Marx on immigration ..

[audiotech]

Nah, that's only for the vanguard, that is.

After all, I'm sure they'd deserve it for leading the revolution.

Of course, when I say "leading" I mean "directing from a safe distance while the proleteriat shed their blood", but I'm sure we take it as read that such intellectual giants shouldn't risk their physical selves in battle.

Trotsky saw most of his family slaughtered and then got an ice-pick embedded in his head battling against the Stalinist bureaucracy, that shed a lot of others blood in the name of revolution.

Mind you, when I say "risk themselves" I mean "shouldn't risk their stunted bodies and pointy heads" and "shouldn't draw attention to themselves as their middle-class accents might mislead the proleteriat into thinking they're the class enemy rather than the revolutionary vanguard".

You could be describing Lenin who really knew the class enemy and called for "all power to the Soviets", set-up by workers, peasants, sailors and soldiers.

 

[TremulousTetra]

If the working class of this country took control of society, then we would have immigration controls for the simple reason that the majority of people want immigration controls.

If we apply your logic, how could the working class of this country have a revolution, when the majority don't want one?

I don't want to insult you matt, but I do have to ask you, how long were you an active member of SW?

PS. I don't in honesty think your statement about immigration controls is true, IF as a Marxist should, you go beyond the appearance of things.

I saw an old man come up to an SW paper sale. He was ranting about asylum seekers, and immigrants. An SW member had enough, and told him to fuck off. So I went up to him and asked, "why are you bothered about immigrants and asylum seekers, how do they effect you?" he went on to tell me how his wife could not get the hospital treatment she needed. This was his real concern. as the report that the Dur posted SAYS, "While immigration has become a significant issue for a large subset of Londoners, our findings show that this is in part because in many voters' minds immigration has now become a symbol for a wide range of local problems." what I tried to do with that man, and what we should be doing about immigration, again comes from the report, we "should tackle such misconceptions about the relationship between immigration and local issues and start exposing the lies circulated by the far right."

 

[TremulousTetra]

Confused you might be, anarchist I am not. Nor do I vote against abolishing immigration controls now when it suits. Take a look at this article below.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/605/nature.htm

Learnt anything?

no mate, because it does not seem to contribute anything to the topic of the thread, immigration. So are you able to outline your own thoughts? Is your contribution to the topic of the thread this, "there would be immigration controls in communism, because workers don't create all wealth"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'd say he meant "there will be no unemployment because there will be no employment", but he's a swappie.

I think you are right, in communism/anarchism people will work very long hours, because they want to, because they are doing things they want to do. The distinction between work labour, and leisure labour, will as much as possible disappear.

even in a period of workers states/autonomous regions, I don't think people like you will say "sorry, I cannot attend the barricades at this time of counterrevolutionary assault, I have "worked" my full quota". I would think that you would work until you drop.

however, I think we are hijacking the thread onto a completely different topic, which has been done to death on this forum. In this the thread at least, should we not stick to addressing the argument about immigration dur, krot, mc5?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think you are right, in communism/anarchism people will work very long hours, because they want to, because they are doing things they want to do. The distinction between work labour, and leisure labour, will as much as possible disappear.

So it'll just be labour, much as it was for some in pre-industrial times.

even in a period of workers states/autonomous regions, I don't think people like you will say "sorry, I cannot attend the barricades at this time of counterrevolutionary assault, I have "worked" my full quota". I would think that you would work until you drop.

People like me, comrade?
I hope you're not making assumptions based on my justified contempt for the SWP!
As for working on the barricades until I drop, that'd depend on the kind of rifle I'm issued.

however, I think we are hijacking the thread onto a completely different topic, which has been done to death on this forum. In this the thread at least, should we not stick to addressing the argument about immigration dur, krot, mc5?

That's the thing with issues like immigration, you can't address the issue without addressing the surrounding issues, same with criminal justice, same with education. Banging on only about the main subject just leaves equally important related issues hanging in the wind. If you don't try to resolve problems (or even merely theorise solutions to problems) holistically then you're doomed to fail.

 

[tbaldwin]

That's the thing with issues like immigration, you can't address the issue without addressing the surrounding issues, same with criminal justice, same with education. Banging on only about the main subject just leaves equally important related issues hanging in the wind. If you don't try to resolve problems (or even merely theorise solutions to problems) holistically then you're doomed to fail.

I kind of agree with that. But the thing is you do have to take each of those issues and address them in relation to each other..
You have to tackle symptoms as well as causes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I kind of agree with that. But the thing is you do have to take each of those issues and address them in relation to each other..

That's what I just said.
That's why people bought into "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime", because it looked like some of the social issues that feed into crime would be addressed.
As it happened, a few of them were, but many were not, so any worthwhile reform got swamped by the problems that hadn't been addressed.

You have to tackle symptoms as well as causes.

That's what "holistically" means.

No point farting about and just pecking at the edges. All that does is cause other problems further down the line.

 

[TremulousTetra]

People like me, comrade?
I hope you're not making assumptions based on my justified contempt for the SWP!

NO! Re-read.

That's the thing with issues like immigration, you can't address the issue without addressing the surrounding issues, same with criminal justice, same with education. Banging on only about the main subject just leaves equally important related issues hanging in the wind. If you don't try to resolve problems (or even merely theorise solutions to problems) holistically then you're doomed to fail.

So why haven't you explained how your allegations about SW & "prison camps" etc relate to the question of immigration today, or immigration in communism or workers states.

 

[ViolentPanda]

NO! Re-read.

So why haven't you explained how your allegations about SW & "prison camps" etc relate to the question of immigration today, or immigration in communism or workers states.

Allegations?

Did you fail to notice the smilies, and/or the fact that those joking comments were made after you'd threatened an oppressive 10 hour working day?

 

[durruti02]

what you mean by "we"? If we had global workers control, then no, we wouldn't have immigration control, and we wouldn't have economic migration. If you mean we, there was workers control in Britain only, then no we wouldn't have immigration controls.

Adam Smith makes it quite clear, what produces wealth is people. The more people you have, the more welth you create. The only reason that doesn't happen under capitalism, is because production is based upon private greed rather than human need. In the workers state in the UK, anybody who wants to come would be welcome, because they would be employed, there would be no unemployment, because production would be for human need, not private profit. An elementary Socialist-Worker argument which you should be familiar with matt.

so you still do not accept that 99% of w/c immigration here is NOT voluntary but due to economic pressure/capitalism ??? that to me is basic socialism .. not apparently in the sw thought

immigration post rev. would be an entirely differrent phenomena ..

 

[durruti02]

If we apply your logic, how could the working class of this country have a revolution, when the majority don't want one?

I don't want to insult you matt, but I do have to ask you, how long were you an active member of SW?

PS. I don't in honesty think your statement about immigration controls is true, IF as a Marxist should, you go beyond the appearance of things.

I saw an old man come up to an SW paper sale. He was ranting about asylum seekers, and immigrants. An SW member had enough, and told him to fuck off. So I went up to him and asked, "why are you bothered about immigrants and asylum seekers, how do they effect you?" he went on to tell me how his wife could not get the hospital treatment she needed. This was his real concern. as the report that the Dur posted SAYS, "While immigration has become a significant issue for a large subset of Londoners, our findings show that this is in part because in many voters' minds immigration has now become a symbol for a wide range of local problems." what I tried to do with that man, and what we should be doing about immigration, again comes from the report, we "should tackle such misconceptions about the relationship between immigration and local issues and start exposing the lies circulated by the far right."

in part RM in part .. be a materialist .. yes we should do as you say in THOSE situations ( you mention hospital treatment) .. we can not do so though in every situation .. i.e. work in london /S.E. where it is a very real phenomena

 

[mk12]

If we apply your logic, how could the working class of this country have a revolution, when the majority don't want one?

I don't want to insult you matt, but I do have to ask you, how long were you an active member of SW?

three to four years. People's ideas do change by the way. And the ideas the SWP hold on lots of issues are pretty poor. I used to strongly believe in them as well. I don't like the idea you think the SWP holds a monopoly on "correct thought", or are adherents to the "proper" revolutionary socialist line.

We need some perspective. It's stupid thinking about a "revolution" right now. The level of class struggle is low, self-confidence in people seems low (apathy?), voter turnout is not great, trust in politicians is low etc etc.

Your solution: we need a new party, a proper party, better unions. Basically, trying to re-restore faith in things that have died or are dieing. Respect is the most recent example of this.

The problem is, asking people to place their faith in groups/unions/institutions which have failed people in the past does not encourage people's inititiative or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it. It encourages them to follow new and better leaders.

We need to start from scratch in my view. How do people gain confidence in their own abilities? By winning. Why not focus on issues that are achievable, rather than thinking about "revolutions" and things like that?

It seems that a lot of leftists today think of communism as this ultimate goal, an era which we need to get to, and to get there, we need to enlighten people. There are certain "politics" which the masses need to be convinced of.

I reject all that. I strongly believe in what Marx said, that "communism is not a state of affairs to be established, its the real movement" (or something along those lines). I think this best sums up what I think is "meaninful action":

"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever
increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the
solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses
and whatever assists in their demystification."

I don't believe that the far-left today does that at all.

Apoligies for the rant.

 

[kropotkin]

ha ha aha ha haahahahahah!

I knew you'd come over in the end! Quoting Solidarity like a true libertarian!

Seriously though, where are you now- politically I mean? If you are moving to a rejection of party-building politics, but retain a w/c-central and small-c communist perspective- where do you situate yourself?

Have you fully rejected Lenin yet?

 

[tbaldwin]

Excellent post Matt.....

 

[TremulousTetra]

so you still do not accept that 99% of w/c immigration here is NOT voluntary but due to economic pressure/capitalism ??? that to me is basic socialism .. not apparently in the sw though

I have accepted that at least 99 times in our discussion, I can only presume you are intentionally misrepresenting what I have been saying all these months.

 

[TremulousTetra]

in part RM in part .. be a materialist .. yes we should do as you say in THOSE situations ( you mention hospital treatment) .. we can not do so though in every situation .. i.e. work in london /S.E. where it is a very real phenomena

sorry, I don't understand this post at all.

 

[TremulousTetra]

three to four years. People's ideas do change by the way. And the ideas the SWP hold on lots of issues are pretty poor. I used to strongly believe in them as well. I don't like the idea you think the SWP holds a monopoly on "correct thought", or are adherents to the "proper" revolutionary socialist line.

We need some perspective. It's stupid thinking about a "revolution" right now. The level of class struggle is low, self-confidence in people seems low (apathy?), voter turnout is not great, trust in politicians is low etc etc.

Your solution: we need a new party, a proper party, better unions. Basically, trying to re-restore faith in things that have died or are dieing. Respect is the most recent example of this.

The problem is, asking people to place their faith in groups/unions/institutions which have failed people in the past does not encourage people's inititiative or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it. It encourages them to follow new and better leaders.

We need to start from scratch in my view. How do people gain confidence in their own abilities? By winning. Why not focus on issues that are achievable, rather than thinking about "revolutions" and things like that?

It seems that a lot of leftists today think of communism as this ultimate goal, an era which we need to get to, and to get there, we need to enlighten people. There are certain "politics" which the masses need to be convinced of.

I reject all that. I strongly believe in what Marx said, that "communism is not a state of affairs to be established, its the real movement" (or something along those lines). I think this best sums up what I think is "meaninful action":

"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever
increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the
solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses
and whatever assists in their demystification."

I don't believe that the far-left today does that at all.

Apoligies for the rant.

you have been a member of this forum 3 or four years, BUT you clearly haven't understood anything I have written if you believe, that I believe, "SWP holds a monopoly on "correct thought", or are adherents to the "proper" revolutionary socialist line." how many times have I said, diversity in the movement, in social evolution, is a good thing? How many times have I said to people, "I respect your difference of opinion, please go ahead, make my day, by proving me wrong in the class struggle. Build a mass movement that can sweep away this system we both oppose."??? all I have ever objected to, is the sectarian attitude that if we disagree about something, we cannot work together on the 95% you do agree on.

 

[durruti02]

I have accepted that at least 99 times in our discussion, I can only presume you are intentionally misrepresenting what I have been saying all these months.

umm .. me confused too!! .. not sure what i was referring too .. my comments do not go with your qoute .. so my posts makes no sense .. so apologises on this one

 

[durruti02]

sorry, I don't understand this post at all.

i think it was hot that day .. yes not clear at all sorry .. was referring to this bit ..


RMP3 ".. I saw an old man come up to an SW paper sale. He was ranting about asylum seekers, and immigrants. An SW member had enough, and told him to fuck off. So I went up to him and asked, "why are you bothered about immigrants and asylum seekers, how do they effect you?" he went on to tell me how his wife could not get the hospital treatment she needed. This was his real concern. as the report that the Dur posted SAYS, "While immigration has become a significant issue for a large subset of Londoners, our findings show that this is in part because in many voters' minds immigration has now become a symbol for a wide range of local problems." what I tried to do with that man, and what we should be doing about immigration, again comes from the report, we "should tackle such misconceptions about the relationship between immigration and local issues and start exposing the lies circulated by the far right."

my post was .. yes imho you are half right .. in the old mans case, as i understand, re the NHS and waiting lists etc , his beliefs are wrong/facts are incorrect etc .. ( an issue of ideology etc !) .. but/however (i was trying to add) that in many cases e.g building/ nhs jobs and many other areas, what people are concerned about are REAL MATERIAL issues not prejudice, based on ideology .. hence the idea we just oppose talk/bnp etc ideologically can not work

does that make more sense?

p.s. how much was immigration discussed at marxism? .. nearly came actually but wasn't well that week ..

 

[TremulousTetra]

my post was .. yes imho you are half right .. in the old mans case, as i understand, re the NHS and waiting lists etc , his beliefs are wrong/facts are incorrect etc .. ( an issue of ideology etc !) .. but/however (i was trying to add) that in many cases e.g building/ nhs jobs and many other areas, what people are concerned about are REAL MATERIAL issues not prejudice, based on ideology .. hence the idea we just oppose talk/bnp etc ideologically can not work

does that make more sense?

p.s. how much was immigration discussed at marxism? .. nearly came actually but wasn't well that week ..

you should have come, we could have discussed things properly. This method seems to be one step forward, 10 steps backward. There seems to be more confusion than clarity. Perhaps we could move it to messenger/voice? Or even give me a telephone number in a p.m.

I think I understand it, but this bit doesn't make any sense "hence the idea we just oppose talk/bnp etc ideologically can not work "
who only just opposes the BNP?who only talks about the BNP.

The bloke I was talking about had real material concerns, his solution/scapegoat, was flawed. I don't have any problem fighting over material concerns we the people have, I have a problem when they raise the wrong solution/scapegoat. Because of these material concerns is capitalism/the capitalist, they are the problem, and the only way to defeat them is through unity, in my opinion.

 

[audiotech]

Cancer patients and women about to give birth who have been denied asylum are now being refused care by NHS hospitals unless they can pay thousands of pounds for their treatment according to the Refugee Council.

 

[durruti02]

Cancer patients and women about to give birth who have been denied asylum are now being refused care by NHS hospitals unless they can pay thousands of pounds for their treatment according to the Refugee Council.

your point??? ..we all have to wait far too long for treatment .. that includes people who worked in mines all their lives .. who fought facism/for the bosses/for their kids/fro their country .. whatever .. why should anyone have a right to just come here and get treated??


p.s. can you cook me tea tonight mate?? .. and is your job interesting?? .. i could do it for less than you you know .. and i'll have a nice shower and whats the nicest room in your gaff for me to move into?? .. and by the way i'm having a party at the week end .. hope thats ok .. if it ain't i'll have to call you a racist you know..

 

[mk12]

you have been a member of this forum 3 or four years, BUT you clearly haven't understood anything I have written if you believe, that I believe, "SWP holds a monopoly on "correct thought", or are adherents to the "proper" revolutionary socialist line." how many times have I said, diversity in the movement, in social evolution, is a good thing? How many times have I said to people, "I respect your difference of opinion, please go ahead, make my day, by proving me wrong in the class struggle. Build a mass movement that can sweep away this system we both oppose."??? all I have ever objected to, is the sectarian attitude that if we disagree about something, we cannot work together on the 95% you do agree on.

you may hold this opinion, but Trotskyism (and therefore, many Trotskyists) does. The SWP constantly focuses on issues which it sees as important. Over the EURO elections in 2004 (?), they said that it was "the war" which led to Labour losing seats....to UKIP?!?! It says the war is the "faultline" in British politics. It focuses on war all the time. Despite the fact that issues like crime and immigration are constantly on the top of the agenda for most people.

 

[durruti02]

I think I understand it, but this bit doesn't make any sense "hence the idea we just oppose talk/bnp etc ideologically can not work "
who only just opposes the BNP?who only talks about the BNP.

.

the point is that .. as matt kidds says jumping in there b4 me .. SW/UAF almost entirely neglect the very real material issue that is happenning .. so the ideological message will be dismissed out of hand by people .. as in fact it is .. most obviously in barking lancs yorks etc

p.s. did you see the Brian Denny article yet? on the 'Trade Unioinsts agianst the EU constitution' thread ..

 

[TremulousTetra]

you may hold this opinion, but Trotskyism (and therefore, many Trotskyists) does. The SWP constantly focuses on issues which it sees as important. Over the EURO elections in 2004 (?), they said that it was "the war" which led to Labour losing seats....to UKIP?!?! It says the war is the "faultline" in British politics. It focuses on war all the time. Despite the fact that issues like crime and immigration are constantly on the top of the agenda for most people.

you're quite wrong about Trotskyism. Do you never remember them talking about learning from the class?

you see, I think you are being unfair, not showing and even hand. Anarchists believe that theirs way is the best way, or they wouldn't be anarchists. The same is true for every other group/organisation/trade union/reformist etc. You could say, every group believes it "holds a monopoly on "correct thought", or are adherents to the "proper" revolutionary socialist line". The only difference I see between some of the other groups and SW, is that SW says, "there is no point in none fraternal discussion, let's see who ideas are most workable in the class struggle". SW is always prepared to work with others when we agree. This seems like a totally pragmatic approach to me.

learning from the working-class, does not mean subsuming oneself, becoming workerist. It comes back to the same question. The working class are not for revolution, is that why you have stopped being a revolutionary? If you haven't stopped being a revolutionary, why not?

 

[durruti02]

The bloke I was talking about had real material concerns, his solution/scapegoat, was flawed. I don't have any problem fighting over material concerns we the people have, I have a problem when they raise the wrong solution/scapegoat. Because of these material concerns is capitalism/the capitalist, they are the problem, and the only way to defeat them is through unity, in my opinion.

no but his material issues were not so .. there is not a problem with waiting lists due to immigration .. in fact the reverse .. as money has not been provided adequately for training we rely on immigration for the NHS

however in many sections of employment nowadays there ARE real material issues with immigration .. yes fundamentally capitalism is the problem NOT immigration .. which is a action ( can't think of right word to use) of capitalism NOT an actual system in itself .

BUt to oppose capitalism we have to deal not just ideologically but in the day to day .. as TUists we must therefore argue that our bosses should not recruit cheap labour abroad to cut wages.. surely yuo can not disagree with this??

there is NO scape goat if the we argue positively .. i believe we should be able to move freely but i do not belive I ( or anyone else) has the right to take anothers job .. for less money .. so we must defend immigrants but state absolutely they and any one else should not undercut wages .. that is the socialist position .. in strikes and in the day to day

 

[mk12]

there is no point in none fraternal discussion, let's see who ideas are most workable in the class struggle

Do the SWP fraternally discuss with other people then? I thought intervening in things like Stop the War etc was to recruit and sell papers? it didn't feel "fraternal" when my girlfriend felt intimidated when she had 15 membership forms shoved down her throat after every Marxism meeting!

The working class are not for revolution, is that why you have stopped being a revolutionary? If you haven't stopped being a revolutionary, why not?

There's a difference though. I am a revolutionary in the sense that only a revolution will be able to bring about a democratic society. I also believe that through actions, the working class will create its own organs and make its own revolution, without the need for "professional revolutionaries". Whereas I would argue that what revolutionaries should do is encourage things that "increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses", you believe that workers should join a hierarchical party, be told what to do by the Central Committee, sell a paper they don't write, and rely on others (Respect?) to change things.

Do you never remember them talking about learning from the class?

Trotsky believed that the party should hold power simply because the class changed its mind. That's hardly "learning from the class." Workers councils to Trotsky meant nothing as a form, he believed they were useful for propelling the party to power.

 

[audiotech]

your point??? ..we all have to wait far too long for treatment .. that includes people who worked in mines all their lives .. who fought facism/for the bosses/for their kids/fro their country .. whatever .. why should anyone have a right to just come here and get treated??

They came here to seek refuge and denied. Now to add salt to the wound they are being told no treatment for serious conditions unless they have a great wad in their back pocket (unlikely), so that will be no "waiting for treatment", just no treatment full stop. Denying treatment for pregnant women is just callous. So in your version of a socialist utopia are you likely to do the same?

p.s. can you cook me tea tonight mate?? .. and is your job interesting?? .. i could do it for less than you you know .. and i'll have a nice shower and whats the nicest room in your gaff for me to move into?? .. and by the way i'm having a party at the week end .. hope thats ok .. if it ain't i'll have to call you a racist you know..

Trite!

 

[durruti02]

capitalism and the immigration it creates is a sad ugly tragic process that involves this shit mate

.. persoanally i would hope she/they can be treated .. however you and i know that this process can, will and is being abused ..

there are many many people who were born and bred here who face the same shit .. it is a symptom of capitalism ..

you will not get rid of capitalism by us allowing all who want or need into the country or by throwing cheap moralism at me who is arguing that the w/c is being shafted by mass immigration undercutting wages and union organisation ..

we can ONLY really provide for all when we change the world ..

your cheap moralism shows your lack of an arguement and solution to very real problems

p.s. you said they have been denied asylum? .. i can not say that they are NOT deserving .. but you equally do not know whether they are ..

yes my story was trite ..but no more so than your moralist nonsense .. the point is surely though that it is not possible for everyone to do what they want .. not me ..not you .. not immigrants ..we must look at things socially .. not just as individuals .. this is of course to oppose what Thatcher spouted

(in fact this is probably the difference betweeen middle class radicalism and w/c revolutionism) ..

 

[audiotech]

But it is a moral question (I did mention economics and politics though) whether you give someone treatment for a serious condition, or not. That is the issue, capitalism has no morality. With capitalism it's alway's the bottom line.

However, it's clear that the bourgeoisie are very interested in imposing its moral philosophy upon the working class, hidden under moral abstractions like religion, philosophy, or the nonsense which is called “common sense”. The exposure of their moral deceit is the first duty of anyone that calls themselves a revolutionary.

It will give me the highest moral satisfaction to see the end of their kant.