Why are Urban liberal leftists/@s so racist/prejudiced against non immigrants??

[ZWord]

mm, you have also used it with the bnp - a frequent refrain being 'no wonder they are doing so well..this is what we need to revive the left..' - so, aqs they used to say at school, you started it.

as to being 'bad for britain' - british workers would have been more accurate, fair enmough, but that has been your argument - that without the workerist positions you (tho not baldwin) argue for, british workes will be worse off.

you're trying an old old pseudo-trick, wrapping up workerism with some nationalism to be almost all things to all people.

But what's wrong with simply pointing out that it is bad for british workers, and that that's good enough reason to be against it? You could say it's racist, but it's an odd concept of racism where the "racism" has nothing to do with someone's race, - (as there are british people of a great many different races)

If some non-capitalist party of the left ever did take power, - immigration would be a massive issue. And the only way they could make it work is if they were prepared to discriminate against people who weren't british- I mean say it was the greens with their citizens' income. Well this would hardly work if everyone who came to live in the country was entitled to it.
It's just obvious that if you want to help people through national politics, you have to limit the number of people you're trying to help. And the most obvious way to do that is to discriminate between people of your country and people not of your country.

What it seems to be about is different groups of people not understanding where the others are coming from... Some of the left are so resigned to never having power, that they see the role of the left as purely to be an ineffectual standard bearer for internationalist leftist values, so organise resistance against the capitalist bosses despite the fact that most workers recognise that the only effect that would have for most of them is to get them the sack.

 

[greenman]

If some non-capitalist party of the left ever did take power, - immigration would be a massive issue.

With respect, I think this would be the least of our problems...
Emigration, though....

In your last sentence you seem to be saying that the left are unduly pessimistic about ever "having power" and so hide in abstractions and principles....you then immediately go on to imply that you are pessimistic, not about massive social upheaval but the capacity of most workplaces ("most workers recognise") to stand up to the bosses without getting sacked! Who are the realists and who is the pessimist here?

 

[tbaldwin]

Well, one thing the left should not do is give 'left cover' to the profoundly reactionary, right wing and racist nature of what passes for the "immigration debate" in the UK. This means recognising that both immigration and immigration controls can be used against the working class. It means the left should not either line up with the nationalist right talking about dangers to 'our culture' through swamping, or of 'foreigners stealing our jobs', nor with the liberal capitalist left talking about how immigration is essential to the smooth working of the economy, or how it creates a marvellous cosmopolitan consumer culture.. The left should see the migration debate for what it is - a debate between liberal and reactionary wings of the ruling class about how best the labour market can be managed, policed and developed at the same time as maximising profits. Actual real individual workers and dependents - either long term resident or migrant, or those remaining in 'donor' countries never appear in this debate, their needs, wants and desires are absent, except as cynical ammunition for whichever capitalist faction.

The old watchwords - unity is strength are key in what kind of movement is required. We must have an international movement which encourages understanding, links and organisation amongst working people and activists in progressive movements. You are right that at local level we must have community and workplace organising that acquires the power to ensure social needs are met and services and facilities are not overburdened. The original conception of the IWCA as an answer to both neo-liberal new labour and scapegoating nationalist BNP in working class communities is relevant here. A particular concern must be the stress that the neo-liberal free movement of labour and capital puts on the environment, natural resources and sustainability. But the outlook must never be narrowly localist - just as at national level it must not be nationalist. The movement must have an international outlook.

We must know our enemy, the capitalist class and their paid propagandists - their major power is our isolation from each other and their ability to set one group of us against another. Defensive struggle is necessary but not enough, the aim has to be to build a counter-power. The need at present is not so much for a Party or single organisation across Europe and the rest of the world, as for a common understanding and solidarity. If existing movements, groups and community and workplace organisations could begin to coalesce and network around a project of base level organising, direct democracy, wealth redistribution, sustainable development and localisation of production we would be moving in the right direction. The hands of capital must be tied, and its room for manouevre progressively reduced by an alliance that fights on all available fronts - community, workplace, political, cultural, local, national and international. A space must open up where the real needs, wants and desires of working people can be shared to create understanding and solidarity - where real people, (not frightening invaders or xenophobic nationalists) step onto the stage of history.
At least that is what I would like to see as an ecosocialist.....

I agreed with most of that...And thought it was a good contribution.....I do think though think Globally and Locally....

 

[durruti02]

Are you fucking dim? I'm beginning to think so.

I haven't accused you of being a nazi, you precious twat. I gave an example of someone appropriating socialist language to their own political ends, and I used an example most people could relate to.

Understand?

If you're naive enough to think that just because someone uses socialist language then that actually makes them a socialist then not only do you need a kick in the arse, you could probably do with being locked up for your own good for being so gullible.

.. no not dim dear .. of course i know you do not think i am an actual nazi!
(i am not sure you quite understand wher i am coming from .. simplest to just think IWCA ) .. just pissed off that someone like you wi i have had good debate with appears to be part of this pattern of posters who like to associate what e.g. i and TB say as being BNP ..

to associate, especially on the internet, what we are saying IN ANY WAY with talk of Uncle Adolf or whatever seems 2 me mischevious .. yes or no??

i accept absolutely i am using association e.g. with the digby jones qoutes to make people

to associate what we are saying with nazis or BNP ( which i CAN accept YOU have not done but others have) is just nonsense ..

to assume you were in NO way doing this then i am NOT sure i understand your point of that post .. is it an attack on the SW for claiming to be socialists when they are clearly not?? or are you attacking the TUAEUC peeps?? actually a debate on this tendancy would make an interesting thread ..

 

[durruti02]

Well, one thing the left should not do is give 'left cover' to the profoundly reactionary, right wing and racist nature of what passes for the "immigration debate" in the UK. This means recognising that both immigration and immigration controls can be used against the working class. It means the left should not either line up with the nationalist right talking about dangers to 'our culture' through swamping, or of 'foreigners stealing our jobs', nor with the liberal capitalist left talking about how immigration is essential to the smooth working of the economy, or how it creates a marvellous cosmopolitan consumer culture.. The left should see the migration debate for what it is - a debate between liberal and reactionary wings of the ruling class about how best the labour market can be managed, policed and developed at the same time as maximising profits. Actual real individual workers and dependents - either long term resident or migrant, or those remaining in 'donor' countries never appear in this debate, their needs, wants and desires are absent, except as cynical ammunition for whichever capitalist faction.

The old watchwords - unity is strength are key in what kind of movement is required. We must have an international movement which encourages understanding, links and organisation amongst working people and activists in progressive movements. You are right that at local level we must have community and workplace organising that acquires the power to ensure social needs are met and services and facilities are not overburdened. The original conception of the IWCA as an answer to both neo-liberal new labour and scapegoating nationalist BNP in working class communities is relevant here. A particular concern must be the stress that the neo-liberal free movement of labour and capital puts on the environment, natural resources and sustainability. But the outlook must never be narrowly localist - just as at national level it must not be nationalist. The movement must have an international outlook.

We must know our enemy, the capitalist class and their paid propagandists - their major power is our isolation from each other and their ability to set one group of us against another. Defensive struggle is necessary but not enough, the aim has to be to build a counter-power. The need at present is not so much for a Party or single organisation across Europe and the rest of the world, as for a common understanding and solidarity. If existing movements, groups and community and workplace organisations could begin to coalesce and network around a project of base level organising, direct democracy, wealth redistribution, sustainable development and localisation of production we would be moving in the right direction. The hands of capital must be tied, and its room for manouevre progressively reduced by an alliance that fights on all available fronts - community, workplace, political, cultural, local, national and international. A space must open up where the real needs, wants and desires of working people can be shared to create understanding and solidarity - where real people, (not frightening invaders or xenophobic nationalists) step onto the stage of history.

At least that is what I would like to see as an ecosocialist.....

blimey mate .. thats excellent .. spot on and very well written ..

are you involved with iwca??

and nino says "racist"

did you see my post 148 on the Why do the Left Belive the Govt on Immigration and Nothing Else thread??

" .. first that the trade unions/Left come out and actually say what is going on [ i.e level of immigration and effect on sections of the w/c]

second a mass TU/Left campaign inside and outside of work/industry against casualisation/privaisation and specifically against recruitment abroad / and or for wages lower than the going rate

third a campaign in the left/TU's for revival of the closed shop

fourth a campaign against firms using cheap imported labour to cut costs ( as was done with the seaworkers Irish Ferries campaigns)

fifth to campaign that both work and housing should be allocated locally to sons and daughters ( regardless of race .. whatever that may be ) to create sustainable communities

and finally, but only as part of the above, a campaign for legitimisation of illegal workers so they can be recruited into unions and thus AGAINST immigration controls ...

this should be combined with a campaign to confront racism and to explain that it is not immigrants who are the problem but capitalism that uses immigration and ABUSES immigrants.."

 

[118118]

The hands of capital must be tied, and its room for manouevre progressively reduced

I can't see it being physically possible to stop capital from being international, though.

I mean capital is supposed to be in dynamic in its very essence - so that it will react to "w/c attacks" curbing mmigration. By definition it will find room to manouevre - and in its reaction it will do so on an international scale.

You talk about unity in strength (or solidarity), surely creating zones of privilege isn't the way to do this.

What about capital creating zones of underdevelopment as a strategy to stop struggles from being linked.

I mean, you think you can "tie the hands of capital" with a few mmigration controls: it would react on an international scale - doing exactly the opposite of wht you are trying to achieve

This is probably a long winded way of saying that it would just out source work, or something similar.

If its not wrong for someone to want to migrate, why is it wrong ("liberal") to support them to do so?

 

[greenman]

I can't see it being physically possible to stop capital from being international, though.

I mean capital is supposed to be in dynamic in its very essence - so that it will react to "w/c attacks" curbing mmigration. By definition it will find room to manouevre - and in its reaction it will do so on an international scale.

You talk about unity in strength (or solidarity), surely creating zones of privilege isn't the way to do this.

What about capital creating zones of underdevelopment as a strategy to stop struggles from being linked.

I mean, you think you can "tie the hands of capital" with a few mmigration controls: it would react on an international scale - doing exactly the opposite of wht you are trying to achieve

This is probably a long winded way of saying that it would just out source work, or something similar.

If its not wrong for someone to want to migrate, why is it wrong ("liberal") to support them to do so?

But I am not arguing that "immigration controls" should be used to limit the room for movement of the capitalist class. See all my previous posts on this thread. I am arguing for a progressive alliance of working people for development and workplace/community organisation. The aim is to reduce the ability of capitalism to function aggressively on an international scale by building a counter power. The social forum movement and previous co-ordinated international workers actions (e.g. dockworkers on occasion, workers throughout the EU mobilising against so-called 'reforms' recently - Bolkestein etc) show the potential for further development. This will not happen over night - the balance of power must be shifted.

Edited to add- Durruti, I am a supporter of Green Left in the GPEW. I think the basis of the IWCA project was very good and worthwhile and my fellow GL supporter, Urban poster and Green councillor in Oxford, MattS, has tried to have good relations with the IWCA councillors there. I see a strongly ecosocialist influenced GP dovetailing with the IWCA efforts (and hopefully some other elements of the left that still have the capability for independent thought!) by bringing different sections of the voting and organising population into progressive alliance.

 

[greenman]

GREENMAN>>>>>ANSWER THE QUESTION>

Sorry, only just noticed this. (From posts 106-121)
I think the answer is that arguing for fair trade, reparations, international labour regulations (unspecified) etc could easily be done by a nationalistic liberal out of paternalistic 'concern' for the poor third world, like Live 8. On 'taking skilled workers from where they are needed' this might have some application where Western enterprises are directly recruiting from where there are shortages - but where this does not apply it is a question of restricting the movement/attacking the interests of another group of workers on the grounds of nothing more than nationality, and even where it does apply the question of who is being asked to act against other workers is relevant.

It in no way 'proves' that tbaldwin believes the working class is international, when by his own admission, his strategy for confronting the labour market, housing, services etc issues that confront the working class in Britain chiefly revolve around pressurising/asking the government (and that means either neo-liberal new labour or neo-liberal Cameronite tory at the moment) to impose harsher curbs on immigration. This means the strategy he proposes is to persuade neo-liberal parties to use the capitalist state against sections of the international working class, and indicates that he thinks that the British working class is more important and more deserving of human rights, access to employment opportunities etc. than workers elsewhere. This is part of the 'evidence to the contrary' he is asking for, no doubt others could find other examples.

I agree with Durutti that the social and economic issues affecting workers in the UK should be addressed and that we should be clear that both economic migration and immigration controls can be used against workers. The positive way forward as I have said is a truly internationalist approach of international networking, and organising at a local level to ensure that services, housing, employment opportunities etc are adequate and that workplaces are organised and supported in resisting any attempts to divide and rule by differential pay and conditions etc. This is just the start and a long term project has to aim at building a counter-power to that of neo-liberal capitalism. None of this will be served by weighing in on one side or the other of capitalists arguing whether immigration is 'good' or 'bad' for 'business'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

.. no not dim dear .. of course i know you do not think i am an actual nazi!

Then perhaps you shouldn't have worded your reply "so now i am a nazi???", should you?
And you're claiming to not be dim?

[
(i am not sure you quite understand wher i am coming from .. simplest to just think IWCA )

Except that I'm reasonably aware of the IWCA and their grassroots-type aims, and where they come from doesn't appear to me to be where you come form.

.. just pissed off that someone like you wi i have had good debate with appears to be part of this pattern of posters who like to associate what e.g. i and TB say as being BNP ..

Bullshit, don't tar me with that brush, because the comments I've made about your mate balders, i.e. that the ideas he promotes on "shooting the judges and smashing the education system" are very similar to those promoted by British fascists in the pre- and post-war periods, don't mean I think he's a BNPer, they mean I think he should be a bit more aware of the heritage of his ideas.

to associate, especially on the internet, what we are saying IN ANY WAY with talk of Uncle Adolf or whatever seems 2 me mischevious .. yes or no??

Stick your "yes or no" up your arse.
I've already explained that I was using a well-known example of a demagogue appropriating political language. If you either can't understand, or refuse to accept my explanation then that's your problem.

i accept absolutely i am using association e.g. with the digby jones qoutes to make people

to associate what we are saying with nazis or BNP ( which i CAN accept YOU have not done but others have) is just nonsense ..

to assume you were in NO way doing this then i am NOT sure i understand your point of that post .. is it an attack on the SW for claiming to be socialists when they are clearly not?? or are you attacking the TUAEUC peeps?? actually a debate on this tendancy would make an interesting thread ..

Sweet cunting Christ.
You'd know the fucking answer if you actually bothered to read replies ]B]properly[/B] before sounding off about what you think a person has said in a post then you wouldn't have to ask that question.

But, as you appear to not be particularly bothered about misunderstanding other people (although I notice you're quick to get on your high horse if you think you've been mis-represented) here it is:

For anyone to claim to be "socialist" isn't enough, because any chancer can appropriate the political language and use it for their own agenda.
(are you with me so far?)
What is necessary is that the person who claims to be a socialist actually demonstrates their socialism.
(still with me?)
Demonstrating ones' socialism doesn't mean informing the world that you're in favour of, for argument's sake, "shooting the judges", it means demonstrating your commitment through your actions, whether that's at the micro-level of engaging with and participating in your local community, or through commitment and action in other spheres of political action.

In other words, it's not about posturing, it's about doing, whether that's under the umbrella of a specific political organisation, or as part of a social network.

 

[durruti02]

Edited to add- Durruti, I am a supporter of Green Left in the GPEW. I think the basis of the IWCA project was very good and worthwhile and my fellow GL supporter, Urban poster and Green councillor in Oxford, MattS, has tried to have good relations with the IWCA councillors there. I see a strongly ecosocialist influenced GP dovetailing with the IWCA efforts (and hopefully some other elements of the left that still have the capability for independent thought!) by bringing different sections of the voting and organising population into progressive alliance.

well im suprised .. in hackney the GP are poor politically .. they have had numerous open goals to attack the New Labour council and have generally spectacularly failed ; they appear to concentrate on the m/c vote which is competing with New Labour head on in some ways ..

but to repeat your posts have been spot on e.g. ' .. am arguing for a progressive alliance of working people for development and workplace/community organisation. The aim is to reduce the ability of capitalism to function aggressively on an international scale by building a counter power...' .. and i wish you well in oxford ..

p.s. i may be coming up to see oxford some time this season (neighbour supports them) , wanted to meet up with random and assorted people but be good to meet up with you as well

 

[durruti02]

That said, what was Eric Hammond's "record" like?

Pretty unremmiting fear-mongering and licking of boss arse that often went against the long-term interests of his members and of other trade unionists, as I remember.

Durutti and his mate balders' "policies" certainly fit the first of those characteristics.


BTW, people often hold Scargill up as an exemplar of what was worst about over-powerful union bosses, but Hammond took the biscuit by miles, and what he did at Wapping buttfucked several generations of workers, all in one go.

vp please debate ideas, e.g. what suburban cas has said .. would be interesting

and or what tree lover and greenman and i am saying

.. you always say how you are playing a straight bat but what was this above abour hammond .. honestly you really think that i am like these scum? i have posted consistently about ATTACKING the bosses about ATTACKING neo liberalism about CREATING / REBUILDING workers organisination yet somehow you confuse this with supporting the bosses .. i do not get get how you can see this

and re the hitler thing " ..I've already explained that I was using a well-known example of a demagogue appropriating political language. If you either can't understand, or refuse to accept my explanation then that's your problem.."

to check ( and as you say clearly i am dim)

1) are you saying that i am masquarading as a socialist and that in fact am not a socialist ( of the left) .. if you are you are sadly mistaken

2) that you do not see that in a context where accusations of racism and fascism are flying about to use an an example of e.g. Hitler, will in many minds suggest that, you are saying i am a nazi masquarading as a socialist .. no?

anyway actually please do not bother to reply as the foolish rows between me you and belboid have detracted from the debate .. cos it really isn't important enough ..

 

[SuburbanCasual]

Ultimately the argument around immigration comes down to the issue of working class self organisation. If we are to control our own communities and workplaces and the resources we create - then that means we must have the power to decide who we share them with. Socialists or anarchists can only judge migration by how it effects the ,working class in Britain and internationaly ,and we can only conclude that when it is forced by the interests of capital , by war, and famine and ecological collapse then it is a very bad thing and not at all in our interests.

There can be no freedom of movement in a capitalist society.

 

[greenman]

.. and i wish you well in oxford ..

p.s. i may be coming up to see oxford some time this season (neighbour supports them) , wanted to meet up with random and assorted people but be good to meet up with you as well

Sorry, for not being clear, it is MattS who is a councillor in Oxford, I'm in the East Midlands.

 

[durruti02]

Sorry, for not being clear, it is MattS who is a councillor in Oxford, I'm in the East Midlands.

oh well! you should meet up with rmp3 then! .. s/he seems ok but needs a bit of de-SW-ing ..

 

[muser]

Well, one thing the left should not do is give 'left cover' to the profoundly reactionary, right wing and racist nature of what passes for the "immigration debate" in the UK. This means recognising that both immigration and immigration controls can be used against the working class. It means the left should not either line up with the nationalist right talking about dangers to 'our culture' through swamping, or of 'foreigners stealing our jobs', nor with the liberal capitalist left talking about how immigration is essential to the smooth working of the economy, or how it creates a marvellous cosmopolitan consumer culture.. The left should see the migration debate for what it is - a debate between liberal and reactionary wings of the ruling class about how best the labour market can be managed, policed and developed at the same time as maximising profits. Actual real individual workers and dependents - either long term resident or migrant, or those remaining in 'donor' countries never appear in this debate, their needs, wants and desires are absent, except as cynical ammunition for whichever capitalist faction.

The old watchwords - unity is strength are key in what kind of movement is required. We must have an international movement which encourages understanding, links and organisation amongst working people and activists in progressive movements. You are right that at local level we must have community and workplace organising that acquires the power to ensure social needs are met and services and facilities are not overburdened. The original conception of the IWCA as an answer to both neo-liberal new labour and scapegoating nationalist BNP in working class communities is relevant here. A particular concern must be the stress that the neo-liberal free movement of labour and capital puts on the environment, natural resources and sustainability. But the outlook must never be narrowly localist - just as at national level it must not be nationalist. The movement must have an international outlook.

We must know our enemy, the capitalist class and their paid propagandists - their major power is our isolation from each other and their ability to set one group of us against another. Defensive struggle is necessary but not enough, the aim has to be to build a counter-power. The need at present is not so much for a Party or single organisation across Europe and the rest of the world, as for a common understanding and solidarity. If existing movements, groups and community and workplace organisations could begin to coalesce and network around a project of base level organising, direct democracy, wealth redistribution, sustainable development and localisation of production we would be moving in the right direction. The hands of capital must be tied, and its room for manouevre progressively reduced by an alliance that fights on all available fronts - community, workplace, political, cultural, local, national and international. A space must open up where the real needs, wants and desires of working people can be shared to create understanding and solidarity - where real people, (not frightening invaders or xenophobic nationalists) step onto the stage of history.
At least that is what I would like to see as an ecosocialist.....

extremely good post. wouldn't it be necessary for this movement to adopt a culture and one that appeals to working and middle class. I'am I right in thinking that your proposal would see the middle classes reduced to the working classes, although with the knowledge that it is necessary to compensate the needs\wants of the many.

 

[cockneyrebel]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=189795

 

[treelover]

Bored with Xmas already, CR?

 

[Ann Tigonie]

Working Class liberal shocker!

Do working class liberals not exist?

Yep they sure do. Out and proud.