SWP expulsions and squabbles

[SpineyNorman]

Do I need your permission?

Are you being deliberately stupid? You made that post in reply to mine, clearly implying that it had some relevance to what I said, that it refuted something I'd said. Admit it - you assumed I was making a completely different argument from the one I was making.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I have been trying!

You keep responding.

 

[sihhi]

I'm not an apologist for Cesar Chavez, he pretty clearly destroyed the UFW because he had some bizarre quasi-religious ideas (reading about the role of The Game in the union is bizarre!) about what a union should be. He had some very, very strange ideas and his ostensible anti-Communism was as much about having an excuse to get rid of people who opposed his bizarre ideas about turning the union into some sort of commune/social movement.

Then don't cite a UFW history as proving the need for migration control!

Yes, there was a history of militant agricultural labour in California prior to the end of the bracero programme but it was distinctly unsuccessful, in fact the literature on the subject is pretty unanimous about quite how unsuccessful it was compared with elsewhere in the Western world. Agricultural workers had to wait until 1975 to benefit from legislation equivalent to those given to industrial workers in 1935.

It was unsuccessful in part because it was so divided by country of origin. Not too far from the present day case with temporary Slovakian and Polish asparagus pickers versus British pickers now, although there are the general problems of massive large areas, workplaces and strikebreaking options in supply chains etc.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You keep responding.

So do you.

 

[sihhi]

And if people were calling for open borders, with the qualification that the allocation of work would be in the hands of the unions, I'd not have a problem. They're not though - it's an unqualified call for open borders. You have to be careful about this stuff when there's not enough jobs, homes, etc for everyone.

And if that's really the SWP open borders position it might be a good idea for them to tell the membership.

Yes, I agree, but an unqualified call for 'open borders controlled by unions' will lead to the scenario of "bourgeois" (as you called them) unions in Germany collaborating heavily with German capital to ensure a skill-split workforce in the factories, defending the skilled workforce, dumping further on the unskilled component.

 

[audiotech]

Are you being deliberately stupid? You made that post in reply to mine, clearly implying that it had some relevance to what I said, that it refuted something I'd said. Admit it - you assumed I was making a completely different argument from the one I was making.

You are against open borders and for workers immigration controls. Is that it?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, I agree, but an unqualified call for 'open borders controlled by unions' will lead to the scenario of "bourgeois" (as you called them) unions in Germany collaborating heavily with German capital to ensure a skill-split workforce in the factories, defending the skilled workforce, dumping further on the unskilled component.

Not if you add in what you said about including unions in other countries.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You are against open borders and for workers immigration controls. Is that it?

I'm not against open borders full stop. But I'm only for open borders under current circumstances if it comes with workers control of the allocation of work and resources.

 

[audiotech]

I'll leave it there.

 

[belboid]

I'm not against open borders full stop. But I'm only for open borders under current circumstances if it comes with workers control of the allocation of work and resources.

ie, you're a bit all over the shop

Its funny how workers militias are just silly whilst union control of work is just dandy.

But yeah, I'll leave it there. We need some better bloody stuff than one SWSS statement to talk about!

 

[sihhi]

Not if you add in what you said about including unions in other countries.

The problem of course becomes that almost always whenever capital does need immigrant labour from a particular source the bourgeois unions in the receiver country have greater density/more of a collaborative relationship compared to the state of unions in the labour emitting country. Hence it is very easy for the strong to dictate to the weak all with the trade union fig-leaf, so that militants in both countries.

Out of interest, what is the Pakistan CWI position on Pakistani overstayers in Britain? A search for immmigration on the website gives nothing.

 

[SpineyNorman]

ie, you're a bit all over the shop

Its funny how workers militias are just silly whilst union control of work is just dandy.

But yeah, I'll leave it there. We need some better bloody stuff than one SWSS statement to talk about!

Hey, what can I say? It's not so long since I was just one of yer stupid workers so my consciousness is bound to be a little flawed.

There are differences between those two though - an important one being that one of them will likely get you shot and the other won't.

 

[sihhi]

Its funny how workers militias are just silly whilst union control of work is just dandy.

That did me lol. It's a good point.

 

[sihhi]

There are differences between those two though - an important one being that one of them will likely get you shot and the other won't.

If union control over work is effective it can get you shot/arrested in the process of trying to achieve it - remember that you're talking about a union imposing a union-run hiring agenda onto a management, not simply a closed shop principle of everyone who works here must be a union member.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The problem of course becomes that almost always whenever capital does need immigrant labour from a particular source the bourgeois unions in the receiver country have greater density/more of a collaborative relationship compared to the state of unions in the labour emitting country. Hence it is very easy for the strong to dictate to the weak all with the trade union fig-leaf, so that militants in both countries.

Then the issue is about democratising the unions - and I'd be more hopeful of success in that than I would be in democratising the state.

Out of interest, what is the Pakistan CWI position on Pakistani overstayers in Britain? A search for immmigration on the website gives nothing.

If I had to guess it would be to defend their right to stay but I've not seen anything about that specifically so can't say for sure - can find out for you if you're really interested though?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Out of interest, what is the Pakistan CWI position on Pakistani overstayers in Britain? A search for immmigration on the website gives nothing.

I very much doubt if they have one, other than the standard issue opposition to all deportations common to all CWI sections. The CWI is in favour of open borders - it just thinks that posing the issue in those terms rather than by concentrating on solidarity with those threatened by anti-migrant laws will be counterproductive in current circumstances. It plays into the hands of bigots.

I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, by the way. Can we take it to another thread please? Here's a distraction for you all of slightly more relevance: Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality". This should have bolshiebhoy jumping up and down with glee.

 

[SpineyNorman]

If union control over work is effective it can get you shot/arrested in the process of trying to achieve it - remember that you're talking about a union imposing a union-run hiring agenda onto a management, not simply a closed shop principle of everyone who works here must be a union member.

This is a derail of a derail of a derail so I don't want to dwell on it for too long, but unions have managed this (albeit imperfectly) without people getting shot.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality".

This is what we've all been waiting for!

 

[belboid]

Hey, what can I say? It's not so long since I was just one of yer stupid workers so my consciousness is bound to be a little flawed.

They're your thick workers I'm afraid.

There are differences between those two though - an important one being that one of them will likely get you shot and the other won't.

saying you want a workers militia will get you shot? No it wont. They'll both just get you looked at a bit funny

 

[SpineyNorman]

Trying to actually set one up will.

 

[belboid]

Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality". This should have bolshiebhoy jumping up and down with glee.

phew, just when I thought I might have to go back to writing my job application...

 

[belboid]

Trying to actually set one up will.

Not even the IBT are that silly...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't think Seymour's piece on intersectionality is as awful as half the people here will be hoping. In particular, his reframing of the term as a way to raise an important set of questions rather than as a theoretical solution undermines many of the more objectionable parts of the concept as it is often deployed.

 

[J Ed]

I very much doubt if they have one, other than the standard issue opposition to all deportations common to all CWI sections. The CWI is in favour of open borders - it just thinks that posing the issue in those terms rather than by concentrating on solidarity with those threatened by anti-migrant laws will be counterproductive in current circumstances. It plays into the hands of bigots.

I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, by the way. Can we take it to another thread please? Here's a distraction for you all of slightly more relevance: Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality". This should have bolshiebhoy jumping up and down with glee.

Just read it. Seymour is a really, really bad writer.

 

[sihhi]

Then the issue is about democratising the unions - and I'd be more hopeful of success in that than I would be in democratising the state.

Yes, democratising the unions is a crucial aim and (in the weaker/poorer country at least, if not the stronger country) it might have to involve belboid's point about workers' militia - unions often having been set up precisely as yellow unions and functioning as such due to legal resitrictions.

If I had to guess it would be to defend their right to stay but I've not seen anything about that specifically so can't say for sure - can find out for you if you're really interested though?

In which case that's once again 'open borders'.

If you want to carry on your quibble about the SWP (and its splits) stand on open borders it would be an idea to present the complete CWI approach - so we can compare and contrast - it might be interesting.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, democratising the unions is a crucial aim and (in the weaker/poorer country at least, if not the stronger country) it might have to involve belboid's point about workers' militia - unions often having been set up precisely as yellow unions and functioning as such due to legal resitrictions.


In which case that's once again 'open borders'.

If you want to carry on your quibble about the SWP (and its splits) stand on open borders it would be an idea to present the complete CWI approach - so we can compare and contrast - it might be interesting.

I think that's probably something for another thread. Could be a good debate - when I can set aside an hour or 2 to present it properly I probably will.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In which case that's once again 'open borders'.

The CWI is in favour of open borders. Where it differs from some others on the far left is that it thinks that in many circumstances posing the issue in that way will be counterproductive and will stir up fear rather than encourage solidarity. It also differs from those who think that genuine open borders can come about under capitalism rather than as part of a transition to socialism.

If you want to carry on your quibble about the SWP (and its splits) stand on open borders it would be an idea to...

... go to a more appropriate thread and discuss it there.

 

[electric.avenue]

Supermarket managers are generally cunts, not forgetting the obsequious, two-faced, backstabbing management-wannabe toads in supervisory roles. And I've got five more years' worth of experience than you!

Don't know about your spot, but it's becoming more degree-level oriented for entry into management training, whereas years ago it could be quite easy for those deemed promising and without much in the way of formal qualifications to work their way up to GM level through an internal fast-track program.

It's disgusting that you have to have a degree now to get almost any reasonable job. Interesting to see vintage teenage mags from the seventies with plenty of ads trying to tempt readers to get a few O levels and then apply to work in their bank or whatever, with training, opportunities and reasonable pay.

 

[belboid]

I don't think Seymour's piece on intersectionality is as awful as half the people here will be hoping. In particular, his reframing of the term as a way to raise an important set of questions rather than as a theoretical solution undermines many of the more objectionable parts of the concept as it is often deployed.

No, its a fairly pretentious but bland piece really. Not unlike the criticism of post-modernism as a whole - it may provide a useful tool or two, but isnt a new way of resolving anything.

 

[sihhi]

I very much doubt if they have one, other than the standard issue opposition to all deportations common to all CWI sections. The CWI is in favour of open borders - it just thinks that posing the issue in those terms rather than by concentrating on solidarity with those threatened by anti-migrant laws will be counterproductive in current circumstances.

Glad you've expressed in those terms. I agree, as it goes, just spiney choosing point 5 to pounce on started this thing.
I might try a thread about Romanians/Bulgarians and British multiple house-owners in Bulgaria, if I can think of a useful way in.