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

[belboid]

for fucks sake durrutti, you normally keep most of your brain about you it seemed, what the hell have you done with it? is balders squatting in there? thats just utterly meaningless specious drivel you've written above, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

it's very sad, i mean i know we've sufferred defeats and are fighting from a weaker position and all that, but to accept the tory argument wholesale - 'there are too many of them over ere cap'n, we cant cope'. Shameful.

The only point I will respond to at all - because this is pointleess, as evidenced by the plethora of threads you are starting to try and bolster yourself - is the idiotic 'point' you try to make about not being anti-immigrant. Now I dont think for one minute tat you, or even baldy, is actually anti-any particular immigrant, or indeed 'immigrants' at all, but for you to pretend that you can lambast 'immigration' and not think that that will have any knock on effect upon peoples views of 'immigrants' is moronic and, I have to suspect, highly dishonest.

Its just like the Pope and his 'hate the sin, love the sinner' bullshit - it never actually works out like that in practise, quite the reverse. And so would your anti-immigration 'policies', they would see immigrants targetted and attacked, not surprisingly as you do put the blame for housing and job shortages at least half on their shoulders.

 

[TremulousTetra]

sorry but there was too much text there to come back on ..

except to say ( as someone unlike i suspect yourself who has worked alongside immigrants both legal and illegal and helped them when i could .. though could persuade none to join the union .. they were not interested)

the straw man arises in the differrence between you and rmp3 saying that you recognise the issue

..AND the fact it does not appear on front pages or posters of the left, on the streets of barking or anywhere else


and questions to you ..do you suport the closed shop?
and do you support the right of workers to demand jobs go to local peoplke rather than immigrants ( from wherever)?

you will have to explain what the differences are between me and belboid, because I am sure we don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is our problem. Unless you explain yourself we cannot address what you're talking about.

if you are saying that the recognition from SW that does not appear on the front pages of SW it is the fact that there can be interworking class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that can accompany an influx of migrant workers, I would suggest the reasons are twofold.

1. the fact that there are conflicts is as plain as the nose on your face. But perhaps it is a mistake not to mention the recognition. Perhaps SW etc jumped to quickly to the counter argument. I don't know, I will have to think about this.

2. more importantly, from a Marxist and socialist perspective, I have seen no other possible way to resolve the situation except through unity (as I have already explained in your Karl Marx thread). So highlighting the blatantly obvious, the possible conflicts, is not seen to be of as much importance as highlighting the possible solution, how much we have in common, and why we should build unity between local and migrant workers.

 

[tbaldwin]

the 'left' should be out putting the blame where it lies - in the hands of the government, and bosses, not blaming immigration - which by an obvious an perfectly logical conclusion means blaming immigrants. And if you cant see that, you are simply a fool.

.

Its the kind of logic of the most bigoted ignorant people going. A bit like blaming people with Cancer for Cancer.
Its Idiotic. Me Durrutti etc are NOT ANTI IMMIGRANT but we are ANTI ECONOMIC MIGRATION are you really too stupid too understand the difference.
We are also ANTI LOW PAY and no it doesnt make us ANTI the LOW PAID.

Your arguements are childish nonsense.But sadly your illthought out ignorant ramblings are not just typical of you but far too many on the Left.

 

[belboid]

hate the sin, love the sinner.

you are the pope of idiocy

 

[tbaldwin]

hate the sin, love the sinner.

you are the pope of idiocy

Well for me this is central. I hate the idiotic nonsense you come out with but no i dont hate you. I hate the racist shite that people come out with sometimes but NO i dont hate them.
Writing people off is a very slipperly slope.

You cant hate RACISM but people who hate Racists? What kind of shit is that?

 

[belboid]

that last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

I've repeated my point umpteen times, but wouldnt expect someone as inherently dishonest as you to even pretend to have noticed it.

Go on, carry on repeating your one point over and over as if saying something new.

 

[tbaldwin]

that last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

I've repeated my point umpteen times, but wouldnt expect someone as inherently dishonest as you to even pretend to have noticed it.

Go on, carry on repeating your one point over and over as if saying something new.

Shit you right about the last sentence Can and Cant they really are too similar.
The point is that RACISM IS SHIT but if you go from that to writing off Racists you really are a bit of a twat.

 

[belboid]

who said 'write off'? I hate fascism, I hate Nick Griffin. Any problem there?

Hating the practitioners of something you hate is an almost natural consequence for most people, and quite a logical one in many ways. Of course you refuse to accept that, but thats only because it would force you to question some of your own preconceptions.

Goodnight.

 

[durruti02]

hate the sin, love the sinner.

you are the pope of idiocy

dear oh dear!

belboid .. the system is called capitalism
the latest phase is called neo liberalism ( or Thatcherism or The North American Model)
the tactic is to drive down wages and destroy the unions .. using CCT/BV, stock transfer, privatisation, anti trade union legislation and liberalising immigration etc
the solution for this are twofold .. from the angle you would come at and what i see in SW i suggest it would be .. to resist stock transfer, to repeal anti trade union legislation, to stop/reverse privatisation and er to de- liberalise immigration .. ( bizarrelly this is the bit you opt out of!)
my solution involves workers both in the workplace and street/estates incrementally taking more and more control of where they live

where the fuck do you find an attack on immigrants in that!!!!

 

[tbaldwin]

who said 'write off'? I hate fascism, I hate Nick Griffin. Any problem there?

Hating the practitioners of something you hate is an almost natural consequence for most people, and quite a logical one in many ways. Of course you refuse to accept that, but thats only because it would force you to question some of your own preconceptions.

Goodnight.

Preconceptions indeed ......What can i say?
Hating Griffin is one thing but hating everybody who comes out with a view you might describe as Racist is utter utter shit and just pushes people to loons like Griffin.

 

[durruti02]

for fucks sake durrutti, you normally keep most of your brain about you it seemed, what the hell have you done with it? is balders squatting in there? thats just utterly meaningless specious drivel you've written above, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

it seems to mean something in west yorkshire and barking and everywher else but the swp!


it's very sad, i mean i know we've sufferred defeats and are fighting from a weaker position and all that, but to accept the tory argument wholesale - 'there are too many of them over ere cap'n, we cant cope'. Shameful.

you dolt .. really please give me the credit of actually reading my posts .. i am not against immigrants nor immigration .. i and balders are against the use and abuse of immigrants by capitalism and the use of immigration to underrcut unions etc

The only point I will respond to at all - because this is pointleess, as evidenced by the plethora of threads you are starting to try and bolster yourself - is the idiotic 'point' you try to make about not being anti-immigrant. Now I dont think for one minute tat you, or even baldy, is actually anti-any particular immigrant, or indeed 'immigrants' at all, but for you to pretend that you can lambast 'immigration' and not think that that will have any knock on effect upon peoples views of 'immigrants' is moronic and, I have to suspect, highly dishonest.


there is already large scale anti immigrant attitudes shown by the massive votes both UKIP and the BNP are receiving .. nothing i or balders do or say will effect that .. IF YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED FROM MY POSTS MY POINT IS 100% STATING THAT THIS IS ABOPUT CAPITALISM .. that in fact all other parties who talk of immigration are motivated by either racism or opportunism .. let us be honest .. it is the likes of the UKIP and tory hierarchies who are behind teh use and abuse of most immigrants .. hypocrites



Its just like the Pope and his 'hate the sin, love the sinner' bullshit - it never actually works out like that in practise, quite the reverse. And so would your anti-immigration 'policies', they would see immigrants targetted and attacked, not surprisingly as you do put the blame for housing and job shortages at least half on their shoulders.

the art of political thought appears to be dead in the left .. can you really not see that we are being totally shafted by the neo libearls??? and that they are playing a 2 fold scam of both underctting the unions while attacking immigrants at the same time?? please actually read what john cruddas has said ( as an ex labour insider .. at this moment in time i do not belive you have .. )

......

 

[belboid]

dear oh dear!

belboid .. the system is called capitalism
the latest phase is called neo liberalism ( or Thatcherism or The North American Model)
the tactic is to drive down wages and destroy the unions .. using CCT/BV, stock transfer, privatisation, anti trade union legislation and liberalising immigration etc
the solution for this are twofold .. from the angle you would come at and what i see in SW i suggest it would be .. to resist stock transfer, to repeal anti trade union legislation, to stop/reverse privatisation and er to de- liberalise immigration .. ( bizarrelly this is the bit you opt out of!)
my solution involves workers both in the workplace and street/estates incrementally taking more and more control of where they live

where the fuck do you find an attack on immigrants in that!!!!

'de-liberalise' I think that means the opposite of what you are trying to say, its not exactly clear tho.

you can bung in whatever smilies you like, I'm sure they make you feel better, but if you cant recognise that an attack on immigration for taking 'our' jobs, will lead to increased attacks on immigrants, thats your problem. Hopefully it will remain just your problem ,tho I doubt it.

 

[durruti02]

Well for me this is central. I hate the idiotic nonsense you come out with but no i dont hate you. I hate the racist shite that people come out with sometimes but NO i dont hate them.
Writing people off is a very slipperly slope.

You cant hate RACISM but people who hate Racists? What kind of shit is that?

mate that is a fine humanist post

 

[durruti02]

if you are saying that the recognition from SW that does not appear on the front pages of SW it is the fact that there can be interworking class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that can accompany an influx of migrant workers, I would suggest the reasons are twofold.


which i have and which is true

1. the fact that there are conflicts is as plain as the nose on your face. But perhaps it is a mistake not to mention the recognition. Perhaps SW etc jumped to quickly to the counter argument. I don't know, I will have to think about this.

fair play mate ... this is what i have been trying to say for the past few months! i appreciate what SW have been doing .. partly i blame an element of liberalism in the SWP .. partly i blame a lack of contact with the w/c .. but yes i DO accept the element of the counter arguement .. but you first have to be honest about the process


2. more importantly, from a Marxist and socialist perspective, I have seen no other possible way to resolve the situation except through unity (as I have already explained in your Karl Marx thread). So highlighting the blatantly obvious, the possible conflicts, is not seen to be of as much importance as highlighting the possible solution, how much we have in common, and why we should build unity between local and migrant workers.

but i keep on saying .. it is not a case of HIGHLIGHTING .. it is a case of accepting it is part of the mix .. you can not deal with a situation, that everyone else is talking about by ignoring it!! you can not find solutions without being totally open about the processes

.......

 

[belboid]

you dolt .. really please give me the credit of actually reading my posts .. i am not against immigrants nor immigration .. i and balders are against the use and abuse of immigrants by capitalism

ffs. and you read mine, you've avoided 99% of the points to repeat your one assertion and still failed to offer any evidence to back up your assertions. Theres not even any in the Crudass report.

And it is rather laughable you suddenly lauding this labourite - someone you'd be attacknig 99% of the rest of the time I imagine, as he is a pretty appalingly right-wing shitbag (pro-war, pro-foundation hospitals). Still, any old port in a storm eh?

 

[durruti02]

ffs. and you read mine, you've avoided 99% of the points to repeat your one assertion and still failed to offer any evidence to back up your assertions. Theres not even any in the Crudass report.

And it is rather laughable you suddenly lauding this labourite - someone you'd be attacknig 99% of the rest of the time I imagine, as he is a pretty appalingly right-wing shitbag (pro-war, pro-foundation hospitals). Still, any old port in a storm eh?

of course he is all you say!! i not asking you to marry him!

just to think about what he is saying and why ..

specifically do you agree or disagree with this ..

"Yet at the same time it [ the labour govt ] has tacitly used immigration to help forge the preferred flexible North American labour market. Especially in London, legal and illegal immigration has been central in replenishing the stock of cheap labour across the public and private services, construction and civil engineering.."

 

[tbaldwin]

ffs. and you read mine, you've avoided 99% of the points to repeat your one assertion and still failed to offer any evidence to back up your assertions. Theres not even any in the Crudass report.

And it is rather laughable you suddenly lauding this labourite - someone you'd be attacknig 99% of the rest of the time I imagine, as he is a pretty appalingly right-wing shitbag (pro-war, pro-foundation hospitals). Still, any old port in a storm eh?

You twat Bellboid i am not either pro the iraq war (If thats what you mean) or foundation Hospitals...
You complete cretin...

 

[Fruitloop]

Surely the point is that if you have any group of people who are effectively outside the minimum wage, outside the legislation governing H&S, working hours etc, or who for whatever reason are prepared to tolerate a standard of living that's vastly below what the majority of the w/c considers a reasonable return for their labour, then it has to be bad for the class as a whole? Pointing this out doesn't have to imply a punitive approach to economic migration, it's just a statement of fact.

 

[belboid]

You twat Bellboid i am not either pro the iraq war (If thats what you mean) or foundation Hospitals...
You complete cretin...

Cruddas not you, you moron.

 

[durruti02]

Surely the point is that if you have any group of people who are effectively outside the minimum wage, outside the legislation governing H&S, working hours etc, or who for whatever reason are prepared to tolerate a standard of living that's vastly below what the majority of the w/c considers a reasonable return for their labour, then it has to be bad for the class as a whole? Pointing this out doesn't have to imply a punitive approach to economic migration, it's just a statement of fact.

you would have thought so mate!

 

[durruti02]

Cruddas not you, you moron.

you see bb the implication you are making is that we support all is agenda ..

 

[belboid]

christ almighty, thats just an idiotic lie d. there is no such implicatin whatsoever.

 

[durruti02]

christ almighty, thats just an idiotic lie d. there is no such implicatin whatsoever.

ok whatever .. i withdraw and apologise etc .. it is not important

what do you think of his statement though ..

"Yet at the same time it [ the labour govt ] has tacitly used immigration to help forge the preferred flexible North American labour market. Especially in London, legal and illegal immigration has been central in replenishing the stock of cheap labour across the public and private services, construction and civil engineering.."

 

[tbaldwin]

Bellboid just to clarify, so you no longer think im a right winger in favour of PFI etc?

 

[dennisr]

What is the actual choice here? What alternative strategies are being proposed?

From this weeks Socialist: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/TheSocialistContents.htm

Migrant workers - Unity needed to fight exploitation

from the article
"Sections of the bosses, their economists and their writers are encouraging the use of immigrant workers precisely because of their effects on the labour force as a whole. They want to reduce wage costs so that the profits for their system rise.

AT DIFFERENT times, the government and the bosses will either praise migrant workers to kick British-based workers or make them scapegoats for the problems of society.

Workers from Eastern Europe are more likely to work longer hours, claim less sick days and work harder in terms of productivity and speed than Britons, said a recent Home Office report.

However, in the recent uproar about the deportation of foreign prisoners after serving their sentence, the 'discovery' of 'illegal' workers at the Home Office itself was used as part of the scare. In other words, the government and the bosses use migrant workers to divide the workforce as a whole, just changing their emphasis when they think it necessary.

That's why it is important for the trade union movement to organise migrant workers. Their position in society makes them liable to the grossest exploitation. That exploitation also develops anger against the system. The huge demonstrations in the United States of Hispanic workers against the Bush administration's criminalisation of 12 million migrants, many of them workers and their families, shows the anger that can develop."

and

"In Britain, the trade unions have made a start in recruiting and organising migrant workers. The Transport and General Workers Union, for example, has produced material for Polish workers in the North-West, while in London Region 1 has set up an office for Latin-American workers, aiming to recruit many of the thousands of workers from Central and South America believed to be in London, and producing material in Spanish.

Migrant workers have featured prominently in recent disputes, including the cleaners in parliament and the continuing campaign for recognition and decent conditions in the offices at Canary Wharf.

Trade unions need to be more vigorous in their campaigns. Migrant workers will join unions if the unions are prepared to put forward fighting policies, campaign on them and show the determination to win. The loss of the Gate Gourmet dispute, involving many migrant workers, has shown how the determination of the trade union leaders does not always match that of the working class."

 

[belboid]

what do you think of his statement though ..

"Yet at the same time it [ the labour govt ] has tacitly used immigration to help forge the preferred flexible North American labour market. Especially in London, legal and illegal immigration has been central in replenishing the stock of cheap labour across the public and private services, construction and civil engineering.."

i think that the important thing is what you do about it. tb would have such people deported, thus making organising them even harder, nigh on impossiblke in fact.

 

[TremulousTetra]

resistance
if you are saying that the recognition from SW that does not appear on the front pages of SW it is the fact that there can be interworking class conflicts, that can be deleterious to the working-class movement, that can accompany an influx of migrant workers, I would suggest the reasons are twofold.

dur
which i have and which is true
resistance
1. the fact that there are conflicts is as plain as the nose on your face. But perhaps it is a mistake not to mention the recognition. Perhaps SW etc jumped to quickly to the counter argument. I don't know, I will have to think about this.
dur
fair play mate ... this is what i have been trying to say for the past few months! i appreciate what SW have been doing .. partly i blame an element of liberalism in the SWP .. partly i blame a lack of contact with the w/c .. but yes i DO accept the element of the counter arguement .. but you first have to be honest about the process

resistance
2. more importantly, from a Marxist and socialist perspective, I have seen no other possible way to resolve the situation except through unity (as I have already explained in your Karl Marx thread). So highlighting the blatantly obvious, the possible conflicts, is not seen to be of as much importance as highlighting the possible solution, how much we have in common, and why we should build unity between local and migrant workers.
dur
but i keep on saying .. it is not a case of HIGHLIGHTING .. it is a case of accepting it is part of the mix .. you can not deal with a situation, that everyone else is talking about by ignoring it!! you can not find solutions without being totally open about the processes

with respect Dur, you are now taking the argument back in a circle, and this is what is making me frustrated.

I have explained to you for several months that Marxists accept that along with immigration in capitalist society, there can come inter-working class conflict which can be deleterious to the labour movement.(nobody, I repeat nobody, from SW or any other Marxist organisation has contradicted me on this. And your own quote from Marx confirms that Marxists accept this.) You then complained, if we accept it, why isn't it on SWs front-page (highlighted). You are now saying "it is not a case of highlighting, it is a case of accepting". I just don't know what change in strategy you want from me/us, and what tactical purpose you would put it to. You explain to me what you would like to hear me say that could break this vicious circle in your argument.

 

[belboid]

with respect Dur, you are now taking the argument back in a circle, and this is what is making me frustrated.

Course he has, and he hopes that no one will notice and think he's making a new point rather than simply repeating himself over and over.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Course he has, and he hopes that no one will notice and think he's making a new point rather than simply repeating himself over and over.

do you accept that along with immigration in capitalist society, there can come inter-working class conflict which can be deleterious to the labour movement.

 

[belboid]

of course it can, its used as a divide and rule. and durruti & balders are falling for it.