Marx on immigration ..

[TremulousTetra]

Hmmm...not buying it having read a couple of links, mainly because wage pressures in this country for the majority of workers aren't in the same position and there is a fundamental lack of any kind of mutual class identity between someone working in a call centre and someone working for below minimum wage.

I did say "the future is not bright, the future is dialectical", meaning the situation could get much better, or much worse. Real Marxist do not think socialism is inevitable, as Rosa Luxembourg said, "the choice is socialism or barbarism".

 

[TremulousTetra]

agree .. the current sell out of public sector pensions is the worst i.ve seen for years ..

Yep! I think you will find we agree on an awful lot more than you think we do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Dur, please do not answer posts like you did in post 53. It makes it difficult to answer you. If you select each section you want to respond to and click on the quote button, it will quote that, and that means when I respond to your post I just get your words that I want to respond to.

equalisation yes .. but why not a demand for local workers?? at proper rates??imagine the boost for unions if they said this ( p.s have you heard about the bnp union .. we should have thread about it actually )
yes i agree and not sure i have ever done otherwise .. i fully support unionising immigrants who are here .. but in combination with an offensive by the union rnf and left explaining what is going on .. and calling catagorically against racism .. and calling for yes equalisation but also local employment/housing

I agree with everything here, except that the bits I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean practically by a "demand for local workers". "and calling for yes equalisation but also local employment/housing". I am not being sarcastic, I am seriously asking, how can you call for discrimination in favour of locals, and equalisation between locals and migrants in the same demand?

perhaps if you would give me an example of how these demands would practically effect people's lives in a non-discriminatory way it may help.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I too support unionsing migrants but that in itself is not enough. the Trade Unions should put pressure on companies to sign up to International Labour rules and activelly pursue boycotts against some of the worst companies.
But for this to happen means people need to think in an Internationalist way and the present state of the left gives precious few indications that this is high up on their agenda.

the trade unions do this kind of thing all the time, and then they are sometimes criticised for doing this "instead of concentrating on local issues, and members interests". But the only real stumbling block to achieving your aimis the lack of trade union power. And the reason there is a lack of trade union power, is because of the lack of working-class solidarity. Therefore building solidarity between workers, including local and migrant workers, is a prerequisite to achieving your aims which are in fact the same as mine.

 

[TremulousTetra]

bump

 

[durruti02]

Dur, please do not answer posts like you did in post 53. It makes it difficult to answer you. If you select each section you want to respond to and click on the quote button, it will quote that, and that means when I respond to your post I just get your words that I want to respond to. I agree with everything here, except that the bits I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean practically by a "demand for local workers". "and calling for yes equalisation but also local employment/housing". I am not being sarcastic, I am seriously asking, how can you call for discrimination in favour of locals, and equalisation between locals and migrants in the same demand?

perhaps if you would give me an example of how these demands would practically effect people's lives in a non-discriminatory way it may help.

on the technical point will do

yes it can not entirely work i accept that

but our priorities are to rebuild w/c organisation/ w/c faith in the unions/ w/c faith that things can change for the better etc and sorry but that has to mean positive discrimination in favour of local people

in terms of equalisation that relates to places where we have e.g. 2 tier work forces and agency etc etc .. there the demand must be to bring all wages /. T'nCs up to the proper rate

yep?

 

[durruti02]

the trade unions do this kind of thing all the time, and then they are sometimes criticised for doing this "instead of concentrating on local issues, and members interests". But the only real stumbling block to achieving your aimis the lack of trade union power. And the reason there is a lack of trade union power, is because of the lack of working-class solidarity. Therefore building solidarity between workers, including local and migrant workers, is a prerequisite to achieving your aims which are in fact the same as mine.

ok this is very interesting .. you identify the low power of the trade unions with lack of solidarity .. there is an element of truth in there

but where does that come from?? clearly to an extent we go back to marxs qoute yes?? immigration lately has been used DIRECTLY to undermine w/c solidarity .. we BUT not SW ( at least on paper, who blame right wing ideology [ as if the 2 are not conected!!!! ]) agree on this

so what to do .. yes i agree ,major efforts to NOT blame immigrants etc but clearly it is hard to build solidarity with someone prepared to do your job for less?? no?? solidarity can not be one way??

so to an extent the unions and labour do need to be exclusive .. otherwise they will be powerless .. that was the whole point of the closed shop

 

[durruti02]

bump ..

 

[tbaldwin]

Marx was a migrant wasnt he. Like a lot of lefties today he was better off than most people and could afford to travel.
A lot of Lefties attitude to migration seems very close to Marie Antoinettes "Let them eat Cake" quote...
They really dont get it.

 

[audiotech]

Marx was a migrant wasnt he. Like a lot of lefties today he was better off than most people and could afford to travel.

Marx was so hard up he often had to rely on Engels to lend him a bob, or two. His boils, that erupted due to his poor living conditions, gave him gip too. Some of his travels weren't of his choice, as a number of European states refused him entry, or kicked him out. Something you're arguing now for present migrants.

 

[durruti02]

Marx was so hard up he often had to rely on Engels to lend him a bob, or two. His boils, that erupted due to his poor living conditions, gave him gip too. Some of his travels weren't of his choice, as a number of European states refused him entry, or kicked him out. Something you're arguing now for present migrants.

read the bloody thread!

the point was MARX himself argued against immigrants being used by the capitalists to undermine workers .. on more than one occasion .. do you disagree with what he said?

and also, please, surely as a lefty, surely you must have picked up by now this debate is NOT about being against immigration BUT about being against immigration being USED by capitalism ?? no ??

 

[TremulousTetra]

and by the way Barry, everybody is agreed that the way to stop capitalism using immigrants as a reserve army of labour is to unionise, create stronger workplace organisation, and fightback against the bosses neo liberal agenda.

Oh, I nearly forgot, there is a slight disagreement. Dur thinks unions should organise to force employers to exclude immigrants from the workplace. Mr Baldwin and knotted thinks we should support the Tories call to strengthen immigration controls. I disagree, because I think this will deter immigrants from joining the trade union, sow division amongst workers who must unite, and give propaganda to the fascists. So just a slight disagreement there.

 

[durruti02]

and by the way Barry, everybody is agreed that the way to stop capitalism using immigrants as a reserve army of labour is to unionise, create stronger workplace organisation, and fightback against the bosses neo liberal agenda.

Oh, I nearly forgot, there is a slight disagreement. Dur thinks . Mr Baldwin and knotted thinks we should support the Tories call to strengthen immigration controls. I disagree, because I think this will deter immigrants from joining the trade union, sow division amongst workers who must unite, and give propaganda to the fascists. So just a slight disagreement there.

where have i said "..unions should organise to force employers to exclude immigrants from the workplace.."

i have said unions should organise so employers can not import and use cheap labour .. a horse of a somewhat differrent colour i think .. and one that yet again shows your prejudice ..

 

[TremulousTetra]

so unions should force employers not to use cheap immigrant labour?

what about expensive immigrant labour?

 

[durruti02]

so unions should force employers not to use cheap immigrant labour?

what about expensive immigrant labour?

that is a nonsense arguement .. immigrants will always be cheaper than hiring someone local .. who inevitably will want the going rate ..

 

[durruti02]

p.s. you never answered my q.

do you think your kid ( or the child of any other worker there) should get a job where you ahead of someone who has no relation etc

and same fo r housing ( but turned on its head ).. do you think someone from outside the area should get a flat in front of a local kid?

 

[TremulousTetra]

so just to clarify Barry, dur thinks

so unions should force employers not to use immigrant labour?

 

[durruti02]

so just to clarify Barry, dur thinks

so unions should force employers not to use immigrant labour?

you are being a prick today ..


unions should force employers to do many things .. that should include good wages terms and conditions , good health and safety , environmental policies etc .. if they were under control they would not be able to employ immigrants ..

you clearly belive it is better that employers carry on using and abusing immigrants while we have 3 million on the dole .. fool

 

[TremulousTetra]

you are being a prick today ..


unions should force employers to do many things .. that should include good wages terms and conditions , good health and safety , environmental policies etc .. if they were under control they would not be able to employ immigrants ..

you clearly belive it is better that employers carry on using and abusing immigrants while we have 3 million on the dole .. fool

no! I have already said we agree on all that. You've picked on, and asked me to clarify our point of difference I tried to explain to Barry.

so as I said to Barry, the only thing we disagree on is that I don't think unions should force employers not to use immigrant labour.

PS. If you were an immigrant, would you join a trade union that advocated forcing employers to exclude you from a workplace?

 

[durruti02]

no! I have already said we agree on all that. You've picked on, and asked me to clarify our point of difference I tried to explain to Barry.

so as I said to Barry, the only thing we disagree on is that I don't think unions should force employers not to use immigrant labour.

PS. If you were an immigrant, would you join a trade union that advocated forcing employers to exclude you from a workplace?

i would not take a job if i thought it was wrong and at a lower wage .. if i did it during a strike i would be called a scab ..

that does not though answer your q.

however yes .. i would join that union cos i know it would fight for good wages/TnCs .. I would understand what the union was doing .. also that unions would deliberlately target workers for recruitment if they worked in that workplace ..

i also guess you have not been a TUist for long??

 

[TremulousTetra]

i would not take a job if i thought it was wrong and at a lower wage .. if i did it during a strike i would be called a scab ..

that does not though answer your q.

however yes .. i would join that union cos i know it would fight for good wages/TnCs .. I would understand what the union was doing .. also that unions would deliberlately target workers for recruitment if they worked in that workplace ..

i also guess you have not been a TUist for long??

And what about your average migrant worker, do you think they will join such a union?

 

[durruti02]

And what about your average migrant worker, do you think they will join such a union?

you are being a muppet mate .. stick to one thread at a time .. i've answered you there .. i notice you have stopped answering q's

 

[TremulousTetra]

you are being a muppet mate .. stick to one thread at a time .. i've answered you there .. i notice you have stopped answering q's

no you didn't answer in the other thread. So, what about your average migrant worker, do you think they will join such a union? you must recognise this as a central flaw in your argument. You cannot argue, as you did earlier, to unionise immigrants who you intend to force employers not to employ.

You see to me there has always been an element of self-interest in trade unionism/socialism. It is in every workers self-interest, in my opinion, to unite with other workers and fight for equal treatment. In demanding a philanthropic attitude from migrants, while bending to sectional self-interest of other workers, the seeds of division are being sown. Migrant workers today, why not women workers tomorrow? Where does so much sectionalism end?

 

[TremulousTetra]

that is a nonsense arguement .. immigrants will always be cheaper than hiring someone local .. who inevitably will want the going rate ..

I let this pass, to clarify our point of disagreement for Barry, however I do feel this question is valid. What do you think about migrants who come and work for "the going rate"? Let's say nurses in the NHS for example.

PS. I have answered your questions about my children etc. this line of questioning from you, are you poor, do you have children, are you a shop steward, seems to suggest that you think only people who fit your criteria have entitled to our view on this topic. Is that correct? If that is not correct, what is the purpose of your questioning how many children I have?

 

[audiotech]

read the bloody thread!

the point was MARX himself argued against immigrants being used by the capitalists to undermine workers .. on more than one occasion .. do you disagree with what he said?

and also, please, surely as a lefty, surely you must have picked up by now this debate is NOT about being against immigration BUT about being against immigration being USED by capitalism ?? no ??

I have read the thread thanks.

I agree with Marx and I'm in favour of free trade. I also note his points about the ruling class using immigration as a tool to divide and that's why I'm against immigration controls.

 

[tbaldwin]

I have read the thread thanks.

I agree with Marx and I'm in favour of free trade. I also note his points about the ruling class using immigration as a tool to divide and that's why I'm against immigration controls.

You think the ruling class use immigration but you dont want to see any restrictions on it? I dont quite understand that.

 

[Fruitloop]

Maybe he/she is a member of the r/c.

 

[audiotech]

You think the ruling class use immigration but you dont want to see any restrictions on it? I dont quite understand that.

I'm an ordinary down to earth prole from immigrant stock and understand clearly that there are now obvious restrictions on immigration from our rulers and I'm simply not going to pander to that agenda as you do. The ruling class do use immigration. That doesn't mean workers should.

 

[tbaldwin]

I'm an ordinary down to earth prole from immigrant stock and understand clearly that there are now obvious restrictions on immigration from our rulers and I'm simply not going to pander to that agenda as you do. The ruling class do use immigration. That doesn't mean workers should.

Pandering? I wouldnt see it like that. I just think its important to tell the truth and the truth is economic migration makes the world a more unequal place.

 

[audiotech]

Pandering? I wouldnt see it like that. I just think its important to tell the truth and the truth is economic migration makes the world a more unequal place.

Here's some breaking news: It's capitalism that makes the world an unequal place. Immigration reflects that state of affairs.