Refusal of work and the immigration debate

[durruti02]

It is not my specialism, though I think Negri said something about this in "The Politics of Subversion" (though I could be wrong). I remember his argument was something like this, "if we refuse to work capitals fucked", a paraphrase . This leads onto other buzzwords like 'Exodus' - working class flight from and against work.

This all sounds 'very hippy' to British readers i think, but it isn't a matter of just that alone. At the same time they have practiced 'price setting' recently in Italy (see Negri film "Revolt that never ends", which is worth seeing for many other reasons too) so there's an attempt to build the multitude, with diverse income sources - including informal ones, with welfare cheap/free 'shopping' that they have enforced, in the different manifestations.

cheers for reply .. sorry sort of assumed it would be one of your things after your interest in 'black economy' ..

what i find interesting as we, without political intervention, now have a situation where 1?2?3? million adults are 'refusing work'. this is having enormous consequences not least it has pushed the bosses into importing cheap labour ..

and i do not see any positives yet .. maybe potentials but no direct positives .. just seems part of 'north american model'

wheer do we get the negri film from .. i guess it it subtitled

 

[shagnasty]

Someone living in the uk migrant illegal or not has to pay uk prices for rent food clothing etc.so how do they manage ,some end up living rough some end up in tide accomdation in which the racketeer bosses charge extortionate rents.and i should imagine that health care for illegals is non existent .all this crap is written by affluent middle class wankers who know nothing of the reality.they the migrants are not our enemy the people who exploit them are.

 

[The Black Hand]

cheers for reply .. sorry sort of assumed it would be one of your things after your interest in 'black economy' ..

what i find interesting as we, without political intervention, now have a situation where 1?2?3? million adults are 'refusing work'. this is having enormous consequences not least it has pushed the bosses into importing cheap labour ..

and i do not see any positives yet .. maybe potentials but no direct positives .. just seems part of 'north american model'

wheer do we get the negri film from .. i guess it it subtitled

Yes, you are right I should have swotted up on this but I haven't as yet. Hopefully I will get the chance, but I'm trying to do other things first. As for the millions refusing work, its been going on for a long time. Especially when they realised they could get work that pays good money on top of the dole, or shadow, and illegal work (crime eg. drugs, tobacco, counterfeiting etc), and do it with more autonomy and respect than normal work. This sort of way of being has been normalised in working class communities since the late 1970s, early 1980s, when there was no legal work to be had. It would be foolish to ignore this sort of consciousness, as I know that those in employment often continue to do 'this and that' even when they are working, and so the networks live in general consciousness.

You are right, there has been no visible positives because working class people have realised, quite rightly, that there is nothing to be gained from drawing attention to what you do to make your full income, which is made of various 'income mixes' (legal and illegal). The fight to defend the welfare state however, is a working class fight, and many know that. Perhaps the real problem is that we have a relatively depoliticised working class generally? It certainly looks that way to me, but in this situation where there is going to be no one solution to the diversity out there, we must work as a movement combining our various different initiatives into something bigger and better.

All these localised initiatives (from national political groups, local groups, or campaign groups) are never going to be enough, either in terms of; creating a single unified working class consciousness (the days of the single party/group is dead), coping with the various campaigns which concern different people - all from a working class point of view, or in tackling new working class concerns which spring up, a traditional class struggle at work, or against a new road, or whatever.

Do not forget what makes your group unique, but progress today is made via the movement, and groups have to work beyond their own specific interest or specialism, and do solidarity work within the movement. This is the way the movement spreads and your unique contribution to the movement spreads too. Tested in the cauldron of working class involvement from different backgrounds, and thus it is the tried and tested ideas which will gain currency...

Ps - movement is defined as the 'different groups and initiatives of the working class struggle', and working class is defined in its widest sense, beyond the workplace and into the diffuse factory and the home. The moral choices and attitudes of people (subjectivity) are important in this multitude, this is autonomy as practice - praxis.

As for the Negri film - ask Top Dog, I think he has a copy, Projectile used somebody from Londons copy. Or failing that a search on the net will find it cos I haven't got one (and I would like a copy). Indymedia should bootleg it

 

[Fruitloop]

Surely the point is that a capitalist ruling class will never in a million years allow such a shortfall (from their point of view) in the labour market that they can no longer extract ever-increasing amounts of profit from the labour that they buy, any more than they will simply hand over their wealth and property to workers' control. Even amongst the concessions they might make to a powerful and organised working class such as welfare provision (paid for by the workers themselves, of course, and generating private profit along the way), there are some things that are simply not on the table, and this is one of them.

 

[audiotech]

as i have said many times look at the positions of the SWP and the rest of the anti facist left indeed what many of the left have said on these threads how immigration is GOOD for the w/c

It is you who uses simplistic terms like 'good' and 'bad' in your posts durruti02.

 

[The Black Hand]

Surely the point is that a capitalist ruling class will never in a million years allow such a shortfall (from their point of view) in the labour market that they can no longer extract ever-increasing amounts of profit from the labour that they buy, any more than they will simply hand over their wealth and property to workers' control. Even amongst the concessions they might make to a powerful and organised working class such as welfare provision (paid for by the workers themselves, of course, and generating private profit along the way), there are some things that are simply not on the table, and this is one of them.

Sorry, but I do not see your point.

 

[durruti02]

It is you who uses simplistic terms like 'good' and 'bad' in your posts durruti02.

nope .. do you ever read anything?? it has been consistently argued on urban by swopies and stalinists and is indeed argued by SW that immigration gives a benefit to the w/c as it raises GNP ..

i have not argued at all that immigation is BAD .. never ever .. what i have said is that immigration, as part of neo liberal restructuring cause problems .. at certain levels it has pushed down wages at others, in a period of skill shortages, kept increases below what they could be ..

you seem incapable of understanding that immigration is multi faceted, has differrent causes and functions, has benefits and negatives and that anyone who dogmatically thinks it is monolithic, does all of us a dis-service

 

[audiotech]

nope .. do you ever read anything?? it has been consistently argued on urban by swopies and stalinists and is indeed argued by SW that immigration gives a benefit to the w/c as it raises GNP ..

i have not argued at all that immigation is BAD .. never ever .. what i have said is that immigration, as part of neo liberal restructuring cause problems .. at certain levels it has pushed down wages at others, in a period of skill shortages, kept increases below what they could be ..

you seem incapable of understanding that immigration is multi faceted, has differrent causes and functions, has benefits and negatives and that anyone who dogmatically thinks it is monolithic, does all of us a dis-service

It's actually GDP and not GNP. Have you a link to the Socialist Worker article that states: "immigration gives a benefit to the w/c"?

To clarify your point. You state that immigration, is part of 'neo liberal restructuring that causes problems'. OK so far? What then is immigration to you, if you don't believe it's a 'bad' problem?

 

[_angel_]

another pleasant comment, what strange bedfellows the left has now..

All benefit claimants = criminals surely. The government has done it's propaganda well.

 

[durruti02]

It's actually GDP and not GNP. Have you a link to the Socialist Worker article that states: "immigration gives a benefit to the w/c"?

To clarify your point. You state that immigration, is part of 'neo liberal restructuring that causes problems'. OK so far? What then is immigration to you, if you don't believe it's a 'bad' problem?

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10111
.. full of such nonsense .. actually this latest article form last month is a lot more progressive and non dogmatic .. maybe they are learning too!

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11609

you need to rephrase that last sentance/question .. sorry it does not make sense

 

[nino_savatte]

Surely the point is that a capitalist ruling class will never in a million years allow such a shortfall (from their point of view) in the labour market that they can no longer extract ever-increasing amounts of profit from the labour that they buy, any more than they will simply hand over their wealth and property to workers' control. Even amongst the concessions they might make to a powerful and organised working class such as welfare provision (paid for by the workers themselves, of course, and generating private profit along the way), there are some things that are simply not on the table, and this is one of them.

Justement, durutti is chasing after "pie in the sky".

 

[nino_savatte]

i am suprised that none of the anarchos who are keen on the 'refusal' of work' thing have said this yet

but a key factor in this debate is the levels of refusal amongst w/c people. as neo liberalism/thacherism has pushed wages and conditions down so an increasing and large number of people have been pushed out of the labour market or into refusal of work. the consequences of this in a finite labour market would have been to push up wages again and challenge profitability .. (and probably to encourage more firms to export jobs ( it is interesting that leftists who oppose quite rightly the export of jobs do not oppose employers bringing in cheap labour))

it is in response to this that we have the import of cheap labour thanks to the neolibs of the EU and New Lab


indeed we often hear people saying, uncritically, that immigrants do the jobs that indiginous do not want to do .. why people why?

How about you durutti? Surely there are certain types of work that you wouldn't ever consider...or are you trying to tell us that you'd do anything?

But what's this?

it is interesting that leftists who oppose quite rightly the export of jobs do not oppose employers bringing in cheap labour

And your evidence for this assertion is? That amounts to a blanket excoriation of anyone who confesses to have left leanings.

 

[_angel_]

There will ALWAYS be low skilled work which EVERYONE can do. Thus the wages of this work will inevitably be low. Leading to the incentive to enskill oneself.

.

The acceptance of low skilled work being 'naturally' low paid is where I have the problem. Why should people who are cleaners and the like be low paid? And stockbrokers be paid ridiculously high?


Surely we can afford to pay people in low skilled (but still incredibly necessary) jobs a decent living wage.


Everyone bangs on about toilet cleaners and hospital cleaners.. invariably they get paid less than dustbinmen. If dustbinmen can be paid reasonably ok why not the (mainly female) cleaners?

 

[audiotech]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10111
.. full of such nonsense ..

Nonsense? The article talks about employers paying as little in wages as they can, in order to boost profits, which I would have thought that was something you would agree with?

Firms compete with one another for market share and profits. If a company can reduce its outgoings by bringing in workers who will do the job for lower wages, then it will do so.

Don't agree with this then? What about this?

But this is not the fault of immigrant workers - the bosses are to blame. Those who seek to strangle the supply of new labour are aiming at the wrong target. If the logic is to hold down the supply of workers, then why not move on to driving women out the workforce, or previous immigrants, or people who do not have British relatives going back six generations?

and this?

One factor that increases the likelihood of migrant workers earning lower wages is the very set of regulations used to control their migration.

actually this latest article form last month is a lot more progressive and non dogmatic .. maybe they are learning too!

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11609

Serious question, in what way is the article "a lot more progressive and non dogmatic"?

you need to rephrase that last sentance/question .. sorry it does not make sense

Having difficulties answering? Pretty simple question really. Here it is again:

What then is immigration to you, if you don't believe it's a 'bad' problem?

 

[durruti02]

Nonsense? The article talks about employers paying as little in wages as they can, in order to boost profits, which I would have thought that was something you would agree with?


Don't agree with this then? What about this?

and this?

Serious question, in what way is the article "a lot more progressive and non dogmatic"?


Having difficulties answering? Pretty simple question really. Here it is again:

hey good top see you doing serious again .. you went away for quite a while to nino land ..

i'll answer re the SW article on the marx thread if that is allright? ( but most if the article is fine but with nonsense in amongst .. you qouted the best bits!)

still not entirely clear what that question is gettting at .. i'll assume it relates to that as ive said ad nauseum i have no problem with immigration for experiance education social etc etc .. i have a problem with migration due economic reasons .. it generally produces more problems than it solves .. although as we all know this migration is a SYMPTOM of the wider economic system capitalism ..

 

[audiotech]

..i have a problem with migration due economic reasons .. it generally produces more problems than it solves .. although as we all know this migration is a SYMPTOM of the wider economic system capitalism ..

Immigration 'produces more problems than it solves which are 'economic'? Do elaborate on the 'economics' please.

Would it be the case then that you will be arguing, with your local community of course, for further controls on migrants?

 

[durruti02]

Immigration 'produces more problems than it solves which are 'economic'? Do elaborate on the 'economics' please.

Would it be the case then that you will be arguing, with your local community of course, for further controls on migrants?

this is off topic but ..

as i have said before here are some ..
-lowering or holding back wages,
-allowing the state to NOT pay for, (or tax to the rich to pay for), training,
-problems re recruiting to unions and interest in unions,
-competition for limited stock of housing ( yes yes yes we all know about RTB etc etc),
-as part of a package of RTB etc has an INITIAL (note my emphasis) negative affect on community cohesion and power,
-means that there is no incentive for the state to deal with mass unemployment

as i continually emphasise, you are looking at this the wrong way around .. i hestitate to say, not from the point of view of the w/c ..

the question has NEVER been in my eyes about controlling immigrants/migration BUT controlling/influencing the bosses/state/LA's ..

so yes i argue for local employment policies and yes i argue for more priority for local people in housing .. there is in NO sense direct control of migration at all here .. but yes there is clearly an In- direct affect

on topic i still allege that it this stage of neo liberalism in this country and with what appears to be a mass refusal of work by millions of people, the state/bosses are shipping in people to make them profits

 

[The Black Hand]

You could argue that it is a development of the new international division of labour. Working class jobs shipped to the third world, so the worlds working class can be better controlled for capital by states without democratic rights and developed trade unions. This means that the working class in this country has been seen as (at least partially) not needed (but of course nobody can say that) and their reproduction has been ignored.

The new debate - centre ground in politics only matters for the INCLUDED in this country, policy debate is about standards in 'middle class' areas, for better middle class schools, treatment in NHS hospitals for the 'middle class' etc. In short politics has been overtaken by those who buy into aspirational class politics, who generally have reasonably safe standards of income. These people are overy often better paid working class people though.


Hence crisis in wages/employment, housing, education etc standards for the working class in the UK, and the demonisation of the uncontrollable untamed working classes of the world (including migrants, but also chavs and asbo children). The problem is in creating a movement and class consciousness which enables the slightly better off to see themselves in the same boat as council estate people. Anything else just won't do.

 

[The Black Hand]

Durutti - here is a good article that frames the migration debate from an autonomist pov;

http://www.commoner.org.uk/11mitropoulos.pdf

I have to say my sympathy is with this.

 

[audiotech]

this is off topic but ..

as i have said before here are some ..
-lowering or holding back wages,
-allowing the state to NOT pay for, (or tax to the rich to pay for), training,
-problems re recruiting to unions and interest in unions,
-competition for limited stock of housing ( yes yes yes we all know about RTB etc etc),
-as part of a package of RTB etc has an INITIAL (note my emphasis) negative affect on community cohesion and power,
-means that there is no incentive for the state to deal with mass unemployment

as i continually emphasise, you are looking at this the wrong way around .. i hestitate to say, not from the point of view of the w/c ..

the question has NEVER been in my eyes about controlling immigrants/migration BUT .. controlling/influencing the bosses/state/LA's
so yes i argue for local employment policies and yes i argue for more priority for local people in housing .. there is in NO sense direct control of migration at all here .. but yes there is clearly an In- direct affect

on topic i still allege that it this stage of neo liberalism in this country and with what appears to be a mass refusal of work by millions of people, the state/bosses are shipping in people to make them profits

A mass refusal of work by millions? You're having a laugh.

I'm one who adheres to the idea that 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class'.

Your idea of:

controlling/influencing the bosses/state/LA's

will not bring about that sea change. You're deluding yourself if you believe you can control, or influence the state by reform.

 

[durruti02]

Durutti - here is a good article that frames the migration debate from an autonomist pov;

http://www.commoner.org.uk/11mitropoulos.pdf

I have to say my sympathy is with this.

i have not finished it yet abut at first view it takes the classic autonomist position of looking at the positive in class action. i sympathise with this but i think they have missed the wood for the trees .. i think they are wrong to simply see migration happenning IN SPITE OF CAPITAL or as RESPONSE to capital .. indeed this is what i am banging away at .. that mgration is being encouraged by capital .. up to where i got to they do not discuss this ( maybe do later)

 

[durruti02]

A mass refusal of work by millions? You're having a laugh.

I'm one who adheres to the idea that 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class'.

Your idea of: will not bring about that sea change. You're deluding yourself if you believe you can control, or influence the state by reform.

QUE????

3 million out of work .. please explain why then when there are the largest ever workforce and highest vacancies ..

so you adhere to 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class'. ?? oh yeah? but you have no programme to get there .. just words .. you are fundamentally wrong to confuse what i suggest, with mere reform ..

 

[nino_savatte]

You're deluding yourself if you believe you can control, or influence the state by reform.

There's an interesting bit of Situationist graffiti that sums this up beautifully.

Reform my ass.

There's a better one somewhere, I'll try and find it.

 

[audiotech]

QUE????

3 million out of work .. please explain why then when there are the largest ever workforce and highest vacancies ..

so you adhere to 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class'. ?? oh yeah? but you have no programme to get there .. just words .. you are fundamentally wrong to confuse what i suggest, with mere reform ..

Really? Do you seriously consider then that "controlling/influencing the bosses/state/LA's" is revolutionary? Now you're really having a larf.

Why would I, as an individual, have a 'programme', unless of course I'd just been to see the cup final?

As for the millions 'refusing' to work? Are these people refusing work?

Lone parents.
Those on long-term sick.
The disabled.
Older people.
The unskilled.

May 16 2007 - The unemployment rate remains at 5.5% - unchanged over the quarter but up on last year. 28.98 million people were in work in the period January to March according to the labour force survey (LFS). This is down by 55,000 on the quarter, but up by 93,000 on the last year.

ILO-defined unemployment in January to March was 5.5%, up by 13,000 unemployed on the quarter and up 101,000 from this time last year.

The claimant count for Jobseeker's Allowance in April was 890,000 - down by 15,700 on the previous month and down 57,100 on last year.

There are concerns however with regards to young people under 25 who continue to be particularly badly affected by unemployment, whilst employment rates for the over 50s continue to rise. Women too are also being harder hit, suffering larger increases in unemployment and a much bigger reduction in their employment rate.

This might address your confusion:

At first sight it is puzzling to see a substantial increase of 32,000 in the level of job vacancies coinciding with falling employment. But the puzzle disappears when one considers the so-called ‘3R’s effect’ - commonly identified in the CIPD/KPMG quarterly Labour Market Outlook surveys - caused by the tendency for organisations to engage in a continual process of employment restructuring, involving simultaneous recruitment and redundancy. Unfortunately, people who suffer redundancy are not necessarily those best equipped to easily fill newly created vacancies, which leaves employers searching around for other sources of labour.
http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm

Hope this helps.

 

[The Black Hand]

i have not finished it yet abut at first view it takes the classic autonomist position of looking at the positive in class action. i sympathise with this but i think they have missed the wood for the trees .. i think they are wrong to simply see migration happenning IN SPITE OF CAPITAL or as RESPONSE to capital .. indeed this is what i am banging away at .. that mgration is being encouraged by capital .. up to where i got to they do not discuss this ( maybe do later)

What capital does is a response to the class - a bit chicken and egg I know. Whereas Leftists imply all power to capital (which leads to politics which enables mediating positions to be taken), autonomists give all power to the working class.

The main thrust of that article for communists/socialist/anarchists is as follows i think.

There is a very patronising attitude in assuming, deliberately ignoring or de facto ignoring that migrants and their movements are devoid of politics. Thus, any politics which fails to engage migrants on their own terms is not progressive. I am not arguing here for 'fascist migrants' to be treated with respect or any other reactionary bullshite which could be suggested at this point. I am suggesting that migrants as a class have every right to expect that other working class communities treat them with as much respect and with as many rights as the indigenous enjoy now and would wish to have themselves. That is a working class pov based in the real 21st century world.

I agree that there are tremendous political problems, but I do not believe they can be short circuited by compromising on political demands, desires, needs or wants. That seems to be a way to a new 'transitional demand' and one that will be fraught with as many difficulties as old 'transitional demands'.

I think the problem at base is the conservative nature of old left and anarchist politics, who were lulled into a sense of security that was always going to be turned upside down. Now we live in a very unpredictable world where we have to think on our feet. In the future there will be no dominant left or anarchist hegemony and instead it is the politics of difference which is going to be interesting, and how the different groups link up together into a movement, and then into the movement of movements. That is the class struggle of the future whether you or anybody else likes it or not.

PS - I do not think it matters whether capital encourages it or not, obviously parts are, but others are not. What matters is the politics that can be created in this situation, and that applies across Europe. The new movement will create its own chances based upon a changed political position and possibilities I think.

 

[durruti02]

As for the millions 'refusing' to work? Are these people refusing work?

Lone parents.
Those on long-term sick.
The disabled.
Older people.
The unskilled.

May 16 2007 - The unemployment rate remains at 5.5% - unchanged over the quarter but up on last year. 28.98 million people were in work in the period January to March according to the labour force survey (LFS). This is down by 55,000 on the quarter, but up by 93,000 on the last year.

ILO-defined unemployment in January to March was 5.5%, up by 13,000 unemployed on the quarter and up 101,000 from this time last year.

The claimant count for Jobseeker's Allowance in April was 890,000 - down by 15,700 on the previous month and down 57,100 on last year.

There are concerns however with regards to young people under 25 who continue to be particularly badly affected by unemployment, whilst employment rates for the over 50s continue to rise. Women too are also being harder hit, suffering larger increases in unemployment and a much bigger reduction in their employment rate.

This might address your confusion:

Hope this helps.

yes helps a bit thank you especially the bit about kids and women .. nowt to do with immigration i'm sure .. but you missed out this bit ..

"The inactivity rate for people of working age was 21.2 per cent for the three months ending in March 2007, up 0.2 on the quarter and up 0.1 over the year. The number of economically inactive people of working age increased by 85,000 over the quarter to reach 7.94 million. This quarterly increase in inactivity was largely due to more economically inactive students."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

and note london unemployment below .. the area we are told NEEDS so many workers ..

http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/regional_unemployment.htm

yes i do think many many people are not working as what is on offer is shit .. many in that list WOULD work ( and would wnat toi work) if there were flexible properly paid jobs on offer .. but that is exactly what is NOT on offer is it .. hence my assertion that it is 'refusal'

 

[audiotech]

yes helps a bit thank you especially the bit about kids and women .. nowt to do with immigration i'm sure .. but you missed out this bit ..

"The inactivity rate for people of working age was 21.2 per cent for the three months ending in March 2007, up 0.2 on the quarter and up 0.1 over the year. The number of economically inactive people of working age increased by 85,000 over the quarter to reach 7.94 million. This quarterly increase in inactivity was largely due to more economically inactive students."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

and note london unemployment below .. the area we are told NEEDS so many workers ..

http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/regional_unemployment.htm

yes i do think many many people are not working as what is on offer is shit .. many in that list WOULD work ( and would wnat toi work) if there were flexible properly paid jobs on offer .. but that is exactly what is NOT on offer is it .. hence my assertion that it is 'refusal'

In my humble opinion, your assertion that over seven million people are refusing to work is complete bollocks.

 

[durruti02]

In my humble opinion, your assertion that over seven million people are refusing to work is complete bollocks.

i do not assert that and i would indeed be bollox!

i do assert that a significnat number of the w/c and particularly youth are 'refusing' the cheap labourt that is on offer and that the bosses are so keen to bring in migrants to do .. you have come up with nothing to contradict this or explain it

how else do you explain bosses importing labour yet millions unemployed?

 

[audiotech]

i do not assert that and i would indeed be bollox!

i do assert that a significnat number of the w/c and particularly youth are 'refusing' the cheap labourt that is on offer and that the bosses are so keen to bring in migrants to do .. you have come up with nothing to contradict this or explain it

how else do you explain bosses importing labour yet millions unemployed?

I've seen a popular T-shirt appearing on the streets stating "I'm a Lazy Sod and Proud of it". Could be a reason?

However, it's more than likely to scare others into accepting lower than inflation wage increases.

 

[durruti02]

bumped as imho this is key to what going on today