Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?

[nino_savatte]

A couple of useful quotes from Anderson.

"The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations. No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet.

"It is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destorying the legitamcy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the allomorphism between each faith's ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state.

Nation-states can no longer claim to be divinely formed and the ruler can no longer lay claim to be the most pious person in the world and, because of that, his/her country enjoys some form of divine protection not available to others.

"Finally, it is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.

http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm

As I said earlier, national identity has to be projected onto citizens, they do not create national identities for themselves as they are more likely to identify themselves more closely with their environs. "Your country needs you" screams the poster. Of course it needs you but it has no other use for you other than to serve as cannon fodder for its wars.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As I said earlier, national identity has to be projected onto citizens, they do not create national identities for themselves as they are more likely to identify themselves more closely with their environs. "Your country needs you" screams the poster. Of course it needs you but it has no other use for you other than to serve as cannon fodder for its wars.

Durkheim, Weber and many other early sociologists observed the way that a state would attempt to formulate (and later modify) an acceptable "national identity" that fitted with the aims of that state, an exercise states still attempt to this day, although without in some cases, the added props of widespread religious observance and relative political naivety which served the state so well in the past.

 

[nino_savatte]

Durkheim, Weber and many other early sociologists observed the way that a state would attempt to formulate (and later modify) an acceptable "national identity" that fitted with the aims of that state, an exercise states still attempt to this day, although without in some cases, the added props of widespread religious observance and relative political naivety which served the state so well in the past.

Exactly and when I mentioned de Valera, this is the sort of thing I had in mind. De Valera literally constructed an Irish identity out of a handful of myths and by purging Irish culture of any English elements. The GAA was formed in 1884 and given pride of place in Ireland's sporting culture when the Free State was founded. The GAA is, for all intents and purposes, the sports wing of Fianna Fail.

When the GAA allowed the football to be played at Croke Park recently, it was quite a historic occasion. The GAA have always looked disdainfully at 'foreign' sports but were quite accommodating of American football, oddly enough.

Until 1971 members were prohibited from playing "foreign" (mainly British) sports or even attending those sports events as spectators, and up until recently, such sports were officially barred from using GAA grounds. In practice, however, the ban was applied only to soccer and rugby union.[citation needed] In the 1980s, Croke Park was the venue for an American football game between Notre Dame and Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAA

 

[tbaldwin]

I see no simplistic anti-nationalism here. Funny how Knotted continues to miss some of the other points I made. I wonder why?

Possibly they need to be sent a re-education camp or perhaps be court martialed?

 

[nino_savatte]

Possibly they need to be sent a re-education camp or perhaps be court martialed?

I don't know about him, but you could do with some education. Isn't that the sort of thing that you'd advocate (big word for you there, can you handle it?) in your "authoritarian socialist" dictatorship? Of course it is.

Pol Pot's got nothing on you.

 

[Knotted]

I haven't ignored anything, amigo. You've decided to misread and misprepresent what I've written. Presumably you think this is all very funny.

I said the nation-state is a construct, I never said it wasn't real in the physical sense.

I look forward to more of your replies. They ought to be equally as entertaining as this one was.

Please go back and read the thread for the context of the debate. I apologise for assuming you were saying something relevant.

 

[Knotted]

I see no simplistic anti-nationalism here. Funny how Knotted continues to miss some of the other points I made. I wonder why?

Because they are simplistic?

 

[Knotted]

The things you mention are physical manifestations of "the state", i.e. the apparatus by which a nation is ruled/governed, they don't constitute evidence for the existence of the "nation-state" in the way you appear to be implying.

Yes I thought you were saying something more subtle. There's a number of ways I can interpret your position due to the lack of info I have on it. I've been drifting from one to another.

IMHO you're taking the concepts of "nation" and "state", and viewing the concept of "nation-state" merely as a fusion of the two preceding concepts, which it isn't.

I think this is probably more due to the use of the terms rather than any deep disagreement between us. I think I would say "nation" where you say "nation state".

Or, at least, that isn't all it is. It's also about the fusion of cultural, linguistic and ethno-religious identities into a (sometimes more, sometimes less) functional whole, in other words it's an ideological operation that attempts to fuse the parts into a totality that is an "imagined community" (TM Benedict Anderson) of people who share a common bond or set of bonds.

Anderson explains it a lot better than I can.

I'll look up Anderson. The points quoted by Nino I entirely agree with. It seems to be a polemic against ideological nationalism. The assumption I want to reject is not that nationalist ideology is false (which it surely is) but that the nation/nation state is product of nationalist ideology.

 

[Knotted]

The SSP is not a nationalist party. They are a socialist (trotskyite) party that campaigns for Scottish independence. I think there is a distinction between nationalism and a desire for independence. Though I fail to see the connection between an overtly neo-Nazi party and a socialist party.

OK we are getting somewhere. You do not believe that favouring independence is necesarrily nationalism. So what constitutes "nationalism"?

Do you find that offensive? Are you a nationalist? I don't think it was particularly "anti-nationalist".

No. You were being simplistically anti-nationalist.

You like repeating yourself. You seem to be the only one who thinks this way.

In what way? I don't like repeating myself. I'm going to stop answering your posts if you continue making me do it.

Here it is again


More repetition. Do you work in the PR industry? This appears to be the sum total of your argument.

Should be easy to defeat then. Say something which isn't simplistic.

 

[Knotted]

OK to quote the summary for Anderson's book "Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism":

Perhaps the most read book about nationalism. Anderson adheres to the modernization argument explaining the origin of nations. In other words, nations developed as a necessary component of industrial society, though neither "economic interest, Liberalism, nor Enlightenment could, or did, create in themselves the kind, or shape, or imagined community" (65). Breaking from Gellner (the Nations and Nationalism appeared in the same year (1983) as the first edition of Imagined Communities), Anderson places greater emphasis on the constructed nature of culture and on the role of print capitalism to the development of nations. On the cultural front, Anderson argues that pre-national culture was religious culture. Nations replaced this religious culture with their own uniquely constructed national cultures. Anderson places print capitalism at the very heart of his theory, claiming that it was print capitalism which allowed for the development of these new national cultures and created the specific formations which the new nations would eventually take. [E. Zuelow]

Assuming this summary is accurate, I would think I would tend to agree with what Anderson is saying. He deconstructs the ideology of nationalism by showing it to be a product of primarily of "print capitalism" (forgive my ignorance but what is this?).

However he does not attempt to show that nations are the product of nationalism, he attempts to show that nations are a "necessary component of industrial society". That last is probably inaccurarte. I suspect he is only arguing that nations are a "necessary component of industrialising society". But I'm hard pressed to think of how I could differ here.

 

[Knotted]

He deconstructs the ideology of nationalism by showing it to be a product of primarily of "print capitalism" (forgive my ignorance but what is this?).

To answer my own question. It is capitalism with an emphasis on role of printed literature.

 

[Knotted]

Panda and Nino might want to read this interview with Benedict Anderson:

http://www.culcom.uio.no/aktivitet/anderson-kapittel-eng.html

Interesting stuff.

 

[Pigeon]

But surely there's no need for that now you're here in person, Private. I mean, you wouldn't *lie* to us, now would you? Right, please get on with the story. You'd just entered Pompey's tent on the night before Pharsalia...

Jesus fuck, you're an odious, boring little prick.

Now I get it!

Fuck off dwyer!

 

[Pigeon]

Nah, just kidding. Violent Panda's my Mum really.

*Reminds self to vote pro-choice on the abortion thread*

 

[ViolentPanda]

Jesus fuck, you're an odious, boring little prick.

Now I get it!

Fuck off dwyer!

What really makes me laugh is that he's got such a high opinion of himself that he actually thinks his ennui-inducing attempts to wind me up will actually get a rise (okay, he probably gets a rise, in his loins ), when all they do is make him look like an (to quote m'learned friend ) "odious, boring little prick".

 

[ViolentPanda]

*Reminds self to vote pro-choice on the abortion thread*

Understandable, given the context!

 

[Julie]

I see the usual suspects are still spewing nonsense.

Should we blame their parents?

 

[Lock&Light]

I see the usual suspects are still spewing nonsense.

Should we blame their parents?

I'm sure that VP's and Nino's parents are well disgusted by their offspring.

 

[nino_savatte]

OK we are getting somewhere. You do not believe that favouring independence is necesarrily nationalism. So what constitutes "nationalism"?



No. You were being simplistically anti-nationalist.



In what way? I don't like repeating myself. I'm going to stop answering your posts if you continue making me do it.



Should be easy to defeat then. Say something which isn't simplistic.

1. You're repeating yourself ad nauseum
2. I was not being "simplistically anti-nationalistic (as you keep repeating but somehow cannot offer evidence)
3. You may not like repeating yourself but that's what you are doing.
4. If you don't know what "nationalism" is already (smart fella like you), I'm not going to tell you.

I'm going to stop answering your posts if you continue making me do it.

I won't be losing any sleep. I'm fed up with you constant repetitions and inability to read and comprehend my posts.

I know when someone is taking the piss and you're taking the piss.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because they are simplistic?

Because you choose to read it that way for whatever ideological reasons you have.

 

[nino_savatte]

Please go back and read the thread for the context of the debate. I apologise for assuming you were saying something relevant.

Don't patronise me, pal, I'm the one who started this thread. Perhaps you sort of overlooked that - eh? My mistake for thinking that you actually wanted a proper discussion. Seems I was wrong.

 

[nino_savatte]

You still haven't managed to explain how my OP is "simplistically anti-nationalistic"....have you?

 

[urbanrevolt]

I still haven't seen anyone answer the question about how opposing immigration comtrols is all about arguing for working class unity, for the right of migrants to work at trade union agreed rates, about creating a movement that defends the rights of thwe whole working class- immigrants or otherwise- and stops the bosses weakening us all by scapegoating a particualr section of the working class.

 

[tbaldwin]

I still haven't seen anyone answer the question about how opposing immigration comtrols is all about arguing for working class unity, for the right of migrants to work at trade union agreed rates, about creating a movement that defends the rights of thwe whole working class- immigrants or otherwise- and stops the bosses weakening us all by scapegoating a particualr section of the working class.

UR it really depends on what you mean when you say " defends the rights of the working class"
If you mean nationally,then maybe you have a point. But if you mean internationally???? Then how does economic migration help?
How does it help the international working class,if wealth is concentrated in a few hands and a few areas. And anyone who can is encouraged to go to those areas and leave friends and families behind.
I don't think anything could be much more divisive to the international working class than supporting economic migration.

It means poorer nations losing the skilled workers they most need.
It means leaving the majority of people behind in those nations with a shortage of skilled workers.
It means rich countries get richer and the poor get poorer.

 

[Knotted]

4. If you don't know what "nationalism" is already (smart fella like you), I'm not going to tell you.

That pretty much somes it up. You think that nationalism is a simple idea that you either know or you don't know. However, there is no particular consensus on what nationalism even means. Hence you have a simplistic notion of nationalism. Therefore your anti-nationalism is simplistic.

Could we please get back to issues of substance.

 

[Knotted]

I said the nation-state is a construct, I never said it wasn't real in the physical sense.

You specifically stated in post 324 that neither nations nor nation states are real. I don't mind backtracking and refining what you say or clarifying what you think, but please don't try to use it as a debating trick in order to accuse your opponents of dishonesty.

 

[urbanrevolt]

UR it really depends on what you mean when you say " defends the rights of the working class"
If you mean nationally,then maybe you have a point. But if you mean internationally???? Then how does economic migration help?
How does it help the international working class,if wealth is concentrated in a few hands and a few areas. And anyone who can is encouraged to go to those areas and leave friends and families behind.
I don't think anything could be much more divisive to the international working class than supporting economic migration.

It means poorer nations losing the skilled workers they most need.
It means leaving the majority of people behind in those nations with a shortage of skilled workers.
It means rich countries get richer and the poor get poorer.

Thanks finally for replying. So you concede that in terms of the working class here it is on our interests to oppose immigration controls? That's an advance.

Then you say it is against the interests of the working class internationally.

The working class (and ithe peasantry) in the forcibly underdeveloped word is indeed in a very bad shape. Why? Because of the role played by multinationals and Western capitalist governments in propping up corrupt comprador bourgeois regimes that ruthlessly exploit the working class and peasantry on behalf of the global profiteers.

Lack of access to resources and shortages of skilled labour do play a part in that- and emigration is one small factor in that shortage (HIV being a bigger factor) are completely secondary factors.

What we need to do is fight to overthrow the global capitalist robber barons who profit from working class division- across the world. The militarised borders of the modern imperialist nation state is part of the weaponry used by the capitalist class to keep us divided and weak.

Refugee emigres from repression in the forcibly underdeveloped countries can and do (I know several from Ethiopia and other places) play an important part in keeping alive democratic and revolutionary political traditions- communicating with underground activists back home and preparing for their return when they can.

 

[chilango]

...its also worth mentioning to tbalbwin that the economy here in Mexico would collapse if it weren`t for remittences from migrant workers in the USA, and the injection of capital brought by returning migrant workers.

...but i suspect the whole concern for poor countries argument is more of a leftist smokescreen for his views on immigrants in the UK.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Good point, Remittances do play a huge role of course. But the bigger picture is about rampant capitlaism killing the planet and plenty of us every day (30 000 children a day from easily preventable diseases)

Abolishing immigration controls is only a part of the struggle to overthrow capitalism but an important part as a united working class is infintley more powerful than one wracked by racist and nationalistic divisions.

Couple of interesting reports here

Children at the school also demonstrated. Report here http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/...objectid=18830888&siteid=50061-name_page.html

There's also a report in the Bolton News on the Ndombasi campaign
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/n....0.dawn_raid_that_split_asylum_bid_family.php

In this case officials racially abused Mr Ndombasi daying, "England's not for Black people!" and telling him, "Shut up, nigger!"
before assaulting him with mediacal reports indicating damage to his neck.

So far no arrests have been made.

Mr Ndomabasi, though, is still imprisoned.

Both these cases underline the need for a national movement for immigrants' rights and for a dedicated trade union bureau to put the resources of the whole labour movement into defending workers against racist attacks, against forced deportations, against immigration controls.

 

[chilango]

Good point, Remittances do play a huge role of course. But the bigger picture is about rampant capitlaism killing the planet and plenty of us every day (30 000 children a day from easily preventable diseases)

Abolishing immigration controls is only a part of the struggle to overthrow capitalism but an important part as a united working class is infintley more powerful than one wracked by racist and nationalistic divisions.
.

Exactly...

...though its useful to point out that baldwins argument doesn`t really really stand up even from a reformist pov.