sentance, i really do find it extradordinary for a socialist, in a country/economy/soceity dominated by neo liberal capitalism, to look at the major economic and social phenomenum that is immigration and ascribe it to forces other than capitalism!

 

[durruti02]

I think that when durruti talks about capitalists using immigration he really means capitalists encouraging or seeking to increase immigration. I think that you mean that immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalists can seek to exploit this fact.

I appreciate its risky interpretting you both, but you can correct me if I'm wrong and I think the above distinction is why you don't see eye to eye with regards to what Socialist Worker does or does not say on the issue.

from where i stand i think you have interpreted rightly ..

 

[tbaldwin]

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. you know what they say don't you, "don't give it if you can take it".

disgusting names like Liberal??? RMP3 are you sure about that?

 

[Binkie]

Let me explain:
Right-wingers call left-wingers liberal.
Left-wingers call right-wingers liberal.

 

[durruti02]

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.

QUOTE]


why do you suggest i think it is THE key component ? .. if i have written that anywhere it was mistake .. i have said all along .. it is A key component or even ONE of THE key components .. never as i am aware THE KEY component and THE component that the left leave out

.. to suggest i am saying it is the KEY component is being pretty weighted mate .. i have said on hundreds of occassions it sits in there with CCT /privaisation/right to buy/ ant TU laws/changes in housing allocation etc etc .. the point of this has always been that it is THE key componet that the left leave out

and of course build unity .. but as i have said before you will not be able to do that if you are not totally transparent about the process ..

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

QUOTE]


why do you suggest i think it is THE key component ? .. if i have written that anywhere it was mistake .. i have said all along .. it is A key component or even ONE of THE key components .. never as i am aware THE KEY component and THE component that the left leave out

.. to suggest i am saying it is the KEY component is being pretty weighted mate .. i have said on hundreds of occassions it sits in there with CCT /privaisation/right to buy/ ant TU laws/changes in housing allocation etc etc .. the point of this has always been that it is THE key componet that the left leave out

and of course build unity .. but as i have said before you will not be able to do that if you are not totally transparent about the process ..

okay you win. I give up. you build unity by discriminating. i wish every success.

 

[durruti02]

I want you to accept this;

knotted. Could you explain to dur & baldy, that all Marxists, including Socialist-Worker, have discussed many times how capitalistsyou. 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.

yes i accept that sw believe that capitalists .." ..CAN USE IMMIGRATION TO CREATE CONFLICT.." .. i have never not .. that was never the issue .. knotted has clarified it ..

yes i accept that SW is familiar ( i would hope more than familiar but hey!) with all facets of capitalism .. again the issue however was why do they therefore not accept that immigration is a key component??

happy?

 

[durruti02]

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.

what you have said re the superstructure and ideological campaign is spot on

and your last paragraph is exactly what i am saying! and not what you say at the top

the capitalists operate, as we must, on more than one level .. they are increasing immigration while at the same time winding up people against immigrants .. shit stirring in the extreme .. the mirror says blair today will blame crime on immigrants .. scumbag

but i really do belive you still miss the point in terms of me stating we need to talk about immigration in the open

at the moment the horse has already bolted .. long gone .. PEOPLE ALREADY BLAME IMMIGRANTS FOR MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THE COUNTRY SUFFERS .. immigration is already on the front pages of very paper but the lefts .. talking about it CAN NOT make it worse

to counter this we must , as you rightly say point to /put the blame firmly AWAY from immigrants and on the capitalists .. but we can ONLY do this if first we are honest and accept the the process exists .. this is where the left are losing ground rapidly amongst ordinary people

you rightly point out the contrdictions of the bnp vote(rs) in barking and the importance of the ideoological war in that ,

.. but if we can not in public admit there is a real material process going on how can we point the finger in the right direction??? .. people rightly will ( and they are doing ) just laugh at the left !

 

[TremulousTetra]

you have said you do not believe that the current wave of immigration is a part of the current capitalist form of neo liberalism .. [" ..I think firstly, immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalist seek to exploit that fact."]

dihonest.

you slightly qualify this by suggesting capitalists use immigration in times of labour shortage .. well, as i am sure SW quite rightly points out, there are 3 million unemployed in the uk currently .. i would suggest that there immigration has therfore another function than what you suggest.

unsofistcated.

but in terms of your first sentance, i really do find it extradordinary for a socialist, in a country/economy/soceity dominated by neo liberal capitalism, to look at the major economic and social phenomenum that is immigration and ascribe it to forces other than capitalism!

good job i haven't then.

 

[durruti02]

okay you win. I give up. you build unity by discriminating. i wish every success.

i am fascinated by this idea that you think it is discriminating that our sons and daughters should get jobs/housing before immigrants .. are you serious??

no wonder the left has lost the trust of the w/c

how can you have a good community if we allow the bosses to leave our kids on the dole and homeless while they USE immigrants for cheap labour???

how can we build a revolution if we allow them to break our organisations by importing people to undercut the terms and conditions our mothers and fathers fought a hundred years to have???

this is not discrimination .. this is just bloody common sense mate .. you have let some ideology .. which one i am not sure ... blind you ..

 

[Binkie]

Is it really as bad as the right-wing media say it is? I know you SWP guys come across these racist views more than most - on the doorstep and in the street - that's because you campaign mostly in poor areas where immigrants are more numerous, for which you have my utmost respect. But will the 'vanguard' come from that poor subclass, or from slightly higher?

 

[durruti02]

dihonest.

Quote:
you have said you do not believe that the current wave of immigration is a part of the current capitalist form of neo liberalism .. [" ..I think firstly, immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalist seek to exploit that fact."]

sorry why i am being dishonest here? .. i bloody qouted you ..


dishonest.

Quote:
you slightly qualify this by suggesting capitalists use immigration in times of labour shortage .. well, as i am sure SW quite rightly points out, there are 3 million unemployed in the uk currently .. i would suggest that there immigration has therfore another function than what you suggest.

unsofistcated.

cheers teach ... however you clearly say capitalists use immigration in times of labour shortage .. clearly that WAS the case in the 5ts 6ts and 7ts .. it is not now .. i guess you mean there are SPECIFIC labour shortages .. well immigration seems pretty much across the board ... i suggest that maybe it is you beliveing the hype that no one wants to work ..


Quote:
but in terms of your first sentance, i really do find it extradordinary for a socialist, in a country/economy/soceity dominated by neo liberal capitalism, to look at the major economic and social phenomenum that is immigration and ascribe it to forces other than capitalism!

good job i haven't then. .

yes you have .. to repeat [" ..I think firstly, immigration is a fact which happens anyway and capitalist seek to exploit that fact."]

what else therefore do you mean??

......

 

[durruti02]

Firstly, I think it would be easier to overthrow capitalism completely than it would be to establish trade union closed shop in all industries. Trade unions even at their strongest only ever represent a minority, albeit a large one, of workers and closed shop unions represents fewer still.

Secondly, immigration will tend to undermine closed shop. Indeed insofar as there is a problem with immigration that problem will be expressed by the difficulty in setting up closed shops. So not only do I agree with RMP3 about not favouring positive discrimination I also agree that if there powerful trade unions with the right to hire and fire then there would be no problem with 'open borders'. But that's 'if' of course.

hmm .. need to think about that .. i'll get back .. isn't it part of a process though in rebuilding?

p.s. did YOU read 'taking control' ????

 

[Knotted]

hmm .. need to think about that .. i'll get back .. isn't it part of a process though in rebuilding?

Yes, no disagreement there.

p.s. did YOU read 'taking control' ????

No

 

[BarryB]

i am fascinated by this idea that you think it is discriminating that our sons and daughters should get jobs/housing before immigrants .. are you serious??

no wonder the left has lost the trust of the w/c

how can you have a good community if we allow the bosses to leave our kids on the dole and homeless while they USE immigrants for cheap labour???

how can we build a revolution if we allow them to break our organisations by importing people to undercut the terms and conditions our mothers and fathers fought a hundred years to have???

this is not discrimination .. this is just bloody common sense mate .. you have let some ideology .. which one i am not sure ... blind you ..

Working class organisations that have been broken such as the dockers and miners were in industries that had hardly any immigrants in. What then are the "organisations" that have been broken (or likely to be broken)?

BarryB

 

[exosculate]

No wonder the left is fucked in this country. The remnants that exist seem, with some admirable exceptions, to have lost touch with reality.

 

[durruti02]

Working class organisations that have been broken such as the dockers and miners were in industries that had hardly any immigrants in. What then are the "organisations" that have been broken (or likely to be broken)?

BarryB

fair q. .. what i have written perhaps has the wrong emphasis .. it is just as much and perhaps more about the ability to re/create strong organisations/unions than it is about breaking organisation/unions .. after all the job ( successfully done) of the first wave of Thacherism was to do just that.

BUT it is quite clear that the power of the manual sectors unions has been much diminshed by the combination of CCT/privatisation/agency etc and the more recent use of immigrants who due to legal status/need to earn or relative prosperity are less inclined to fight than the old school manual worker.

though in terms of actually breaking organisations/reducing the power of w/c organisations, in the here and now, i would suggest what is happenning to the TA's for starters .. as communities have become broken up via the change in housing allocation rules AND of course RtB and sub letting the power of the TA's was lessened dramatically ..

You are right that the NUM were not defeated thru the use of cheap labour and immigrants .. but that was over 20 years ago .. i am not suggesting immigration is/was the sole weapon in the arsenal of the monetarists ..

the debate is about now .. turn it on its head and look where there is resistance left .. it is in the most unionised work forces NOT those that have been outsourced and are based on cheap labour ..

 

[durruti02]

No wonder the left is fucked in this country. The remnants that exist seem, with some admirable exceptions, to have lost touch with reality.

you bet

 

[durruti02]

bb

do you agree though with John Cruddas that the govt/state is tacitally encouraging immigration ?

 

[durruti02]

thought this was an interesting post from Niclas on the Polish workers thread



"This has been a big issue in my home town - 5,000 Poles now living in Wrexham (town of 40,000). By and large doing shitty jobs nobody else wants to do but there is racism - but less than there would be against people with darker skin.

Mates in construction have made the same points as Snadge - foreign agency workers are undercutting agreed rates, ignoring health and safety and that breeds resentment.

Key point, I think, is that this is nothing new. A century ago, it was Irish navvies brought in to undercut Welsh workers (hell, they used to bring "Moch Mon" - Anglesey pigs - to scab in the mines and quarries. Now it's Poles or Portuguese.

The bottom line is that the agencies are doing capitalism's dirty work - driving wage rates, working conditions down while maximising returns by charging the earth for accommodation, transport, etc.

The BNP - with its "British jobs for British workers" kind of national socialist line - is doing its best to exploit the tensions mentioned.

The sectarian left, as usual, is disappearing up its own arse while the trade unions are doing patchy work in trying to recruit Polish workers.

Snadge mentions ireland, where they had a one-day general strike (FFS!) recently to protest at the use of agency workers to lock out Irish Ferries workers.

That's the way we should be going, but the truth is that the organised left in the UK is far weaker than in Ireland and the trade union movement, while strong on paper, is as useful as a chocolate teacup."

 

[BarryB]

fair q. .. what i have written perhaps has the wrong emphasis .. it is just as much and perhaps more about the ability to re/create strong organisations/unions than it is about breaking organisation/unions .. after all the job ( successfully done) of the first wave of Thacherism was to do just that.

BUT it is quite clear that the power of the manual sectors unions has been much diminshed by the combination of CCT/privatisation/agency etc and the more recent use of immigrants who due to legal status/need to earn or relative prosperity are less inclined to fight than the old school manual worker.

though in terms of actually breaking organisations/reducing the power of w/c organisations, in the here and now, i would suggest what is happenning to the TA's for starters .. as communities have become broken up via the change in housing allocation rules AND of course RtB and sub letting the power of the TA's was lessened dramatically ..

You are right that the NUM were not defeated thru the use of cheap labour and immigrants .. but that was over 20 years ago .. i am not suggesting immigration is/was the sole weapon in the arsenal of the monetarists ..

the debate is about now .. turn it on its head and look where there is resistance left .. it is in the most unionised work forces NOT those that have been outsourced and are based on cheap labour ..

But some of the most unionised sections of the working class- the postmen, health service and local government - have at least in the large cities good numbers of immigrant workers.

BarryB

 

[durruti02]

But some of the most unionised sections of the working class- the postmen, health service and local government - have at least in the large cities good numbers of immigrant workers.

BarryB

not immigrants of recent standing .. immigrants who decide to make 'this country ' their home have often turned out to be good TUists ..

not sure if you have followed this thread .. it is not about immigrants or immigration but about capitalism and the suggestion that in its current phase it is using and abusing immigrants .. (and thus how to counter capitalism in its current phase and also about the lefts approach to the whole issue .. especially in the light of the BNP/UKIP making hay from it )

.. so do you disagree with that and/or John Cruddas's assertion?

 

[TremulousTetra]

The BNP - with its "British jobs for British workers" kind of national socialist line - is doing its best to exploit the tensions mentioned.

got to admit, that does sound familiar.

 

[durruti02]

got to admit, that does sound familiar.

rmp3 ..bad day at the office ?

you might if you actually read the post see that it is NOT from me .. ( please perform an edit and give the right name )

as it is from Niclas .. a welsh poster .. who i believe is a socialist

you people really have, as exsoculate says , lost touch with reality

( apologies if i have misunderstood you .. in which case please explain )

 

[TremulousTetra]

rmp3 ..bad day at the office ?

you might if you actually read the post see that it is NOT from me .. ( please perform an edit and give the right name )

as it is from Niclas .. a welsh poster .. who i believe is a socialist

you people really have, as exsoculate says , lost touch with reality

( apologies if i have misunderstood you .. in which case please explain )

it sounds familiar, niclas's description of the BNP National Socialist policy, because it is what I have been listening to from you for the last six months isn't it?

 

[durruti02]

it sounds familiar, niclas's description of the BNP National Socialist policy, because it is what I have been listening to from you for the last six months isn't it?

so BNP have become council communists??? thats a turn up for the books mate isn't it!!

.. actually please grow up .. there is NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER between what i have been saying and what the BNP say .. tbh i understand the BNP support the creation of white trade unions .. wankers .. another apology please .. think thats 2 in a day??

p.s. just had a quick google on the bnp .. no links about trade unions .. have a look at their 2005 manifesto .. does not mention once rebuilding trade unions .. it is all about extending capitalism through small business ( ironically exactly the people who often employ immigrants on shit wages!) .. bnps interest in immigation and the unions is purely racist .. as you should know ..

 

[durruti02]

it sounds familiar, niclas's description of the BNP National Socialist policy, because it is what I have been listening to from you for the last six months isn't it?

and you are saying niclas is BNP too??

 

[TremulousTetra]

and you are saying niclas is BNP too??

no

 

[durruti02]

no

are you saying i am .. i'm getting pissed off actually .. explain how what i am saying has anything close to bnp at all ..