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

[Knotted]

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.

How about this recent and all too typical article form Socialist Worker:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8894
Includes the quote:
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that immigration causes racism. As we have seen in recent weeks, the increase in hatred and bigotry is not caused by immigrants – but by the right wing lies that are told about them."

There are, of course, different ways to interpret this quote and in particular what SW means by 'racism' but this quote seems to imply that these inter-working class disputes are the product of right wing ideology rather than under cutting wages etc.

Also looking at the quote:
"Unregistered migrant workers come here not to steal existing jobs, but to do the kind of work that the overwhelming majority of British workers are not prepared to do."

[To focus on the point ResistanceMP3 makes, I will put aside the apalling suggestion that the question of the worthiness of the jobs can be seperated from the question of pay and conditions.]

The Socialist Worker line is that migrant workers and 'British workers' (yes, they really do make that distinction and after all the waffle on pandering to racism!) are not competing for the same jobs. This is a gross exageration of course, but if we were to take it seriously it says that super-exploitation of illegal immigrants does not effect the jobs and presumably the wages of 'British workers'. This is an argument AGAINST unity. Its called sectionalism.

So, to summarise, I don't buy the line that SW is more concerned about arguing for unity than it is for pointing out causes for conflict. They seem to emphasise apparently fundamental differences between migrants and the rest of us while borrowing lazy sectionalist arguments to say that the plight of migrant workers is only of interest to migrant workers (and immigration lawyers ). Rather they are interested in playing Tweedledum to the Daily Express Tweedledee.

Oh yes and they are *still* grappling with the idea that the government favours migration for economic reasons despite all the evidence. Its as if the 70's never ended.

 

[TremulousTetra]

How about this recent and all too typical article form Socialist Worker:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8894
Includes the quote:
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that immigration causes racism. As we have seen in recent weeks, the increase in hatred and bigotry is not caused by immigrants – but by the right wing lies that are told about them.

There are, of course, different ways to interpret this quote and in particular what SW means by 'racism' but this quote seems to imply that these inter-working class disputes are the product of right wing ideology rather than under cutting wages etc."

no! That is what you want to read into it. The quote doesn't even mention wages. you are creating an absurdly simplistic strawman that neither I nor belboid adhere to, and then attacking it. Enjoy yourself mate. Knock yourself out. but it has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

Also looking at the quote:
"Unregistered migrant workers come here not to steal existing jobs, but to do the kind of work that the overwhelming majority of British workers are not prepared to do."

The Socialist Worker line is that migrant workers and 'British workers' (yes, they really do make that distinction and after all the waffle on pandering to racism!) are not competing for the same jobs. This is a gross exageration of course, but if we were to take it seriously it says that super-exploitation of illegal immigrants does not effect the jobs and presumably the wages of 'British workers'. This is an argument AGAINST unity. Its called sectionalism.

I am really glad I have you here to interpret this for me, I am not able to read English. whatever you do, don't get a job with the immigration service will you.

more seriously, I will leave this to Mr Baldwin and dur, as it is similar to what they have been arguing over the last six-month.

So, to summarise, I don't buy the line that SW is more concerned about arguing for unity than it is for pointing out causes for conflict. They seem to emphasise apparently fundamental differences between migrants and the rest of us while borrowing lazy sectionalist arguments to say that the plight of migrant workers is only of interest to migrant workers (and immigration lawyers ). Rather they are interested in playing Tweedledum to the Daily Express Tweedledee.

Oh yes and they are *still* grappling with the idea that the government favours migration for economic reasons despite all the evidence. Its as if the 70's never ended.

I don't really understand your last comments to respond to them. I can only summarise by saying, I too do not buy the SW argument as you have " interpreted" it. So at least we agree on something.

 

[Knotted]

:
I don't really understand your last comments to respond to them. I can only summarise by saying, I too do not buy the SW argument as you have " interpreted" it. So at least we agree on something.

Oh come on, Socialist Worker is absolutely explicit, there is little room for misunderstanding and if there were then you would be able to correct me.

Compare and contrast. Marx:
"And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker."

At the risk of "interpreting" note that Marx does *not* say "The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker whom he *sees* as a competitor who lowers his standard of life."

Compared with Socialist Worker:
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that immigration causes racism. As we have seen in recent weeks, the increase in hatred and bigotry is not caused by immigrants – but by the right wing lies that are told about them."

You can't possibly resolve these two positions. Sure Marx may have been wrong, but you can't claim that 'Marxists' have always agreed with Marx on this.

 

[Knotted]

ResistanceMP3

You come across as honest and I'm sorry to keep banging on about this but I think that you are really kidding yourself if you think there are no substantial differences between Socialist Worker, other marxists and Durruti others posting here as far as immigration is concerned.

How do you interpret the second line in the article dennisr posted from the Socialist?
"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."

I'm sure we all can understand and agree on the second half about scapegoating immigrants, but what do you think they meant when they say "the bosses ... praise migrant workers to kick British-based workers".

Why do you think they complain about praise of migrant workers and how is this different to the praise of migrant workers in Socialist Worker?

Isn't all the talk about jobs British workers don't want to do just the eensiest bit of a kick in the teeth? I can tell you it riles me.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Oh come on, Socialist Worker is absolutely explicit, there is little room for misunderstanding and if there were then you would be able to correct me.

Compare and contrast. Marx:
"And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker."

At the risk of "interpreting" note that Marx does *not* say "The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker whom he *sees* as a competitor who lowers his standard of life."

Compared with Socialist Worker:
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that immigration causes racism. As we have seen in recent weeks, the increase in hatred and bigotry is not caused by immigrants – but by the right wing lies that are told about them."

You can't possibly resolve these two positions. Sure Marx may have been wrong, but you can't claim that 'Marxists' have always agreed with Marx on this.

I agree with Karl Marx. I agree with Socialist-Worker. They are different arguments, in different times, with different targets, countering different theses. Simple as.

Point me to a Marxist in SW or elsewhere who disagrees with Karl Marx comments.

 

[durruti02]

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.

please answer the q. mate .. do you or do you not agree with what is written ???


and p.s. your secomd comment shows your almost total lack of a socialist attitude .. you have failed to analyse what and why immgration is happenning and why and how deportations fit into that process

and you think that anyone with concerns about immigration wants deportations and walls??? nonsense .. what we want is to get rid of the british capitalism that has made it claar that we are open for anyone prepared to work for a fiver an hour .. and you fail ( bizarrley as a socialist that the key is ) workers organising to demand and acheive an element of control over terms and conditions and employment .. then you would not have the very large scale of immigration that we currently have .. then would would not have the problems we have .. then we would not have a state that used and abused immigrants as we do now .. that involves doing what the SP has said above .. but it also needs us to be honest to people about what is going on

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

True. what is punitive is the desire to discriminate against migrant workers, by excluding them from workplaces in favour of "local workers". Worse still in my opinion, this sows seeds of division. Why not treat all workers equally? Creating a close shop so all workers are paid the same and receive the same conditions? Why not fight for training schemes/apprenticeships to create the skilled labour in this country?

 

[durruti02]

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

but you making out everyone accepts this but show NO evidence whatso ever??? am i meant to read the minds of the swp CC

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.)

i asked you for any reference which you have not given .. SP have commented on this a few times

also it is not just conflicts .. if you are a marxist you must also accept that immigrants can be used in the 'reserve army of labour' to lower wages and undercut organisation

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.

mate i have said very clearly either on here or on the other threads .. what is the point of you and your conrades believing something if you do not come out and say it!

it needs the left to come out clearly .. on front pages and state
" The immigration scandel!"
" How immgration is being used to screw the w/c!"
" How immigrants and all workers are being screwed through immigration!"
"The the bosses are using immigration to screw the unions!"
" Organise to stop the bosses using immigration to drive down wages"
etc etc

yes i appreciate the risk but there is such a drift rightward amongst working class people and a drift away from unions amongst many too that there is a desperate need to get back in there .. not by the lowest common demoninator but by telling the truth .. as john cruddas has done

 

[durruti02]

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

oh sweet boy .. so thus you must be against it?? NO??

 

[Fruitloop]

Letting values get in the way of facts has been the fucking bane of the organised left, IMO.

 

[durruti02]

I agree with Karl Marx. I agree with Socialist-Worker. They are different arguments, in different times, with different targets, countering different theses. Simple as.

Point me to a Marxist in SW or elsewhere who disagrees with Karl Marx comments.

rmp .. sorry but knotted has you here .. you have continually said everyone in SW agrees with the reality that the bosses use immigration ( amongst many other things ) to drive down wages etc etc .. and i have continually asked you to show where SW has said this

and knotted has shown clearly that the SW are NOT saying what you say it says in private

This qoute below is downright unmarxist and dishonest .. it is not (just ) the lies that are told , but peoples real material conditions .. as you have said you accept this .. so why does SW not??

"The biggest immigration myth of all is that immigration causes racism. As we have seen in recent weeks, the increase in hatred and bigotry is not caused by immigrants – but by the right wing lies that are told about them." SW

 

[durruti02]

True. what is punitive is the desire to discriminate against migrant workers, by excluding them from workplaces in favour of "local workers". Worse still in my opinion, this sows seeds of division. Why not treat all workers equally? Creating a close shop so all workers are paid the same and receive the same conditions? Why not fight for training schemes/apprenticeships to create the skilled labour in this country?

but mate local workers black and white are being excluded right now! that is punitive! that is what is creating the division!

by people working for less money than they used to .. all over the public and private sector!! that is the whole point of this!!

the rest i agree with

 

[TremulousTetra]

ResistanceMP3

You come across as honest and I'm sorry to keep banging on about this but I think that you are really kidding yourself if you think there are no substantial differences between Socialist Worker, other marxists and Durruti others posting here as far as immigration is concerned.

I have been trying to work out what the difference is. If you look in the Karl Marx thread, I think you will find we have agreed where the difference in strategy lies. This difference in strategy, does produce wildly different styles of socialist propaganda on the topic.

How do you interpret the second line in the article dennisr posted from the Socialist?
"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."

I'm sure we all can understand and agree on the second half about scapegoating immigrants, but what do you think they meant when they say "the bosses ... praise migrant workers to kick British-based workers".

Why do you think they complain about praise of migrant workers and how is this different to the praise of migrant workers in Socialist Worker?

Isn't all the talk about jobs British workers don't want to do just the eensiest bit of a kick in the teeth? I can tell you it riles me.

it has taken me a while to work out the answer to that question. I think I understand what you and the socialist are getting at. You regard these comments and intended to be insulting to British workers, yes? the socialist too points out

Migrant workers are used extensively in the food industry, catering, hotels and cleaning. They work long and often anti-social hours, including nights, early mornings and late evenings. Many migrant workers need more than one job to get by.

but you think this is a more tactful way of saying the same thing as Socialist-Worker, that immigrants get the worst jobs?

 

[TremulousTetra]

rmp .. sorry but knotted has you here .. you have continually said everyone in SW agrees with the reality that the bosses use immigration ( amongst many other things ) to drive down wages etc etc .. and i have continually asked you to show where SW has said this

yep bosses use of migrants, women, even the children to reduce labour costs if they can get away with it. I have continually asked you to show me where SW disagrees with this.

and knotted has shown clearly that the SW are NOT saying what you say it says in private

no! SW say this in public.

This qoute below is downright unmarxist and dishonest .. it is not (just ) the lies that are told , but peoples real material conditions .. as you have said you accept this .. so why does SW not??

"The biggest immigration myth of all is that immigration causes racism. As we have seen in recent weeks, the increase in hatred and bigotry is not caused by immigrants – but by the right wing lies that are told about them." SW

[/QUOTE]Karl Marx does not say immigrants cause racism, and neither does Socialist-Worker. Racism, the belief that one group of people genetically inherited characteristics which make them inferior, or superior, to another group of people, is not a product of immigration/immigrants. That is why you can have higher levels of racism in in areas without immigrants, and lower levels of racism in areas with high immigrant populations. Racism in the 1950s etc was a much higher levels than it is today. what produces racism, is far more complicated than "immigrants equal racism".

You need to read carefully what I have said. That two things come together, does not implicitly mean there is cause and effect.

 

[Binkie]

Demanding everyone (including recent immigrants) are paid 'the rate for the job' would be a good first step.

 

[durruti02]

but rmp , if we were just moralists and liberals we would accept that yes immigrants do clearly do the shit jobs .. work longer hours .. for less money .. and that is good .. for them for the country ... and it shows up the layabouts and idlers on the street corners

but we are not .. we are various shades of socialist .. so we need to look thru that .. why do people here not want those jobs ?? why? because we do not want to work for less than our parents .. cos we do not want a job that is 'not for life' .. cos we want skilled jobs .. cos we want proper union jobs .. cos we want to take tea breaks when and where we want!!

people are happy to do most of the jobs, ( that we are told we are not happy to do) .. but not with the hours and rates of pay NOW paid for those jobs

 

[durruti02]

yep bosses use of migrants, women, even the children to reduce labour costs if they can get away with it. I have continually asked you to show me where SW disagrees with this.

no! SW say this in public.

"Karl Marx does not say immigrants cause racism, and neither does Socialist-Worker. Racism, the belief that one group of people genetically inherited characteristics which make them inferior, or superior, to another group of people, is not a product of immigration/immigrants. That is why you can have higher levels of racism in in areas without immigrants, and lower levels of racism in areas with high immigrant populations. Racism in the 1950s etc was a much higher levels than it is today. what produces racism, is far more complicated than "immigrants equal racism". from SW

You need to read carefully what I have said. That two things come together, does not implicitly mean there is cause and effect. rmp3



rmp3 but where does SW talk about immigration being used to lower labour costs!!! please i have asked you this many many many times .. i have searched and can not find .. knotted has serched and just found something that blames rightwing ideology

Racism here is absolutely irrelevant .. a smokescreen .. it is not happenning [ as SW quite rightly point out .. so why have they mentionned it?? ]

the anger is not racist .. it is not ideological .. it is material .. it is about peoples living/working conditions .. this is marxism ..

 

[durruti02]

yep bosses use of migrants, women, even the children to reduce labour costs if they can get away with it. I have continually asked you to show me where SW disagrees with this.

no! SW say this in public.

"Karl Marx does not say immigrants cause racism, and neither does Socialist-Worker. Racism, the belief that one group of people genetically inherited characteristics which make them inferior, or superior, to another group of people, is not a product of immigration/immigrants. That is why you can have higher levels of racism in in areas without immigrants, and lower levels of racism in areas with high immigrant populations. Racism in the 1950s etc was a much higher levels than it is today. what produces racism, is far more complicated than "immigrants equal racism".SW

You need to read carefully what I have said. That two things come together, does not implicitly mean there is cause and effect .. RMP3



but rmp3 where does SW talk about immigration being used to lower labour costs!!! please i have asked you this many many many times .. i have searched and can not find .. knotted has serched and just found something that blames rightwing ideology

Racism here is absolutely irrelevant .. a smokescreen .. it is not happenning [ as SW quite rightly point out .. so why have they mentionned it?? ]

the anger is not racist .. it is not ideological .. it is material .. it is about peoples living/working conditions .. this is marxism ..

 

[belboid]

oh sweet boy .. so thus you must be against it?? NO??

amazingly anough - NO! (see,anyone can include a smilie as tho it makes them seem cleverer, even tho it doesnt)

Women were intorduced into the workplace to fulfill a similar function, following your logic you would have been against that as well (as various TU's were at the time).

 

[belboid]

please answer the q. mate .. do you or do you not agree with what is written ???


and p.s. your secomd comment shows your almost total lack of a socialist attitude .. you have failed to analyse what and why immgration is happenning and why and how deportations fit into that process

and you think that anyone with concerns about immigration wants deportations and walls??? nonsense .. what we want is to get rid of the british capitalism that has made it claar that we are open for anyone prepared to work for a fiver an hour .. and you fail ( bizarrley as a socialist that the key is ) workers organising to demand and acheive an element of control over terms and conditions and employment .. then you would not have the very large scale of immigration that we currently have .. then would would not have the problems we have .. then we would not have a state that used and abused immigrants as we do now .. that involves doing what the SP has said above .. but it also needs us to be honest to people about what is going on

this is simply dire durruti, you're doing just what SW always does 'agree with this or you are not a socialist' - and its just as much bollocks when you talk it as when they do. your 'little englander' attitude here has sweet fa to do with socialism if you ask me.

bottom line is, you are for immigration controls, i'm not. you then shilly shally around how you would actually implement them (as the SP do, tho when push cmnes to shove they tend to say they wouldnt do).

 

[exosculate]

this is simply dire durruti, you're doing just what SW always does 'agree with this or you are not a socialist' - and its just as much bollocks when you talk it as when they do. your 'little englander' attitude here has sweet fa to do with socialism if you ask me.

bottom line is, you are for immigration controls, i'm not. you then shilly shally around how you would actually implement them (as the SP do, tho when push cmnes to shove they tend to say they wouldnt do).

Nothing wrong with agreeing with immigration controls. That position equally does not de facto imply little englander. That is also a pretty dire interpretation in my view.

 

[exosculate]

amazingly anough - NO! (see,anyone can include a smilie as tho it makes them seem cleverer, even tho it doesnt)

Women were intorduced into the workplace to fulfill a similar function, following your logic you would have been against that as well (as various TU's were at the time).

This is spurious and not equivalent as an argument.

 

[belboid]

wrong and wrong exo.

 

[belboid]

it needs the left to come out clearly .. on front pages and state
" The immigration scandel!"
" How immgration is being used to screw the w/c!"
" How immigrants and all workers are being screwed through immigration!"
"The the bosses are using immigration to screw the unions!"
" Organise to stop the bosses using immigration to drive down wages"
etc etc

i thought you said the left shouldn't be putting such stuff on the front page before? a bit of consistency would be nice!

I prefer slogans like

'No to divide and rule'
'Decent pay for all'
etc etc

 

[Knotted]

I agree with Karl Marx. I agree with Socialist-Worker. They are different arguments, in different times, with different targets, countering different theses. Simple as.

Point me to a Marxist in SW or elsewhere who disagrees with Karl Marx comments.

Well I hate to be smug and I also hate to embarrass you (honestly).

The SW position is radically different to Marx's. Sure we don't live in the 1870's and maybe you can find some solace there. But the theme of the two quotes is the same and they are talking about the same thing unless Socialist Worker thinks that racism is something different from "cherishing religious, social, and national prejudices" or the "attitude of poor whites to Negroes in the former slave states of the USA". I would be truly flabergasted if you claim the SWP deny this.

The more you force me to research what SW actually say I can only get more smug and you can only get more embarrassed I'm afraid. I would honestly prefer to ignore SWP silliness. But here we go:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8027

This article actually uses the Marx quote we are discussing in order to say:
"These words are well over a century old, but they speak profoundly to us today. At the heart of racism is the attempt to divide workers along racial lines."

So the idea that Socialist Worker thinks that Marx was dealing with a different, distinct 19th century problem is not true. Also note the second sentence above. They have ignored the content of what Marx has said. Also note further on:
"Of course, capitalism does not need, or want, violent racial disturbances happening every day. But by constantly failing to deliver for working people, it creates the conditions for racial tension, even when bosses want controlled immigration to meet the needs of the labour market."

The crucial word here is 'even'. So Marx talks about immigration causing competition between migrant and native (for want of a better word) workers which then contributes to what the SWP would (quite reasonably) call racism. SW on the other hand talks about increased racial tension inspite of immigration.

I'm at risk here of accusing SW of being consistent. This, of course, is not true. They talk about some sort of economic segregation where migrant workers do certain jobs and British workers do other jobs when it suits them or when the fancy takes them they will say that "They [inflows of immigrants] create the potential for workers to be drawn together, to mix at work and residentially, as a recent study reported in Socialist Worker highlighted." However they are consistent when in comes to denying that there is a material cause for antagonism between native and migrant workers.

I hate criticising Socialist Worker - its much too easy. There are others who favour the abolition of all immigration controls who do not feel they have to go through these contortions - I could give Newsline or Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism as two examples. I would much prefer to debate their lines on this question. Socialist Worker is an embarrassment.

 

[Binkie]

Whether or not every SWP member agrees with everything Marx said is not the point.

The point is that a ruling class may seek cheap labour by a number of means. Here are a few:

• oppose trade unionism
• close local enterprises and export jobs overseas where labour is cheaper
• employ women who, while demanding equality, will work for less
• employ immigrant workers who don't have the clout to object
• encourage division among workers along race and gender lines - divide and rule
• promote the idea that it is the poor who are the exploiters

 

[Knotted]

I have been trying to work out what the difference is. If you look in the Karl Marx thread, I think you will find we have agreed where the difference in strategy lies. This difference in strategy, does produce wildly different styles of socialist propaganda on the topic.

I agree with you not durruti on discrimination in a closed shop [actually I think both of you are reducing a political question to a trade union question but that's another debate]. However, I agree with durruti not you in terms of propaganda. In my view it is more important to agree on fundamentals of analysis and method than it is to agree on strategy. Agreement on strategy is only important if you think that unity in action precludes disagreement on what that action should be.

it has taken me a while to work out the answer to that question. I think I understand what you and the socialist are getting at. You regard these comments and intended to be insulting to British workers, yes? the socialist too points outbut you think this is a more tactful way of saying the same thing as Socialist-Worker, that immigrants get the worst jobs?

There is no insult in saying that immigrants get the worst jobs, although it is an exageration. There is an insult, intended or otherwise, in saying that 'British workers' will not do these jobs. Firstly its a stereotype and could imply all sorts of things - are they lazy? do they not want to get their hands mucky? do they not want to work alongside migrants? Secondly its an insult to everyone, migrant or otherwise, who has done these jobs - are they not fit to be part of the rest of the class? Thirdly and most importantly it promotes division in the working class - don't worry about the plight of migrant workers it won't effect you.

 

[Knotted]

yep bosses use of migrants, women, even the children to reduce labour costs if they can get away with it. I have continually asked you to show me where SW disagrees with this.

no! SW say this in public.

Socialist Worker says that bosses use immigrant labour as cheap labour. They do not say that immigrant labour is used to undermine wages - indeed they go so far out of their way to deny it that they spout all sorts of nonsense about immigrants doing the jobs 'British workers' do not want to do. This is a subtle distinction but a crucial one.

Karl Marx does not say immigrants cause racism, and neither does Socialist-Worker. Racism, the belief that one group of people genetically inherited characteristics which make them inferior, or superior, to another group of people, is not a product of immigration/immigrants. That is why you can have higher levels of racism in in areas without immigrants, and lower levels of racism in areas with high immigrant populations. Racism in the 1950s etc was a much higher levels than it is today. what produces racism, is far more complicated than "immigrants equal racism".

Well you might define racism this way and I would find that agreeable but Socialist Worker clearly doesn't nor do most other people. I'm afraid I've missed the genetic theories about the inferiority of assylum seekers in the Daily Express.

By the way, the term 'racism' was barely used by socialist of any stripe before WW2 and when they did they were using your definition. If your definition was used today then racism have would almost completely ceased to exist amongst the under 50's.

 

[Knotted]

Women were intorduced into the workplace to fulfill a similar function, following your logic you would have been against that as well (as various TU's were at the time).

I can think of two important differences.

Firstly the employment of women is a finite process - there are only a certain number of women to employ and there is a economic readjustment which would counter the increase in the workforce. With the globalisation of labour there is a constant flow into the country and indeed out of the country and so the readjustment is permanently lagging behind.

Secondly (and I'm being fair because this strengthens your argument) the fact that women are employed means that the family unit can be exploited to a greater degree. Wages can be depressed if two sets of lower wages can sustain a working class family as opposed to one working wage. There is no equivalent for this phenonmenon with respect to migration.

Because of this second point socialists have always been luke warm with respect to women's right to work. If I remember correctly it was countered because the right to work bolsters the absolute numbers of the working class and allows access to education. Honest question - did the International Workingmen's Association support the women's right to work?

 

[belboid]

re your first point, whilst it is 'technically' true, in fact the number of women available to employ has almost always been significantly higher than the number of migrants that can realistically be called upon. the nature of the family may have changed, but not that dramatically, and 'womens work' is still oft considered secondary and far more 'flexible'.

re the IWA - I'd have to say I'm not entirely sure, tho the American section is widely creditted with being at the forefront of the fight for womens rights there, and where therre were disputes involving women workers - eg needlewomen or in the potterries - the 'line' was absolutely for all out support for them rather than any attempt to argue that it should be 'mens work'