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

[Knotted]

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'.

But its not about availability or the absolute size of the labour market. What does that matter? I suggest the problems arise due to rapid changes in the labour market - and whereas introducing women to work was perhaps more rapid it had an end in sight. You make a fair point with regards to the flexibility of female labour. Part of the opposition to women's entry to work was that they were inherently more exploitable.

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'

You still don't get it. Refusing to favour the removal of barriers to work of a section of the population is very different from refusing to support these workers in their struggles. Clara Zetkin, for example, refused to demand the abolition of legislation preventing women from working. Yet I can't think of any single person who did more to organise women workers.

 

[belboid]

I do get it, I just dont know the actual answer and was tryin to give some information. My sincerest apologies.

From what you write, are you an academic with absolutely no basis in actual struggle? Sure looks like it.

 

[Knotted]

I do get it, I just dont know the actual answer and was tryin to give some information. My sincerest apologies.

From what you write, are you an academic with absolutely no basis in actual struggle? Sure looks like it.

Sorry for snapping. If I were an academic I would have greater opportunity to be in actual struggle than I do now. Far from being a specialist I'm pretty ignorant with respect to women's rights and the workers movement (although I am aware of how to google www.marxists.org the smarty pants that I am), which is why I left your remarks for someone else to pick up on for a while.

 

[belboid]

fair play guv, I'll try n take a happy pill, which might even work of tb doesnt show up.......

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

this is why so frustrating when I'm trying to debate dur baldy etc, we all seem to agree on what you're saying. this is what we seem to disagree about.

1. dur thinks of migrant workers should be discriminated against in favour of local workers.I don't think socialists should call for this.

2. dur thinks it should be on the front page of Socialist-Worker, that neo-Liberals want immigrants to act as a reserve army of labour. I do not feel that is necessary.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

you need to read Socialist-Worker more. Socialist-Worker makes the same arguments.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

there is something wrong with Socialists being in favour of stopping immigration. In fact and there are lots of things wrong with it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

no he didn't. he found something that blames right-wing ideology for racism, and that is true. It is not the simplistic matter "immigrants equal racism".
. With regard to lower labour costs. Responsibility for lower labour costs does not lie with immigrants, it lies with bosses seeking to exploit a divided working-class, and the labour movement's failure to unite to that working-class and stop bosses's driving down workers terms wages and conditions.you are saying you want workers to take power, how can do do that if they are divided? Your call for immigrant workers to be discriminated against sows division, not unity.

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 ..

if you think the right wing campaign against immigration has nothing to do with racism, I think you are being naive in the extreme. You honestly think the Tories, the express, the sun etc care about workers. they are the people the Socialist-Worker article was clearly directed at. The article was not directed at you, and your "socialist" argument for discrimination against immigrant workers.

 

[Knotted]

no he didn't. he found something that blames right-wing ideology for racism, and that is true. It is not the simplistic matter "immigrants equal racism".

I'm afraid you are wrong on two accounts. Let me quote again with emphasis:
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that IMMIGRATION CAUSES racism."

This is not the same as
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that IMMIGRANTS are to BLAME for racism."

So where SW differs with Marx is not WHO to apportion BLAME to but rather HOW to EXPLAIN what causes 'racism'. For Marx it was at least partially to do with competition between English and Irish workers - ie. it was at least partially an objective, material problem. For SW it is exclusively a subjective ideological problem. You cannot reconcile these two positions, it is either one or the other.

 

[Fruitloop]

a marxist would say:

Only if you fail to appreciate the dialectical relationship between ideology and material conditions.

Gotta love that dialectical get-out-of-jail-free bollocks

 

[Knotted]

Yeah, I was expecting that one eventually.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

Dur has explained why British workers don't want to go "strawberry picking" for example.they have absolutely shit wages terms and conditions. I thought you said socialist should tell the truth, so why not this truth? The solution is not to ban immigration, 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? this will build unity between immigrant and indigenous workers, the only power that can force the bosses to stop mining Third World countries of their most precious resource, highly productive skilled workers, from which the British economy does benefit.
however, yes there is a subtle distinction. And that is because we have a subtle disagreement with you and dur about the solution. But there is also a disagreement, because the situation is not as homogenous as you and dur suggest. the main effect of immigration at the moment isn't to undermine wages terms and conditions, 30 years of Thatcherism and absolutely spineless trade unions, with a divided working-class have already done that. I think the figure stands at 25% of NHS staff in London are immigrants. Have they undermined wages terms and conditions?

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.

this is exactly what Socialist-Worker argues about racism. Socialist-Worker argues that racism is peculiar to capitalism. It was born as a pseudo scientific justification for slavery. And since then has taken on many different guises, "the white man's burden", "it's not about colour, it's about culture". But basically behind these changes is the same belief, that people with different skin colours, cultures, and now even religions etc have unique characteristics of character which are inherited and innate. And that these characteristics impart superiority and inferiority. So no, Socialist-Worker do not think racism has ceased to exist.
there is also prejudice, which is distinct from racism, though related often. There is also the possibility of people holding contradictory ideas. But we are getting onto a different topic there. I have read some of the books from Socialist-Worker on racism, however I found the best one to go over the distinctions between prejudice and racism etc is "Staying Power-A History of Black People in Britain", which you can find out the Socialist-Worker bookshop, Bookmarks.

 

[Binkie]

1. dur thinks of migrant workers should be discriminated against in favour of local workers.I don't think socialists should call for this..

As far as I'm concerned all workers everywhere should have equal rights.

2. dur thinks it should be on the front page of Socialist-Worker, that neo-Liberals want immigrants to act as a reserve army of labour. I do not feel that is necessary.

He's right. They do. But Dur must identify the people running the system as the victors and the workers - all of them - as the victims. The indigenous workers' unemployment goes up, and the recent immigrants' wages go down.

It's the system that causes the capitalist class to compete for market share via lowering costs, including labour costs. They have no choice.

We need a better system.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm afraid you are wrong on two accounts. Let me quote again with emphasis:
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that IMMIGRATION CAUSES racism."

This is not the same as
"The biggest immigration myth of all is that IMMIGRANTS are to BLAME for racism."

So where SW differs with Marx is not WHO to apportion BLAME to but rather HOW to EXPLAIN what causes 'racism'. For Marx it was at least partially to do with competition between English and Irish workers - ie. it was at least partially an objective, material problem. For SW it is exclusively a subjective ideological problem. You cannot reconcile these two positions, it is either one or the other.

yes but you are either playing with semantics to win the argument and so being dishonest, or genuinely reading it in a different way to what I do. Interpretating differently. whichever, you are wrong.

Protestant and Catholic workers in Northern Ireland have the same fierce bloody and violent competition, would you say Christianity was the cause of this conflict? you know, if it is not religion, it is immigrants. The bosses have always found some EXCUSE, to divide and rule.

it is quite obvious that immigration does not HAVE TO cause competition or conflict. in a communist world there would be immigration with no conflict, because there would be no competition for jobs. the conflict and the competition are innate to capitalism, not immigration.

this is perfectly compatible with what Karl Marx saying. Karl Marx would not have said the solution was to ban Irish immigration, he would have said the solution was for English and Irish workers to unite.

no one in Socialist-Worker, or Karl Marx, is denying there are conflicts, we are denying your simplistic cause and effect analysis.

I just don't see how you cannot understand this.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Only if you fail to appreciate the dialectical relationship between ideology and material conditions.

Gotta love that dialectical get-out-of-jail-free bollocks

WRONG!

 

[Knotted]

Dur has explained why British workers don't want to go "strawberry picking" for example.they have absolutely shit wages terms and conditions. I thought you said socialist should tell the truth, so why not this truth?

I don't deny that immigrants proportionally do tend to take jobs like strawberry picking. I doubt very much that this job or any other job is done 100% by immigrant workers and certainly immigrants work along side non-immigrants in many other industries. So Socialist Worker is exagerating.

OK. No big deal, they are exagerating to make a point, a little opportunist perhaps but hardly the end of the world. So what point are they trying to make? That migrant workers do not steal existing jobs. I'm not going to say that migrant workers 'steal' jobs or that immigration does not create jobs etc. etc. but I will say that they are in competition for jobs with the rest of us and that Socialist Worker is desperately trying to hide this fact behind strawmen and exagerations.

The solution is not to ban immigration, 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? this will build unity between immigrant and indigenous workers, the only power that can force the bosses to stop mining Third World countries of their most precious resource, highly productive skilled workers, from which the British economy does benefit.

I have no diasagreement here, but in order to carry out a strategy of any kind you (not you personally) have to acknoweldge there is a problem. For Socialist Worker the problem is purely ideological and their solution is purely verbal - which is entirely reasonable given their incorrect assessment of the situation.

however, yes there is a subtle distinction. And that is because we have a subtle disagreement with you and dur about the solution. But there is also a disagreement, because the situation is not as homogenous as you and dur suggest. the main effect of immigration at the moment isn't to undermine wages terms and conditions, 30 years of Thatcherism and absolutely spineless trade unions, with a divided working-class have already done that. I think the figure stands at 25% of NHS staff in London are immigrants. Have they undermined wages terms and conditions?

Nobody undermines terms and conditions in this general sense. Immigrants don't in general undermine terms and conditions. Neither do bosses, paedophiles, poodles, terrorists, terriers or any other of the running dogs of capitalism. Capital is to blame and I'm not sure he (she?) would really care very much if you wag your finger at him (her).

However if the NHS had to staff itself with British-based workers then it would have had to make the jobs more attractive and the government would have had to provide more training. Certainly some of the agencies that provide support staff - portering, supplies etc. do employ illegal immigrant labour to undercut other agencies. This was explained to me by an African immigrant porter.

 

[Knotted]

yes but you are either playing with semantics to win the argument and so being dishonest, or genuinely reading it in a different way to what I do. Interpretating differently. whichever, you are wrong.

I am not playing with semantics and I am not interpreting. I am reading Socialist Worker carefully and literally as you have demanded. I am not substituting the word 'immigrants' for the word 'immigration'. I am not substituting the word 'blame' for the word 'cause'. You are doing this.

Protestant and Catholic workers in Northern Ireland have the same fierce bloody and violent competition, would you say Christianity was the cause of this conflict? you know, if it is not religion, it is immigrants. The bosses have always found some EXCUSE, to divide and rule.

Christianity is not the cause of sectarianism. Similarly racist ideology is not the cause of racism. Or for that matter communism will not come about because of communist ideology, there is the small matter of class struggle. As any materialist will tell you, political phenomenon are not caused by ideology.

it is quite obvious that immigration does not HAVE TO cause competition or conflict. in a communist world there would be immigration with no conflict, because there would be no competition for jobs. the conflict and the competition are innate to capitalism, not immigration.

this is perfectly compatible with what Karl Marx saying. Karl Marx would not have said the solution was to ban Irish immigration, he would have said the solution was for English and Irish workers to unite.

Not quite. Whereas Marx did not call for the banning of Irish immigration he did call for Irish independence mainly to stem Irish immigration so as to sharpen the class struggle in England. Please don't assume that Marx was just an early Cliffite.

no one in Socialist-Worker, or Karl Marx, is denying there are conflicts, we are denying your simplistic cause and effect analysis.

Where have I said such and such a cause creates such and such an effect. I have been so careful not to do this that if anything Marx is closer to this cliche than I am.

I just don't see how you cannot understand this.

But I DO understand that Socialist Worker recognises conflicts within the working class. I just also understand that it seems them as purely ideological contrary to Marx who was a materialist.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't deny that immigrants proportionally do tend to take jobs like strawberry picking. I doubt very much that this job or any other job is done 100% by immigrant workers and certainly immigrants work along side non-immigrants in many other industries. So Socialist Worker is exagerating.

OK. No big deal, they are exagerating to make a point, a little opportunist perhaps but hardly the end of the world. So what point are they trying to make? That migrant workers do not steal existing jobs. I'm not going to say that migrant workers 'steal' jobs or that immigration does not create jobs etc. etc. but I will say that they are in competition for jobs with the rest of us and that Socialist Worker is desperately trying to hide this fact behind strawmen and exagerations.

I think you are right, they are not stealing jobs, and the level of competition, if any, is very low. That is why it doesn't gain much prominence in the pages of Socialist-Worker.

I have no diasagreement here, but in order to carry out a strategy of any kind you (not you personally) have to acknoweldge there is a problem. For Socialist Worker the problem is purely ideological and their solution is purely verbal - which is entirely reasonable given their incorrect assessment of the situation.

Nobody undermines terms and conditions in this general sense. Immigrants don't in general undermine terms and conditions. Neither do bosses, paedophiles, poodles, terrorists, terriers or any other of the running dogs of capitalism. Capital is to blame and I'm not sure he (she?) would really care very much if you wag your finger at him (her).

However if the NHS had to staff itself with British-based workers then it would have had to make the jobs more attractive and the government would have had to provide more training. Certainly some of the agencies that provide support staff - portering, supplies etc. do employ illegal immigrant labour to undercut other agencies. This was explained to me by an African immigrant porter.

[/QUOTE]you will not say there is a problem of illegal/ immigrants stealing jobs for obvious reasons. there is a problem with working conditions in British jobs, and levels of training, and addressing those problems can only be done the way I suggested above. dealing with it this way would build unity amongst workers, and go towards building the kind of inter-nationalist movement that could get rid of the whole bloody system, which mines the most skilled workers from Third World countries, to super exploit them in the likes of Britain.

 

[Knotted]

I think you are right, they are not stealing jobs, and the level of competition, if any, is very low. That is why it doesn't gain much prominence in the pages of Socialist-Worker.

Its sort of charming when someone insists that we all agree but its also quite infuriating. I did not say that the level of competition was low. I think it is especially sharp both between migrants and British-based workers and between migrants themselves. I also recognise that emotive, simplistic statements about immigrants stealing jobs is counter-productive to say the least.

The sharpness derives from lack of unionisation, from the desperate circumstances of many migrants, from the fact that many migrants are trying to make quick money to send home and even different cultural attitudes to work will tend mean that the most exploitable will set the pace. And that's without bringing sheer numbers into the question.

Please also try to understand that the purpose of trade unionism is counter competition between workers. If there is very little competition then trade unions have very little purpose.

you will not say there is a problem of illegal/ immigrants stealing jobs for obvious reasons. there is a problem with working conditions in British jobs, and levels of training, and addressing those problems can only be done the way I suggested above. dealing with it this way would build unity amongst workers, and go towards building the kind of inter-nationalist movement that could get rid of the whole bloody system, which mines the most skilled workers from Third World countries, to super exploit them in the likes of Britain.

This is exactly where I disagree with you in terms of tactics and strategy. The above could have been said at any time in the past century. I think there is urgent need to deal super-exploitation of immigrants.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Its sort of charming when someone insists that we all agree but its also quite infuriating. I did not say that the level of competition was low. I think it is especially sharp both between migrants and British-based workers and between migrants themselves. I also recognise that emotive, simplistic statements about immigrants stealing jobs is counter-productive to say the least.

The sharpness derives from lack of unionisation, from the desperate circumstances of many migrants, from the fact that many migrants are trying to make quick money to send home and even different cultural attitudes to work will tend mean that the most exploitable will set the pace. And that's without bringing sheer numbers into the question.

Please also try to understand that the purpose of trade unionism is counter competition between workers. If there is very little competition then trade unions have very little purpose.

So what is the scale? How important is it? How many people are effected? How many jobs are being .........?

(yes, but sometimes it can gain clarity, without actually accusing somebody of having said something, exaggerating for example. )

his is exactly where I disagree with you in terms of tactics and strategy. The above could have been said at any time in the past century. I think there is urgent need to deal super-exploitation of immigrants.

yes, it is as bad as the always has been, and the solutions remain the same in my opinion. I know of no other short cuts. Obviously you do. So how would you deal with the "super exploitation of immigrants"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I am not playing with semantics and I am not interpreting. I am reading Socialist Worker carefully and literally as you have demanded. I am not substituting the word 'immigrants' for the word 'immigration'. I am not substituting the word 'blame' for the word 'cause'. You are doing this.

Christianity is not the cause of sectarianism. Similarly racist ideology is not the cause of racism. Or for that matter communism will not come about because of communist ideology, there is the small matter of class struggle. As any materialist will tell you, political phenomenon are not caused by ideology.

Not quite. Whereas Marx did not call for the banning of Irish immigration he did call for Irish independence mainly to stem Irish immigration so as to sharpen the class struggle in England. Please don't assume that Marx was just an early Cliffite.

Where have I said such and such a cause creates such and such an effect. I have been so careful not to do this that if anything Marx is closer to this cliche than I am.

But I DO understand that Socialist Worker recognises conflicts within the working class. I just also understand that it seems them as purely ideological contrary to Marx who was a materialist.

AT LAST! THANK JEHOSOPHAT! So would you explain to Mr Baldwin, Exo and Dur that Socialist-Worker and other Marxists recognise conflicts within the working-class, because they think we are lying.

I did think you were backing up their argument that immigrant workers should be discriminated against. if you are not, then fair do's I had misunderstood you, but you also have only just eluded to that possibility.

I think understand your argument now. I know you hate this terminology, but what you are basically suggesting is, that there is not a dialectical relationship between the material base and the ideological superstructure, the base does not effect the superstructure and the superstructure does not effect the base, yes?

So you would say, Catholics and Protestants have a material existence in Northern Ireland. Because there is Protestants and Catholics, there is conflict over jobs. The Protestants have managed to discriminate in favour of Protestants, against Catholics. And this conflict between Protestant and Catholic over jobs, and the subsequent discrimination, is not because of the ideological superstructure, it is purely because there is Protestants and Catholics living next to each other. Yes? Likewise migrants and non migrants compete for jobs. The conflict between migrants and non migrants has nothing to do with how much competition there is, or the ideas of difference, the conflict just exists because they side-by-side, yes?

 

[Knotted]

So what is the scale? How important is it? How many people are effected? How many jobs are being .........?

I couldn't say exactly, its a very difficult statistical task to seperate different causal factors with respect to depression of wages and conditions etc. However I can say that it is government strategy to import cheap labour and furthermore this strategy is replicated throughout developed countries and indeed less developed countries.

(yes, but sometimes it can gain clarity, without actually accusing somebody of having said something, exaggerating for example. )

Well it was an exageration and I pointed it out because I wanted to point out the rhetoric it served.

yes, it is as bad as the always has been, and the solutions remain the same in my opinion. I know of no other short cuts. Obviously you do. So how would you deal with the "super exploitation of immigrants"?

This is a difficult question that I don't have all the answers to.

But for a very basic start, how about a concerted campaign to unionise immigrant workers? As I say, even this is beyond the SWP, because it means recognising a problem beyond 'racist' propaganda in the newspapers.

A more militant option would be to picket workplaces employing labour below union rates. Actively demand unionisation and the prosecution of employers hiring illegal labour. This could be combined with a demand for an amnesty for the workers.

Perhaps look at building a new cross-union organisation to deal with agencies.

Perhaps an active educational campaign in order to help facilitate integration of immigrant workers, offering advise on housing, employment benefits etc, backed up with opposition to the ghettoisation of certain ethnic groups.

OK I'm out loud/articulating various half-baked ideas. The point is that there are surely hundreds of things that could be discussed and acted upon but first we have to acknoweldge the problem.

 

[Knotted]

AT LAST! THANK JEHOSOPHAT! So would you explain to Mr Baldwin, Exo and Dur that Socialist-Worker and other Marxists recognise conflicts within the working-class, because they think we are lying.

Anybody who thinks that Socialist Worker does not recognise divisive ideologies such as racism in the working class has never read it. I don't think for a minute they were denying this.

I did think you were backing up their argument that immigrant workers should be discriminated against. if you are not, then fair do's I had misunderstood you, but you also have only just eluded to that possibility.

I would see tactics and strategy as icing on the cake. Differences in tactics and strategy can easily be thrashed out if we are agreed on the fundamentals.

I think understand your argument now. I know you hate this terminology, but what you are basically suggesting is, that there is not a dialectical relationship between the material base and the ideological superstructure, the base does not effect the superstructure and the superstructure does not effect the base, yes?

No, both the base and superstructure effect one another but the base should be primary (cf the law of the negation of the negation but I would rather we stayed clear of philosophical jargon)

So you would say, Catholics and Protestants have a material existence in Northern Ireland. Because there is Protestants and Catholics, there is conflict over jobs. The Protestants have managed to discriminate in favour of Protestants, against Catholics. And this conflict between Protestant and Catholic over jobs, and the subsequent discrimination, is not because of the ideological superstructure, it is purely because there is Protestants and Catholics living next to each other. Yes? Likewise migrants and non migrants compete for jobs. The conflict between migrants and non migrants has nothing to do with how much competition there is, or the ideas of difference, the conflict just exists because they side-by-side, yes?

No. The conflicts have ultimately material causes. In Ireland it is to do with British colonialism and its aftermath - the partition of Ireland (but yes the conflict is maintained by Protestants maintaining an economic advantage over Catholics in jobs and housing).

Conflicts between migrants and non migrants AND for that matter between migrants themselves is not independent of the amount of competition in the job place. I think it is primarily (not solely or purely) because of particularly sharp competition in the work place as a result of increased migration.

 

[Knotted]

A quick note to RMP3 and Binkie:

The differences are not so much to do with what we are in favour of but rather to do with what we prioritise. I see this arising in two ways:

I would prioritise the general polictical position and welfare of the working class over the freedom to migrate.

I think particular problems that arise in the working class should inform political priorities in terms of action taken.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Anybody who thinks that Socialist Worker does not recognise divisive ideologies such as racism in the working class has never read it. I don't think for a minute they were denying this.

they have been denying this, many many times.

I would see tactics and strategy as icing on the cake. Differences in tactics and strategy can easily be thrashed out if we are agreed on the fundamentals.

No, both the base and superstructure effect one another but the base should be primary (cf the law of the negation of the negation but I would rather we stayed clear of philosophical jargon)

No. The conflicts have ultimately material causes. In Ireland it is to do with British colonialism and its aftermath - the partition of Ireland (but yes the conflict is maintained by Protestants maintaining an economic advantage over Catholics in jobs and housing).

Conflicts between migrants and non migrants AND for that matter between migrants themselves is not independent of the amount of competition in the job place. I think it is primarily (not solely or purely) because of particularly sharp competition in the work place as a result of increased migration.

well you might want to avoid the jargon of philosophy, but this is where our fundamental difference lies. I don't agree with you. And like you say, if we do not agree on the fundamentals................

For me, one of the three fundamental elements of the philosophy Marx uses to understand the world, is the dynamics. What Hegel gave to him, that everything is in a process of change. This is not a linear process, it can roll backwards forwards, sideways, revolution and counterrevolution. But whatever, social evolution never remains in stasis.

For me, this means that the relationship between the base and superstructure, is like the relationship between two teams in a tug of war. At some times in the process of social evolution one side may have more influence than the other, just as in a tug-of-war. Sometimes The economic base may play a more determinate role. At other times it can be the ideological/governmental/social superstructure. I do not believe Marx was an economic determinist. I believe For him the economic base does not determine what will happen in the future. For Marx, the social relations part of the ideological superstructure, can become a fetter. The social relations can become such a barrier to the revolution that the economic base dictates, that he can result in the common ruin of the contending classes. so i do believe you mis-interpret Karl Marx.

But Even if you do not agree with me on this, you have conceded above that the ideological does effect the base. "No, both the base and superstructure effect one another", and so you have conceded the single sentence you extracted from the Socialist-Worker article was at least partially right. I would argue with the current state of the economy, labour market, and class conflict it is mostly right.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I couldn't say exactly, its a very difficult statistical task to seperate different causal factors with respect to depression of wages and conditions etc. However I can say that it is government strategy to import cheap labour and furthermore this strategy is replicated throughout developed countries and indeed less developed countries.

well the job has to be done, because some people may conclude you are exaggerating.

But for a very basic start, how about a concerted campaign to unionise immigrant workers? As I say, even this is beyond the SWP, because it means recognising a problem beyond 'racist' propaganda in the newspapers.

A more militant option would be to picket workplaces employing labour below union rates. Actively demand unionisation and the prosecution of employers hiring illegal labour. This could be combined with a demand for an amnesty for the workers.

Perhaps look at building a new cross-union organisation to deal with agencies.

Perhaps an active educational campaign in order to help facilitate integration of immigrant workers, offering advise on housing, employment benefits etc, backed up with opposition to the ghettoisation of certain ethnic groups.

OK I'm out loud/articulating various half-baked ideas. The point is that there are surely hundreds of things that could be discussed and acted upon but first we have to acknoweldge the problem.

I don't have a problem with this at all. I don't have a problem with saying there are real material problems, I have a problem with saying the cause is immigration, so stop immigration.

not you in particular knotted, but if people actually read the report from this guy, he is laying the blame for these problems housing, benefits, jobs etc with new Labour, and arguing that we should expose the lies about these topics not agree with them. "In terms of access to housing and public services and their position in the workplace many see immigration as a central determinant in their own relative impoverishment. This remains unchallenged whilst the media and political classes help demonise the immigrant."

 

[Knotted]

well you might want to avoid the jargon of philosophy, but this is where our fundamental difference lies. I don't agree with you. And like you say, if we do not agree on the fundamentals................

OK but don't say I didn't warn you.

For me, one of the three fundamental elements of the philosophy Marx uses to understand the world, is the dynamics. What Hegel gave to him, that everything is in a process of change. This is not a linear process, it can roll backwards forwards, sideways, revolution and counterrevolution. But whatever, social evolution never remains in stasis.

In my view the Heraclitan aspect of Hegelian dialectics is the dodgiest aspect, I think stasis is just as dialectical as dynamism - but I'm being a bit obscure here and I accept that the recognition of a dynamical social world is important.

For me, this means that the relationship between the base and superstructure, is like the relationship between two teams in a tug of war. At some times in the process of social evolution one side may have more influence than the other, just as in a tug-of-war. Sometimes The economic base may play a more determinate role. At other times it can be the ideological/governmental/social superstructure. I do not believe Marx was an economic determinist. I believe For him the economic base does not determine what will happen in the future. For Marx, the social relations part of the ideological superstructure, can become a fetter. The social relations can become such a barrier to the revolution that the economic base dictates, that he can result in the common ruin of the contending classes. so i do believe you mis-interpret Karl Marx.

I don't believe what you say is an example of dialectics - briefly, economic base and ideological superstructure are dynamically inter-related.

You have stated thesis: "Sometimes The economic base may play a more determinate role"
And anti-thesis: "At other times it can be the ideological/governmental/social superstructure"

*But* as you leave it, each is just the negation of the other. Where is the synthesis (the negation of the negation)?

Dialectics always sees the thesis as primary. If it were not then the negation of the anti-thesis would be the thesis. That is, the negation of the negation is just the thesis as in classical logic.

Besides, Marx was pretty clear in the German Ideology:
"In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process."

That's not to say that ideology can have no effect on the real life process, it is just that the materialist dialectical method must start with the real life process.

Quite possibly this is a fundamental weekness in Marx and dialectics. However I think that the materialist monist statement:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
is still more powerful than the eclectic statement:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles and ideological struggle as well."

But Even if you do not agree with me on this, you have conceded above that the ideological does effect the base. "No, both the base and superstructure effect one another", and so you have conceded the single sentence you extracted from the Socialist-Worker article was at least partially right. I would argue with the current state of the economy, labour market, and class conflict it is mostly right.

The quote dismissed the possibility of a particular material factor (immigration) that produces chauvinistic prejudices within the working class that Marx insisted was crucial.

 

[Knotted]

well the job has to be done, because some people may conclude you are exaggerating.

Fair point, but its actually very rare for left wing groups of any shade to base their prognoses on statistical reports and as far as forums like this go it is more important to debate beliefs than it is to prove them with a heavy statistical analysis.

I don't have a problem with this at all. I don't have a problem with saying there are real material problems, I have a problem with saying the cause is immigration, so stop immigration.

not you in particular knotted, but if people actually read the report from this guy, he is laying the blame for these problems housing, benefits, jobs etc with new Labour, and arguing that we should expose the lies about these topics not agree with them. "In terms of access to housing and public services and their position in the workplace many see immigration as a central determinant in their own relative impoverishment. This remains unchallenged whilst the media and political classes help demonise the immigrant."

The crucial word here is "see". I think it is quite reasonable to see this line as trying to strip away the illusion that immigration is a 'central determinant in their own relative impoverishment' rather than acknowledging that it is a determinant (central or otherwise) so as to advocate greater unity.

 

[durruti02]

the issue re women is exactly the same and proves utterly this whole issue is not about prejudice or any -ism but about resistance to neo liberalism ( or whatever) .. of course we should welcome women ( or men in a female workforce) and immigrants into the labour force/community ...

but not if their introduction is being done to undermine unions and cut wages ..


knotted please expand on what you mean by the difference between this as a political issue and a trade union issue ta!

 

[durruti02]

AT LAST! THANK JEHOSOPHAT! So would you explain to Mr Baldwin, Exo and Dur that Socialist-Worker and other Marxists recognise conflicts within the working-class, because they think we are lying.

rmp3 i have never denied SW talks of conflict in the class

.. of course this is one aim of the capitlaists .. but SW never ever anywhere state that capitalists USE immigration to create that conflict ( and to undermine unions and wages) as marx and john cruddas argue