Solutions to the 'problem' of immigrant workers?

[dennisr]

There hasn't been so much a 'debate' as much a constant re-stating by a couple of posters of what they see as the 'problem' of immigration. This is an attempt to re-phrase that debate in a way that doesn't end up as a pointless slanging match based on accusations of, on the one hand 'racist' and one the other hand 'neo-liberal apologist'. (neither of which help much in understanding either position). The circular arguments have gone round and round. I am going to post up some viewpoints that take up the relevant points as i see them (and prepare to be shot down... from 'both' (or is it more) sides and hopefully this can lead to an answer to my question which is - what are the possible answers to the 'problems' created by recent immigration?

I am going to raise a few long points which I hope can start a 'debate' rather than a continuation of the month's long slanging match.

One of Durruti's points has been: Its not enough to say 'it isn't a problem' and simply assume anyone who disagrees is inevitably a bigot (even if it gives succor to those that are...). It is a theme constantly pushed by the media, by government officials, by politicians for whatever reasons they may have (usually crap one's imo...). Its is an issue in the minds of many which sadly overshadows and hides those many other issues we don't get given pointers to - privatization, housing, education, health, corruption, military adventures etc etc (often carried out and cheer led by the very same folk pointing their fingers elsewhere. I think that is something we would all agree on, at least.)

Hopefully you can give me the liberty of a few free posts - ok its a cut and paste odyssey - my apologies for that (i wouldn't do it normally...) but hopefully folk can see that it is an attempt to re-frame the debate beyond a series of postings making the same points by Durruti and replies making the same replies - as has gone on for months with endless threads

 

[dennisr]

I want to allay Durruti's fears that because I personally do not agree with his 'solutions' that does not mean I am daft enough to argue that increased immigration is not being used to lower other workers wages. There is nothing new in that use of new layers of workers by employers. Since May 2004, an estimated 6-700,000 people have come to work in Britain from Eastern Europe. This is the biggest single wave of immigration in Britain’s history as far as I know. Many are highly skilled workers, such as doctors, teachers and nurses, filling gaps in public services created by the government’s lack of investment and training: 30% of doctors, 13% of nurses and 12.5% of teachers are from overseas. But the majority of migrant workers are super-exploited in low paid, casual work - agriculture, catering and cleaning. They work long hours and are housed in overcrowded, substandard accommodation by their profit-hungry employers.

Many arrive in Britain with illusions about the living standards they will be able to attain. However, once they realize how brutally they will be exploited, and how expensive the cost of living in Britain is, their illusions about ‘life in the West’ are usually quickly shattered. For some it is still an 'improvement' on the alternatives on offer.

The Treasury has raised its estimate of sustainable growth from 2.5% to 2.75% from 2007 onwards purely on the basis of increased immigration. This does not mean that immigration means growth or increased wealth for all. The FT Survey on economic prospects: “Continued high levels of immigration should raise the growth rate that the economy can sustain without sparking inflation, holding down wages compared with profits and benefiting most people.”

Holding down wages does not, of course, benefit most people but a few at the top. The situation was summed up more accurately by Charles Goodhart a former member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee who stated bluntly regarding increased immigration: "Winners: capitalists. Losers: workers."

So lets accept that Durruti's point that the use of immigrants can (and do at this moment) represent a threat to the standards of other workers (even if this is often in terms of 'immigrants' themselves in his arguments) is a very valid one. Clearly the british employers see immigration as part of their economic strategy. The ‘race to the bottom’ is intrinsic to modern boss economics for the rest of us, imo. Globalization is used as a means to increase profits by driving down workers’ living conditions. In the first instance, this has been carried out by moving production abroad. Now, increasingly, immigration is being used to hold down wages in those sectors that cannot be moved abroad. At the same time, in a globalized world where travel is more possible than ever before, it is inevitable that people try to better themselves and to escape from the terrible conditions created by capitalism in their country of origin. I don't think anyone seriously begrudges people for their attempts to improve them and their families chances except baldwin - maybe (and his argument is simply a fig leaf to cover his actual agenda).

So - can we accept the argument that there is a 'problem' that has to be resolved? (imo - by workers themselves...)

 

[dennisr]

Can we also all accept that if we are to successfully put forward a solution to the problems arising then it is important that we recognize the different elements that are resulting in opposition to increased immigration among wide sections of the working class?

It is, of course, true racism, national prejudice, the media and politician misinformation is a factor. But the increased opposition to immigration, including among a layer of workers who are consciously anti-racist, is also a reflection of workers own experience of how the new generation of immigrants is being used by the ruling class to drive down wages and, because of the lack of resources, is adding to the pressures on public services and housing in the areas they are moving into. John Denham, Labour MP for Southampton said, on the effects of immigration in Southampton: “Southampton has not yet received any extra funds to meet additional needs for schools (who have to provide translation), the health service, or for enforcement action against poor quality and overcrowded housing. Local unemployment has risen by over 25% in the past year and there are real fears that the 'hard to employ' - lone parents, those on Invalidity Benefit and ex-offenders - are being squeezed out of the labour market. In some occupations, particularly construction, wages have fallen by around 50% over the past two years.” Denham may well be exaggerating but the general trends he points out do exist. One in ten under 25 year olds are now unemployed. One factor in the growth of unemployment among the young and unskilled is the increase in immigration - it is certainly seen as that even if one does not agree with this point. It is true that most immigrants from Eastern Europe are young and single, and therefore are making limited use of public services. Nonetheless, there have been numerous reports of a sudden increase in school class sizes and doctors’ waiting lists, often in the poorest areas, as a result of cuts combined with increased immigration.

 

[dennisr]

Are Immigration controls a solution though? Durriti talks of the need for putting 'ones own' first. But, whatever the definition of 'ones own' means, is relying on the bosses laws an answer? - surely that would put the local workers futures in the hands of employers interests?

Its not like the use of immigration controls is anything new to the employers. If we accept that the bosses are using immigration, as a means to increase profits, surely its capacity to do this is limited by the potential that exists to create dangerous instability. In the era of globalization, the productive forces – industry, science, technique – have long outgrown their national base - the employers strain hard against the limitations of the nation state. However, they can only partially surmount them. The big corporations are, almost without exception, still based in and tied to particular countries and reliant on the market and the political superstructure of their home nation. An intrinsic part of that political superstructure is a national consciousness which the boss class taps into in order, for example, to win support for its wars. The capitalists cannot switch national consciousness on and off at will.

British capitalism felt it had no choice but to limit immigration at the end of the 1960s, despite the economic advantages it could gain by speeding it up, because of its fear of the potential for social instability. Today, when the lives of workers in Britain are, in general, becoming more difficult – as working hours increase, public services deteriorate – the potential for instability and conflict is clear. For the ruling class at this stage, this is less important than the drive to increase profit but, in the event of a recession, they can be forced to introduce further restrictions. Even at this stage, the ruling class is concerned about increased instability - growth of the far-right and increased alienation of a layer of people from minorities such as young Muslims. However, it has no solution to this, which is fundamentally caused by the nature of modern capitalism, and so is fumbling around to try and find the best approach. This is reflected in all of the capitalist politicians’ lack of clarity on whether ‘multi-culturalism’ (which can never fully exist under capitalism) or forced ‘assimilation’ as 'the way' forward.

Looking at historical examples of sections of workers tying their interests to their local bosses - Say loyalists in northern ireland - they may have felt themselves as defending their petty advantages over nationalists but the result was all northern irish workers facing the lowest wages in the UK. Say the tens of thousands of workers in the massive stock yards of 20-30s Chicago, those on the "killing floor", whos' mass strikes were smashed by the use of genuine (not in the way in was used on the other thread) scabs - black workers (brought in from the south by the bosses) who had nothing to gain from not scabbing given the racism that kept them out of jobs entirely. Conditions were set back for years in the wake of the resulting Chicago race riots before the unification of the folk working there was rebuilt without the anti-black racism. And from the US today - say the attempts to stop Latino's crossing the border - how successful can that ever be? There are loads of examples - all with the same result, by 'helping' to keep others down you end up keeping yourselves under the bosses yoke. I am not being moralistic about it - I am not shouting 'racist' - just looking at it coldly in terms of how to defend working peoples interests

Maybe I am wrong - but where, historically, have immigration controls been used in the interests of working people and how are working people going to physically stop the desperate from arriving in the UK anyhow? After all aren't an illegal workforce the easiest to exploit?

 

[dennisr]

My suggested solution - organizing workers

As I said before, many migrants illusions about ‘life in the West’ are quickly shattered. Surely that new section of the workers can be won to trade union organization - i would argue this is not an easy solution but it is the only one open to us - forget the moralistic crap.

The trade unionization of immigrants is not a new issue for the British working class, but it will form a vital aspect of both the struggle against low pay and the struggle against racism in the coming years. As far back as 1839, when William Cuffay, who was born in St Kitts in the Caribbean, founded the garment workers’ union, immigrant workers have played a role greater than their numbers in the British labour movement. Look at the history of Irish workers in Britain. The labour movement at it best has also played the key role in fighting racism. In the 1950s, for example, it was the railway workers’ union which played the leading role in getting rid of the colour bar in many London pubs. This flowed from a realization of railway workers that the only way to stop the bosses using workers from the Caribbean as cheap labour was to unionize and launch a common struggle for decent pay. In the 1970s, trade unions were instrumental in the battle to defeat the NF.

It is as a result of these traditions that black and Asian workers in Britain formed a strong bond with the labour movement even though the majority did not come from an urban background in their home countries. In the 1970s, black and Asian workers played a key role in many industrial struggles. The Grunwicks strike against low pay in 1976, which largely involved Asian women, was one of the key battles of the decade. Even today, after the fall in union membership as a result of the 1990s, it is still the case that Afro-Caribbean workers have a higher level of union membership (32.4%) than the workforce as a whole (26.6%).

Today, lower levels of trade unionization, and the more brutal nature of global capitalism, makes the organization of migrant workers both more difficult and more vital than it was in the post-war upswing. To a limited degree the trade unions have already been forced to act. In Southampton and Glasgow, the GMB has launched Polish branches, and the T&G has appointed Polish organizers and started to produce special material in Polish. One of the GMB organizers explained in The Guardian (6 December 2006): "We were expecting around 20 [Polish workers] to come [to a meeting on joining the union] and were amazed when 130 arrived." With a correct approach from the trade union leaders, the potential exists for Polish workers in Britain to play a role comparable with Latinos in America in spearheading a new wave of union radicalization. However, this will be limited if the recruitment of Eastern Europeans workers is just seen as a way of increasing the membership figures, rather than as part of a strategy to fight for better wages.

The only way to fight the ‘race to the bottom’ imo is together - not by artificially deciding what group of workers has merits over another group - That simply plays into the employers hands. The potential for successful struggles for equal pay exists, as was shown in Ireland with the Gama struggle followed by the Irish Ferries half-day strike. Any discussion on solution, imo, must be based on the urgency of this task and that it suits big business if workers are divided. In reality, the real difference of interests is not between indigenous workers and immigrants, but between oppressors and the oppressed. After all, if you have over £250,000 in your bank account, regardless of by what scurrilous means you got it, there are no immigration controls and you are simply welcomed with open arms by the government. its the same approach that will cut across support for the likes of the BNP.

So... what solutions... ?

 

[treelover]

I think people would rather trade insults on the other threads,

actually some good stuff and food for thought about this most crucial of issues,
However, one thing you don't seem to emphasise is the absolutely massive scale of migration to the Uk and the west we are now witnessing, perhaps the only comparable example, which you do touch on, is that of the USA, but i would locate the mass movements to that country in the late 19th C as more comparable.

btw, Dennis, please don't use that term 'layers' it is really a condescending way to describe people and just demeans your excellent post.

 

[exosculate]

Good opener Dennis, who would not support any attempt to unionise migrant workers.

The real question is do you support an open borders argument in the present economic order.

You won't connect to people arguing that, and if one doesn't argue that then what does one argue?

 

[dennisr]

Good opener Dennis, who would not support any attempt to unionise migrant workers.

The real question is do you support an open borders argument in the present economic order.

You won't connect to people arguing that, and if one doesn't argue that then what does one argue?

As youve guessed, in a 'perfect' world, I wouldn't want any borders.
That does not mean I am going to make that the basis of my arguements with folk on immigration or a major demand when approaching workers. Frankly, as a demand its irrelevant, utopian and would only help in cutting me off any chance of beginning a debate in the real world with most folk, from which I could find common ground, at this moment in time.

If someone comes up to me and says 'I don't want any borders' then I'd agree that ultimately we want the same thing but the question is how do we get to a stage where for most people borders become an irrelevance? - I'd argue we have to start from where most of us are 'at' now rather than where I might wish other folk to be.

Do you think immigration controls - the imposition of real 'borders' would be a useful way to improve local workers conditions in the UK at the moment? If so how would they be implimented?

 

[dennisr]

I think people would rather trade insults on the other threads,

Yep, I wonder if I am piddling in the wind here

However, one thing you don't seem to emphasise is the absolutely massive scale of migration to the Uk and the west we are now witnessing

Actually i said:

ISince May 2004, an estimated 6-700,000 people have come to work in Britain from Eastern Europe. This is the biggest single wave of immigration in Britain’s history as far as I know.

btw, Dennis, please don't use that term 'layers' it is really a condescending way to describe people and just demeans your excellent post.

Fair enough - not intentional - simply poor shorthand - probably best to read 'sections' rather than 'layers'?

 

[tbaldwin]

My suggested solution - organizing workers

As I said before, many migrants illusions about ‘life in the West’ are quickly shattered. Surely that new section of the workers can be won to trade union organization - i would argue this is not an easy solution but it is the only one open to us - forget the moralistic crap.

So... what solutions... ?

I think thats the key issue isnt it?

Personally i think that the Left needs to be much more Internationalist in its outlook.
Instead of arguing that we should all be welcoming immigrants here. The Left should be critical of the reasons that drive migration and generally supportive of those that do.
To some that may sound like a contradiction but it isnt.
We can not as Internationalists limit ourselves to caring about the people from abroad that make it to the UK. We also have to show concern about the people left behind.
I support the unionisation of workers in the UK but as an Internationalist i just see that as a small part of any fightback against the Free Market and Global Capital.I think that stuff like the No Sweat campaign are worthwhile..But Unions and the Left in this country should do much more to campaign for International Labour rules. And to boycott companies that shit on workers in developing countries.

 

[belboid]

Frankly, as a demand [open borders is] irrelevant, utopian and would only help in cutting me off any chance of beginning a debate in the real world with most folk, from which I could find common ground, at this moment in time.

<snip>

Do you think immigration controls - the imposition of real 'borders' would be a useful way to improve local workers conditions in the UK at the moment? If so how would they be implimented?

the problem I see here dennis, is a contradiction between these two paragraphs (assuming that your answer to the second para is 'no'). I agree that when arguing with people at work, in the community etc - as opposed to on a supposedly left-wing message board - then anyone starting with 'we need to get rid of all borders' is plain stupid and will get nowhere. We start from, well, whatver the actual issue is, opposing any new controls, or racist scapegoating of immigrant workers, or detention centres, or whatever is actually the immediate concern.

But, what happens when those arguments develop? Someone will eventually ask what controls you think should be in place. And they have a right to a straightforward answer. If you can't think of any, then surely that is saying you want 'no borders'. I dont see how you can square that circle (except by supporting specific controls, which would then throw up thre own problems).

It's the same as if, when standing in a local election, the SP candidate wont have 'Revolution Now' on the top of their first leaflet (heck, not even WP did that when they managed to stand as an SA candidate), but at some point, the fact that a few councillors cannot deliver meaningful change must be brought up, its unavoidable.

If treated like adults and as long as you actually listen to them, most people wont simply dismiss you if you say one ultimate hope they think is a bit cloud cuckoo, as it is what you actually do in the day-to-day struggles that is the important thing.

 

[dennisr]

the problem I see here dennis, is a contradiction between these two paragraphs (assuming that your answer to the second para is 'no').

I agree with the points you made. I don't see the contradiction though. I am saying I would be careful how I would raise such a demand for the very reasons you clarify. I am even being careful how I phrase things on this bulletin board. I wanted to push the debate to solutions though, ones that people see as necessary/achievable - that they will support, at this moment in time.

if the campaign for unionisation alongside explaination of the causes of the difficulties we all - indigenous and migrant - face leads to a recognition of the ultimate insanity of borders then so much the better imo.

like you say though, we have got to take people from where they are 'at' not where we may wish them to be. Just as borders, ultimately, should be abolished - the forced competition for jobs will never go away fully (all the solutions that are being put forward are only partial) - until we get rid of the system that causes the situation, imo - I am not expecting most folk to see that as possible let alone necessary at the present time. They can learn from their own experience weather it is either possible and/or necessary - through the initial act of defending their conditions at the moment. The question i was pushing is 'are immigration controls an effective way of defending ones conditions, wages etc?'

 

[e19896]

I hope this thread becomes an honest debate and when i first looked this morning it seems we are going that way.

So what are my thoughts, i go along the line of no borders very much so but here i come into conflict with my own stance on this.

How do you get across this argument from what we like to think as a left wing board some of the hidden racism i have seen in the form trivialising this subject has made me think that racism has penetrated into some elements of the left wing and i do come across a hard time when trying to explain no borders and why it is wrong for people to think and speak how they do even on here sadly

Give this some more thought as i'm hugging trees this afternoon.

 

[kyser_soze]

Camps.

And showers.






















(I'm going to hell for that, I know...)

 

[dennisr]

(I'm going to hell for that, I know...)

maybe stuck in limbo - endlessly and repeadedly filling in immigration papers, tied under lorry trailers, hanging onto train boogies, dieing of thurst in small boat, living in shite cramped accomodation not fit for a animal and robbed blind constantly by gang masters, traffikers and bosses, forced into prostitution, that sort of thing...

 

[kyser_soze]

There's lots of Kafka imagery on Urban today...

 

[SuburbanCasual]

Dennisr I think you've made some excellent points in your first few posts, and I would agree with most of what you say.

John Denham is not exagerrating about the situation in Southampton - around 10% of the city's population (the % of the workforce is even higher) is now Polish, up from just a few hundred in 2001. Meanwhile wages on building sites and in warehouses (a major employment sector in the city) have either stagnated or declined in the last few years, while unemployment among unskilled workers has risen drastically.

And ironically the Poles I know are already bricking it about the Romanians and Bulgarians that will soon be pouring in and are demanding stricter controls on them!

Meanwhile back in Poland, a mate of mine came back after christmas and reported that the jobs they had left behind are now being filled by Russians, Ukrainians, and even Nigerians!

To be honest I do think the floodwaters of mass forced migration in the interests of global capital have broken through certainly in the EU and North America, we have to accept that there is no going back, we have to accept these realities as a class and adapt to the current situation.

 

[dennisr]

Meanwhile wages on building sites and in warehouses (a major employment sector in the city) have either stagnated or declined in the last few years, while unemployment among unskilled workers has risen drastically.

Many of my mates in London work in the building trade as do most of my family (all live around Pompey) - and they all say the same thing. To an extent, the building trades have been more effected than most given the nature of the employment, poor or non-existent union organisation on sites etc - but it reflects a wider trend. Funnily enough the work being done to organise east-euro workers on the bigger sites in London is a good example of what is necessary, imo. Sadly, the initial reaction of many members of my family shows the dangers. Most of them have got the same view as you have expressed below now

To be honest I do think the floodwaters of mass forced migration in the interests of global capital have broken through certainly in the EU and North America, we have to accept that there is no going back, we have to accept these realities as a class and adapt to the current situation.

Fully agree - and by accepting that means bringing these workers into the organised class where ever possible as far as i can see. Its a point I had missed before, but one practical arguement against baldwin's idea of immigration controls must be "well, it a bit bloody late for that, isn't it"

It seems to me that its not some liberal do-gooder stand to argue for reaching out to migrant workers - its self-preservation for indigenous workers as well, looking after 'one's own' (that does not mean that one's own idea's of what 'one's own' means will not develop in the process). Its getting 'them' on board.

 

[SuburbanCasual]

Fully agree, I've recruited at least 12 East Europeans and a couple of afghans and Iraqis to the Union in the past.

I'll come back on my answer to border controls in a bit

 

[tbaldwin]

Fully agree - and by accepting that means bringing these workers into the organised class where ever possible as far as i can see. Its a point I had missed before, but one practical arguement against baldwin's idea of immigration controls must be "well, it a bit bloody late for that, isn't it"

QUOTE]

I think as Suburban Casual points out many of these recent migrants are genuinelly concerned about Rumanians and Bulgarians coming in and undercutting them..It would be a lot more practical.
For a long time it has been pointed out that a majority of people including Black and Asian people are strongly in favour of strict immigration controls.
The only place you will find a large majority against immigration controls is in sections of the middle and upper classes..

 

[e19896]

You know one is learning so much just reading this post and here is me thinking i was the hardcore anti racist meanwhile, in my own bourgeois existence, i know fuck all of every day life here in the uk and i just react because i know racism and the talk of immigration i hear from the right and the left is wrong. what one is reading here at this moment makes so much fucking sense that is common perhaps it is not about fist and boot that might be just a weakness of myself.

I need a shower.















Hope there aint gas there?

 

[dennisr]

I think as Suburban Casual points out many of these recent migrants are genuinelly concerned about Rumanians and Bulgarians coming in and undercutting them..It would be a lot more practical.

For a long time it has been pointed out that a majority of people including Black and Asian people are strongly in favour of strict immigration controls. The only place you will find a large majority against immigration controls is in sections of the middle and upper classes..

But Suburban draws a practical conclusion in his post as far as i can see. He says "we have to accept that there is no going back, we have to accept these realities as a class and adapt to the current situation."

I agree with your view of where the support for such controls are coming from. The question that arrises is: "is that the demand that is going to put the interests of working people in this country to the fore?", especially given that the immigration agenda is (off the top of my head...):

a) dominated by the right-wing media and therefore tied by a thousand threads to thier divisive bigotry
b) implemented (or 'would be' and has 'been in the past') by the employing class - so would be directed in their interests - the very interests that have led to the situation the rest of us face and would be presented in a way that talks of 'national' interest (hypocriticaly on the part of the money interested employers) tieing the emplyers interests to ours as working people
c) would push migrants further from indigenous workers by default of the way it will be presented
d) would create a even more expoiltable 'illegal' group of workers with even less rights and even less of a position to be organised independantly of the employers

I am not even argueing 'for' or 'against' controls in these points here. I simply cannot see any way in which such controls could be implimented independantly of the bosses. Except.... (see below) I am saying that it is not the main concern of working people indigenous or otherwise. The main concern - to defend our interests - must be to organise - independently of the employers - those workers. I simply cannot see how tieing our interests as workers to the coattails of the very people who have set themselves up to screw us is going to strengthen working people in this country.

It brings me to another point - surely the best way to impliment independant 'controls' would be to impose workers control - equal pay, equal rights though trade union struggle - this is what destroys the 'advantage' the employers have in using migrant labour? In the process of struggling for those equal rights, maybe, the divisive use of migrants could not only be cut across but turned on its head - used against the employers with a more militant section raising the confidence of wider section of the workforce pushing for its demands - a bit like the role of Latinos in the US at the present time. It isn't the first time the trade union movement in the UK has been re-newed by new migrants

What do you think?

 

[Gmart]

Let 'em work, they'll mostly go home in the end and the numbers mean that it's a non issue which the Daily Mail etc goes on about to stimulate racist readers.

 

[tbaldwin]

dennis r i think youve done us all a service on this...Cos it is about solutions rather than just slagging each other off.....Not that ive ever done such a thing you understand..............
I tried to put forward a positive view on my earlier post...I highlighted a bit of it to emphasise what i think.

 

[e19896]

Let 'em work, they'll mostly go home in the end and the numbers mean that it's a non issue which the Daily Mail etc goes on about to stimulate racist readers.

Yes you are right but also wrong in this context of course The likes of The (scum) Daily Mail go on about the subject to stimulate racist readers as you put it but what we need to be asking is why there is racist readers where that comes from are the left as much as the right pandering to this view with there continued coverage and to some extent debate of the issue i feel both are wrong here.

As said in an other post on much the same subject we need to be talking about education and get to the point where there are open borders therefor it then becomes an non argument and as such stops feeding either side.

dennisr and others have hit the nail on it,s head with this post.

 

[kyser_soze]

I reckon that some lefty group should start a kind of missionary service to devnats, taking the mantra of class solidarity and insistence on unionisation everywhere they go...could work...and loads of pasty urban types would get to see a bit of the world...

 

[dennisr]

I hope this thread becomes an honest debate and when i first looked this morning it seems we are going that way.

So what are my thoughts, i go along the line of no borders very much so but here i come into conflict with my own stance on this.

How do you get across this argument from what we like to think as a left wing board some of the hidden racism i have seen in the form trivialising this subject has made me think that racism has penetrated into some elements of the left wing and i do come across a hard time when trying to explain no borders and why it is wrong for people to think and speak how they do even on here sadly

Give this some more thought as i'm hugging trees this afternoon.

I don't think this site represents a fair view of the 'left' mate - certainly not the likes of baldwin's 'socialism'. Your view is one a lot of people would sympathise with here - even if they think it is impractical. Not in most of UK society though - as you have found out for yourself.

The rising fear of 'immigration', tied by a thousand threads to all the other divisive agendas is a genuine mood - one being developed by the bosses but, i've come to the conclusion, also a result of the increased insecurity and fighting over limited resources (that has been set up by the bosses). Its a fear of the use of immigration - often put in racist terms. On these boards it is mainly the repetition of a couple of individuals with endless threads though!!

Popular moods also affect those on the 'left' as well - it would be more surprising if such moods did not affect them, given they are part of the same society

As I said before - ultimately, in a perfect world i don't want any borders. I also don't want people to be forced to to travel thousands of miles in a desperate attempt to earn a living or people to face the insecurity of fighting over scarce services etc.

But how to we get ourselves to a point were borders and divisive competition evaporate? i would argue though linking the immediate interests of the majority of people to longer term interests pushes us all one step towards that possible future though people own activity and experience by engaging those people carefully - not condemning people for not understanding what understandably sounds like a pie in the sky utopian idea at present.

Good luck with the tree hugging

 

[dennisr]

I reckon that some lefty group should start a kind of missionary service to devnats, taking the mantra of class solidarity and insistence on unionisation everywhere they go...could work...and loads of pasty urban types would get to see a bit of the world...

I have avoided this for months mate - I feel forced into starting the missonary service myself becasue some of those pasty types just would not "let it lay".

I would rather I didn't have to - it feels a bit like stating the bleedin' obvious again and again and again, ho humm

 

[e19896]

Popular moods also affect those on the 'left' as well - it would be more surprising if such moods did not affect them, given they are part of the same society

Good luck with the tree hugging

The tree huging did not happen and you know what in my 25 years i have not seen Popular moods take over the left thoughts and actions perhaps at the grand old age of 41 25 years of being active i have become more open to seeing what i would have not before would it not be easy to put head down turn of drop out as i have seen so moust good people do over the last few years just go into there own feel sad is just not the half of my rage i tell you.

 

[kyser_soze]

I have avoided this for months mate - I feel forced into starting the missonary service myself becasue some of those pasty types just would not "let it lay".

I would rather I didn't have to - it feels a bit like stating the bleedin' obvious again and again and again, ho humm

Thing is, while it's obviously decried as 'shibboleth' by some, for socialism to succeed it would have to tap into at least part of the energy that religion taps - especially WRT to establishing the idea of the global, unified working class (example - the idea of the umma in Islam, that even tho you might be a different bit of Islam, ultimately you're still Islamic), and I doubt that without the internal faith and strength that comes from that same religious energy.

So what you have to do is create something that has 'enlightened faith' in a way...