The Independents Immigration lies....

[ViolentPanda]

The 70s fuck me what a Johnny come lately.....Did you miss the 30s and the rise of Fascism.......No excuses now.......Just tell us the truth......

I wasn't around for the 30s, you spoon.

You (according to the age you reckon you are) were around during the late 70s and the 80s, so a Johnny-come-lately you are, wouldn't you say?

 

[ViolentPanda]

balder's socialism as only on here seen as wierd .. in the real world it is seen as quite normal .. it is what most people see as Old Labour / Social Democratic .. a left wing state that plans leads etc etc that is not RUN by the bosses .. he actually belives in, that peoples fighting for reforms we will move us more surely to socialism that the lefts blanquist/leninist stuntism and elitism ..

now IF you want to slag off TB it is on this grounds and these alone that you have ANY right

his opposition to current immigration is quite rightly based upon the fact that it is clearly purely a tool of the bosses to cut wages ( to deal with the threat of the far east) ..

the idea that he is racist or right wing is frankly ludicrous .. and only a middle class liberal could come to that conclusion

your categorisation of TB as right wing actually shows HOW DEEPLY neo liberalist/thatcherite ideology has permeated into the left wing movement where leftwingers are championning individuals rights to be part of an immigration which is clearly designed to undercut w/c communities .. and opposing Trade Unions / working class people who fight for their collectives against this attack .. tragic ..

You really do go in all guns blazing and without a fact in your head, don't you?

I'm a reasonable person, so I'll forego your egregious ignorance and arrogance and address you point by point:

"Balders' socialism".
It's very easy for you (and indeed for balders) to make the claim that "most people" agree with you, and if you follow your usual lackadaisical trajectory you'll next make some anile comment about how "blokes in the pub" would agree with you.
Well hoorah for you, you've got an unquantifiedly representative sample of humanity to agree with you, and in a non-neutral site such as a boozer no less!
None of that means a damn. What matters isn't what you say balders believes, what you attempt to articulate for him, what matters is what balders says.
Ever heard the phrase "damned by his own words"?

"Opposition to immigration".
You can't see the wood for the trees, can you? You're so busy and so fixated on this single factor of some immigrants being used to undercut local labour that you're quite happy to tar all immigrants with the same brush and submit all immigraion to the strictures you desire.

"The idea that he is racist or fascist".
Tell you what, post me up proof that I've actually claimed he's that rather than me telling him that sdome of the political solutions he favours are very similar to those used by racists and fascists and I'll admit I'm out of line.
If you can't do so, then there are two things you can do for me:
1) apologise, and
2) shut the fuck up throwing bullshit claims around.
Deal?

"Categorisation".
To paraphrase mandy Rice Davies; "Well you would say that, wouldn't you?", he's your mate, you're being loyal to him, so parroting his bollocks is something you'd do even if you didn't believe it yourself.

 

[ViolentPanda]

shh, dont mention the facts!

Whoops!

Sorry about that.

I forgot that stuff like facts can cause cognitive dissonance in some people.

 

[bluestreak]

Yes. He is. He know's he is. He is saying that stopping poor people from coming to the UK is an attack on the poor.

alright then, i'm going to explain this once more.

immigration, while being in general a good thing, has it's downside. this is that mass immigration is used by the boss class to keep wages down - after all if a foreign worker can earn more by working for less than a british worker, why the fuck not!

so the british worker can take three options. 1. he can work for less or go on the dole. 2. he can work towards stopping immigration. 3. he can say to the immigrant labourer "hey you there johnny foreigner. you're being exploited by our standards and forcing us brits to be exploited too. why don't we join forces and unionise and than all our wages will go up?"

ups & downs

1. well, you get more free time but you're skint and could lose everything and that sucks.

2. well, no more foreign workers but theres always the threat, and you have no way of controling your labour anyway and no protection from further exploitation. and all the wonderful things about immigration are lost too, which can be very socially stagnating. and those poor sods in poland are forced to keep working for even less, thus denying them the chance for personal advancement.

3. more of the pie for everyone (except the bosses, but to be honest they'll still probably get more than their fair share for less work), a vibrant society, protection from future exploitation etc. no downsides off the top of my head.


so which would you choose?

1 seems a bit of a non-starter really.

2 seems a bit silly really, you play into the bosses' hands, you leave yourself weak and open to exploitation, you risk monoculture.

3. win win situation.

reasons for not picking the obviously best situation can include:

1. a thatcherite dislike of unionised labour and an effective working class movement.

2. racism and/or xenophobia

3. liking monoculture - without realising that british culture has been shaped by immigration since time immemmorial.


feel free to add some more, but make sure you explain properly cos if the logic doesn't progress they ain't going on the list.

 

[bluestreak]

In the 90s when the BNP and Combat 18 were gaining ground there were lots of people who might claim to be militant anti fascists.....But only about 40 in London who actually took them on and stopped them from organising.....
A few others like AFA played some part.. I think id know most of those 40 and also anyone who was involved in AFA for any length of time.......

I definetely dont think many people on U75 have ever been that involved in anti fascism.....

Do you mean Searchlight on the photos?

but there were others who simply fought nazis without being part of any of these groups. i've known a few in my time. and getting into a fist fight with a nazi counts for some people too, even better when they win!

and there are plenty of people for whom anti fascism doesn't involve physical fighting - you may disagree, but leafleting, vandalism, joining the ANL, street protests or actions etc were all done in various ways by many many urbanites and non urbanites too! don't dismiss then just because they weren't physically fighting - some of us were / are pacifists!

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm broadly in favour of 3 as well, but feel that it's necessary to take into account a couple more problems with it;

1) cultural barriers make it harder to establish solidarity, particularly where workers are being hired as a group and might all speak the same languages as each other, but not be that conversant in English

2) if there is a continuous turnover of workers from elsewhere, all of whom are prepared to stick it for a couple of years in shitty conditions before taking their pile of money back to wherever to buy a house, then the commonality of interest between them and the local workers is weakened considerably; firstly because any gains which are made as the result of a long-haul aren't going to benefit people who are only working in the short-term (in fact if you're trying to save up a particular sum as fast as possible for a deposit or whatever, the last thing you want is time off on strike), secondly because due to exchange rates the money represents more real value to them - or at least the portion of it that they'll be spending elsewhere does, and thirdly because whatever the conditions they work under they don't have the same imperative to action that a local worker does - i.e. that without it nothing will ever get better. If you have a bunch of people who know that things will improve drastically once they bugger off home again, then its going to be a lot harder to convince them that industrial action is worthwhile in terms of their personal interest.

Don't think any of this is necessarily insurmountable, but it definitely needs to be borne in mind.

 

[tbaldwin]

but there were others who simply fought nazis without being part of any of these groups. i've known a few in my time. and getting into a fist fight with a nazi counts for some people too, even better when they win!

and there are plenty of people for whom anti fascism doesn't involve physical fighting - you may disagree, but leafleting, vandalism, joining the ANL, street protests or actions etc were all done in various ways by many many urbanites and non urbanites too! don't dismiss then just because they weren't physically fighting - some of us were / are pacifists!

Yeah...I think youve got a fair point.....I suppose that i clumsily waded in cos im kind of defending my views against people who either pretend that im some closet racist or actually really believe it?
People who know me.know that im nothing of the sort.

 

[tbaldwin]

I wasn't around for the 30s, you spoon.

You (according to the age you reckon you are) were around during the late 70s and the 80s, so a Johnny-come-lately you are, wouldn't you say?

I was in AFA in the late 80s...They were OK but the 90s was a time when i think i was just a bit more effective after a few of us brokeaway and did our ownthingy....Which caused the BNP a few sleepless nights!!!!

 

[TonkaToy]

alright then, i'm going to explain this once more.

immigration, while being in general a good thing, has it's downside. this is that mass immigration is used by the boss class to keep wages down - after all if a foreign worker can earn more by working for less than a british worker, why the fuck not!

so the british worker can take three options. 1. he can work for less or go on the dole. 2. he can work towards stopping immigration. 3. he can say to the immigrant labourer "hey you there johnny foreigner. you're being exploited by our standards and forcing us brits to be exploited too. why don't we join forces and unionise and than all our wages will go up?"

ups & downs

1. well, you get more free time but you're skint and could lose everything and that sucks.

2. well, no more foreign workers but theres always the threat, and you have no way of controling your labour anyway and no protection from further exploitation. and all the wonderful things about immigration are lost too, which can be very socially stagnating. and those poor sods in poland are forced to keep working for even less, thus denying them the chance for personal advancement.

3. more of the pie for everyone (except the bosses, but to be honest they'll still probably get more than their fair share for less work), a vibrant society, protection from future exploitation etc. no downsides off the top of my head.


so which would you choose?

1 seems a bit of a non-starter really.

2 seems a bit silly really, you play into the bosses' hands, you leave yourself weak and open to exploitation, you risk monoculture.

3. win win situation.

reasons for not picking the obviously best situation can include:

1. a thatcherite dislike of unionised labour and an effective working class movement.

2. racism and/or xenophobia

3. liking monoculture - without realising that british culture has been shaped by immigration since time immemmorial.


feel free to add some more, but make sure you explain properly cos if the logic doesn't progress they ain't going on the list.

But a lot of people don't want fucking unions for loads of reasons. Besides, even if the jobs were unionised it doesn't stop

A) Workers demanding MORE than their worth in a global market.

B) Too many worker chasing too few jobs.

AND besides, STILL, no one in the OB crowd has explained how a social security system should treat foreigners who have just got here.

 

[belboid]

But a lot of people don't want fucking unions for loads of reasons.

fuck them then - scabby cunts

Besides, even if the jobs were unionised it doesn't stop

A) Workers demanding MORE than their worth in a global market.

B) Too many worker chasing too few jobs.

AND besides, STILL, no one in the OB crowd has explained how a social security system should treat foreigners who have just got here.

a) the global market is bollocks tho, and workers never get the full fruits of their labours in this system

b) their are neither too many workers nor too few jobs, thats merely a useful way to maintain the system to keep us fighting one another instead of bosses

c) they should get full benefits rights and entitlements same as everyone else - no to divide and rule.

Simple really

 

[bluestreak]

i'll put you down as an opponant of working class organisation then.

when workers demand more than they're worth, the company will go out of business. plenty of people will tell you that the reason immigration labour puts brits out of work is because the brits demand more than they're worth in the global marketplace.

what's OB? i haven't worked that one out yet.

plenty of people have explained theories on social security on urban many times. again the problem here is with the way the state is dealing with it rather than the amount of immigrants. for example, why have a situation where a person can't work but has to receive hadnouts- it's unequal. IME most want to work and many of them have to wait ages for legal clearance, leaving them to do illegal work or sit on the dole, both of which play into the haters' hands.

i've worked for charities that try and help refugees and whatnot, and all the state will let them do is sit in hostels on the dole. stupid!

 

[TonkaToy]

fuck them then - scabby cunts


a) the global market is bollocks tho, and workers never get the full fruits of their labours in this system

b) their are neither too many workers nor too few jobs, thats merely a useful way to maintain the system to keep us fighting one another instead of bosses

c) they should get full benefits rights and entitlements same as everyone else - no to divide and rule.

Simple really

A) Belboid, whatever you think of the global market, this country has to compete in such a market, if we are stay in the developed world.

B) No you're talking socialist bollocks. You're talking about employing people with artificial jobs, that would be an absolute disaster for this country in a global market, because it would increase the tax burden thus making it even harder for this country to compete in a global market.

c) You don't care about the cost, that would be crazy - free healthcare, social security and healthcare for ANYONE in the world who can get here - would increase the tax burden on everyone else including businesses which would just make it harder for our country to compete in a global market.

Belboid - sorry but you don't seem to be capable of facing the realities of a 21st century global economy...and it certainly doesn't take an expert to tell you that.

You're too idealist and you just can't bend with reality which is why your ideas break.

If in my ideal world no one would work...but guess what? My ideal world doesn't exist.

 

[TonkaToy]

i'll put you down as an opponant of working class organisation then.

when workers demand more than they're worth, the company will go out of business. plenty of people will tell you that the reason immigration labour puts brits out of work is because the brits demand more than they're worth in the global marketplace.

what's OB? i haven't worked that one out yet.

plenty of people have explained theories on social security on urban many times. again the problem here is with the way the state is dealing with it rather than the amount of immigrants. for example, why have a situation where a person can't work but has to receive hadnouts- it's unequal. IME most want to work and many of them have to wait ages for legal clearance, leaving them to do illegal work or sit on the dole, both of which play into the haters' hands.

i've worked for charities that try and help refugees and whatnot, and all the state will let them do is sit in hostels on the dole. stupid!

And what if that company is the government / state?

And what about the army of small companies that have less than say 10 employees, but make up a huge chunk of the economy? Would you love to force unions on to them?

There is a reason why people skip France on the way here...and it's not because they can't wait to meet people like you...it's because France has suffocated free enterprise.

 

[TonkaToy]

OB - Open Borders.

 

[durruti02]

You really do go in all guns blazing and without a fact in your head, don't you?

I'm a reasonable person, so I'll forego your egregious ignorance and arrogance and address you point by point:

"Balders' socialism".
It's very easy for you (and indeed for balders) to make the claim that "most people" agree with you, and if you follow your usual lackadaisical trajectory you'll next make some anile comment about how "blokes in the pub" would agree with you.
Well hoorah for you, you've got an unquantifiedly representative sample of humanity to agree with you, and in a non-neutral site such as a boozer no less!
None of that means a damn. What matters isn't what you say balders believes, what you attempt to articulate for him, what matters is what balders says.
Ever heard the phrase "damned by his own words"?

"Opposition to immigration".
You can't see the wood for the trees, can you? You're so busy and so fixated on this single factor of some immigrants being used to undercut local labour that you're quite happy to tar all immigrants with the same brush and submit all immigraion to the strictures you desire.

"The idea that he is racist or fascist".
Tell you what, post me up proof that I've actually claimed he's that rather than me telling him that sdome of the political solutions he favours are very similar to those used by racists and fascists and I'll admit I'm out of line.
If you can't do so, then there are two things you can do for me:
1) apologise, and
2) shut the fuck up throwing bullshit claims around.
Deal?

"Categorisation".
To paraphrase mandy Rice Davies; "Well you would say that, wouldn't you?", he's your mate, you're being loyal to him, so parroting his bollocks is something you'd do even if you didn't believe it yourself.

i am not sure you have ever suggestted TB was racist or facist .. you have slagged him a few times .. and i have never called you a m/c liberal .. that sentance was a generallity aimed at the fact that plenty of others have .. if YOU took that as aimed at you .. apology

HOWEVER , as you well know, his suggestions are NOT racist or facist but old labour ..

and it is bullshit ( when you know this ) to smear by association OK?

and please how many times .. " ..tar all immigrants with the same brush and submit all immigration to the strictures you desire..."

i tar NO immigrants .. i argue that immigration is being used to create a low wage economy of the type supported by digby jones and norman tebbit

i have NO ( anti immihgration ) strictures ( where do you get that from?? ) ... bar a revival of basic trade unionism .. and that the unions are NOT afraid to oppose this neo liberal process thru some bullshit anti racism .. that actually stokes racism

 

[belboid]

A) Belboid, whatever you think of the global market, this country has to compete in such a market, if we are stay in the developed world.

B) No you're talking socialist bollocks. You're talking about employing people with artificial jobs, that would be an absolute disaster for this country in a global market, because it would increase the tax burden thus making it even harder for this country to compete in a global market.

c) You don't care about the cost, that would be crazy - free healthcare, social security and healthcare for ANYONE in the world who can get here - would increase the tax burden on everyone else including businesses which would just make it harder for our country to compete in a global market.

Belboid - sorry but you don't seem to be capable of facing the realities of a 21st century global economy...and it certainly doesn't take an expert to tell you that.

You're too idealist and you just can't bend with reality which is why your ideas break.

If in my ideal world no one would work...but guess what? My ideal world doesn't exist.

or we could just fuck the whole system all this bullshit is based on off and create a better and fairer one. the only alternative is dog eat dog and disaster

 

[tbaldwin]

i am not sure you have ever suggestted TB was racist or facist .. HOWEVER , as you well know, his suggestions are NOT racist or facist but old labour ..

and it is bullshit ( when you know this ) to smear by association OK?

Definetely not OLD LABOUR durrutti.....I think they were preety shit in loads of ways....look at some of the shit housing they built....they paved the way for thatcherism in my view......I dont like Blair but id rather have him than a cretin like Roy Hattersley etc.....

Old Labours a wicked smear......

 

[TonkaToy]

or we could just fuck the whole system all this bullshit is based on off and create a better and fairer one. the only alternative is dog eat dog and disaster

Like I said, nothing personal, but you're too much of an idealist. You can't and never will control the global economy and every single other country out there. We have to compete in that global economy, it's no use taking courses of action based on ideals that would only work under 1 global world order that doesn't even exist and most probably would never exist.

Belboid, how you think that you we could have a free for all social security system, health care and all the rest of it AND allow anyone from anywhere in the world to use it, without any of that destabilizing our economy - is breathtaking.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was in AFA in the late 80s...They were OK but the 90s was a time when i think i was just a bit more effective after a few of us brokeaway and did our ownthingy....Which caused the BNP a few sleepless nights!!!!

AFA, fondly known (due to the supposed predelictions of some of their members) as "after-football aggro".

 

[tbaldwin]

AFA, fondly known (due to the supposed predelictions of some of their members) as "after-football aggro".

A lot of x and not so x football hooligans were involved which i always saw as a good thing.....I think it helped being streetwise and not being scared of some of the pathetic twats on the other side.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i am not sure you have ever suggestted TB was racist or facist .. you have slagged him a few times .. and i have never called you a m/c liberal .. that sentance was a generallity aimed at the fact that plenty of others have .. if YOU took that as aimed at you .. apology

Fair enough

HOWEVER , as you well know, his suggestions are NOT racist or facist but old labour ..

Agreed. What we disagree on is direction. I say he's old labour right-centrist, he says he's old labour left and yet he's derogatory about just about all the old labour left.

and it is bullshit ( when you know this ) to smear by association OK?

I'll stop doing it if you will, but I really can't see you managing to get over your addiction to accusing whole swathes of people who disagree with you of being "liberals".

and please how many times .. " ..tar all immigrants with the same brush and submit all immigration to the strictures you desire..."

i tar NO immigrants .. i argue that immigration is being used to create a low wage economy of the type supported by digby jones and norman tebbit

Have another look at the sentence of yours that that comment arose from. Read it with a neutral eye, and then tell me you haven't written something that tars everyone with the same brush.

i have NO ( anti immihgration ) strictures ( where do you get that from?? ) ... bar a revival of basic trade unionism .. and that the unions are NOT afraid to oppose this neo liberal process thru some bullshit anti racism .. that actually stokes racism

You say all the right words.

Unfortunately you appear to say them in the wrong order.

 

[bluestreak]

tonkabout, you're so confused. one minute you're a free market neoliberal thatcherite, the next you're a concerned "support the working man's battle against liberal oppression" type.

but your arguments are so full of holes... you have no consistency. you didn;t explain even thoughn i've asked you at least twice how you reconcile your continued support of thatcherite economics with your anti-immigration stance.

basically what has happened is that we've reached the point as most conversations do when you're involved where rational and consisten people are no longer able to argue with you because it's like trying to juggle water or nail jelly to the ceiling.

you demand a global economy but with special protection rights for british citizens but accuse others of being idealists!

you complain about how immigration is putting brits out of business but you support anti-unionism and anything that stands in the way of the boss class.

basically mateyboy, you're full of crap and as far as im comcerned we've reached the point where i can't carry this on. theres no point. youre so full of hate for anyone who tries to make the world better for the poor, your arguments make no sense when challenged deeply, and to be quite frank i can't be arsed anymore.

 

[laptop]

tonkabout, you're so confused. one minute you're a free market neoliberal thatcherite, the next you're a concerned "support the working man's battle against liberal oppression" type.

Classic sign of a low-quality troll, yes?

 

[TonkaToy]

tonkabout, you're so confused. one minute you're a free market neoliberal thatcherite, the next you're a concerned "support the working man's battle against liberal oppression" type.

I'm working fucking class myself. What makes you think that a Thatcherite can't care about the EVERYONE?

but your arguments are so full of holes... you have no consistency. you didn;t explain even thoughn i've asked you at least twice how you reconcile your continued support of thatcherite economics with your anti-immigration stance.

Very simply, because open borders would only have a chance of working without any social security + free healthcare + state pension system

No one has explained for a minute how the fuck the country could afford to give anyone and everyone that comes here, social security, health care and housing.

basically what has happened is that we've reached the point as most conversations do when you're involved where rational and consisten people are no longer able to argue with you because it's like trying to juggle water or nail jelly to the ceiling.

Rational? No one, including you, has explained how the country could possibly afford social welfare for all and sundry that come here. It's you who wants something different than what we have. Every other country in the world has immigration controls. Not because they all hate working class people or are racist, because they need controls.

Now you want Britain to do what no other country has done. Open borders + welfare.

It's you that has all the convincing and the talking to do. I don't have to justify the realities and rememdies every country on the planet uses.

As for the tired old apples and oranges argument about free movement of capital. On case you haven't noticed, money is not a living organism. It can be controlled a lot more easier than humans and it can be controlled ruthlessly.

If a US dollar becomes worthless you can just chuck out the window. Or exchange it on. You can't do that with people.

you demand a global economy but with special protection rights for british citizens but accuse others of being idealists!

I don't demand a global economy, it just exists, it's there and there is very little we can do to control it, we just have to deal with it.

That globoal economy has nations, all with their own controlled immigration rules.

you complain about how immigration is putting brits out of business but you support anti-unionism and anything that stands in the way of the boss class.

Unions can be very dangerous, but that's a completly different thread. Just because I have little time for unions, it does not mean I support "anything that standds in the way of the boss class"

basically mateyboy, you're full of crap and as far as im comcerned we've reached the point where i can't carry this on. theres no point. youre so full of hate for anyone who tries to make the world better for the poor, your arguments make no sense when challenged deeply

You just can't handle me. If you could, you would have basically answered the questions that belboid couldn't or wouldn't answer. My arguments don't make sense to you because you're an idealist. You think that capitalists have to be 100% free market corporate whores. They don't. Just because I oppose your solutions and am pro market, it doesn't mean I have to be as idealist as you when it comes to my politics. I don't have to support a complete free unregulated market to be a Thatcherite. Less rather more regulations might be good, it doesn't mean that no regulations is best.

The problem with you, is that you see everything in extreme black and white. There is no grey areas for you.

, and to be quite frank i can't be arsed anymore.

You never even really tried.

 

[bluestreak]

(((tonka toy)))

i'll ask you for the fourth time, if you can't answer me properly i think i've proved my point.

how do you reconcile your thatcherite economic politics with your belief in immigration control when thatcherite and neoliberal economic policy require large scale immigration of in order to sustain economic growth?

just one question that you refuse to answer. up until the last post i've taken every single post of yours and answered it as long as you still make sense. and if you think i can't handle you you're only deluding yourself mate.

just one question, come on, you can answer it if you can handle it.

 

[TonkaToy]

(((tonka toy)))

i'll ask you for the fourth time, if you can't answer me properly i think i've proved my point.

how do you reconcile your thatcherite economic politics with your belief in immigration control when thatcherite and neoliberal economic policy require large scale immigration of in order to sustain economic growth?

<snip>

Quite simply, I disagree that large scale immigration is needed to sustain economic growth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quite simply, I disagree that large scale immigration is needed to sustain economic growth.

Which begs the question;

What do you consider to be "large-scale"?

 

[TonkaToy]

Which begs the question;

What do you consider to be "large-scale"?

Anything that's a single person over and above the amount of people that are leaving Britain.

 

[Anotherfolky]

Indeed it is. Still, to be told that 'we' need to get of our backsides and work for much lower wages by multi-millionaire 'Sir' Digby Cuntface is about as irritating as can possibly be envisaged.

Now now be fair theres no doubt that Mr Digby really believes that WE should be paid less. However I fail to see what the difference is between complaints about immigration now and immigration 50 years ago, if theres a problem with wages that should be the focus i.e stopping the undercutting of 'our' standards of living

 

[Anotherfolky]

Are they "swamping" us?

Whos us?