Why do the left believe the govt on immigration but nothing else?

[cathal marcs]

well yes and no.

There are communities that are predonimantly working class and the working class in these communities can offer great resistance to the status quo, but they have to do this as a "class" not as a collection of "singular" working class communities.

In northern ireland we never hear the end of "community", but all it really means is a nice pre fabricated entity for some bunch of professional do gooders to manage. Northern Ireland is awash with "community spokespeople" and community leaders, all fighting for their cut of the cake, for "their" community.

Anyone who seeks to reduce the working class to a particular "community" is short circuiting the revolutionary potential of the class.

This is obvious with the IWCA and how by seeking to manage working class communitie, it finds itself balancing the books for the state and entering a zero sum politic ie their opposition to funding for some Muslim festival or their opposition to funding for some classical music programme. In this way the working class is reduced to various communities and various "special interests", the negative universality of the working class is aborted and in it's place a revamped identity politic.

You make some excellent points especially in regards to community and identity poliotics and the layers of self appointed leaders etc fighting for their share of the cake and diverting the fight for equality to equal oppertunism. You only need to look at Trevor Philips support for the 2005 education white paper in England saying it can lead to ´true black power ´

But I dont see how being its a bad thing fighting battles where on the left we can actually win such as issues that are faced in our local area. If only the left where in such a powerfull position to organise in a global scale instantly. For me its a case of learning to walk before you run.

 

[tbaldwin]

Absolute crap. A recipe for racism and parochialism. Sustainable communities my arse. London boroughs like Southwark used to have sons and daughters policies which led to racial segregation

I think thats quite an interesting point historically.....But in the here and now i agree with durrutti..sons and daughters would be a good policy to reintroduce.....
There are far more Black and Asian people who would broadly agree with me and durrutti on Immigration than with the orthodox left....
They are far more likely to be competing with recent migrants for jobs and housing than the Middle Class people who set the Orthodox Left agenda.

 

[revol68]

In response to hawkeye.

so working class communities just drop out of capitalism?

how's that going to work?

Sounds more like a nice way for capital to externalise the cost of it's own reproduction.

 

[cathal marcs]

so working class communities just drop out of capitalism?

how's that going to work?

Sounds more like a nice way for capital to externalise the cost of it's own reproduction.

Whos the question aimed at?

 

[belboid]

I think thats quite an interesting point historically.....But in the here and now i agree with durrutti..sons and daughters would be a good policy to reintroduce.....

why is it true historically but not today? its just a way to avoid the necessity that is we need far far more social housing.

sons and daughters take precedence over someone homeless? no thanks.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

In response to hawkeye.

so working class communities just drop out of capitalism?

how's that going to work?

Sounds more like a nice way for capital to externalise the cost of it's own reproduction.

Not really. The state can't afford to let any community drop out of its control especially if its repeated. It has to be regarded as the sole source of authority, if people deny its authority over them and assert themselves as a class against the state the state would respond by trying to smack down anybody who stood successfully against it. Once what Reich called "the policeman in our heads" is gone then the states power begins to drain away.

 

[tbaldwin]

why is it true historically but not today? its just a way to avoid the necessity that is we need far far more social housing.

sons and daughters take precedence over someone homeless? no thanks.

1 Is that a serious question.......

Do you not think the UK is much more multi racial than it was???

And exactly how much more Social Housing do you think we need?????? Enough to house anyone from a poorer country who might like to come to the UK?

2 So you think that somebody of Turkish origin in the UK who cant claim to be homeless should have less right to housing in the UK than someone who has just arrived from Turkey?
erm..........

 

[revol68]

oh look we are already inot the nice we game of "Who has more of a right to ......"

fuck me, doesn't this show exactly the follies of this approach to immigration ie one of seeking to manage capitalisms problems rather than tackling the capitalist parameters that make it a problem?

And no the state is quite happy to let many communities drop outside it's control, infact in northern ireland it is essentially in the process of legitimising this ghettoisation, with communities being under the control of various "paramilitaries" and their (un) civl networks.

At best your looking at local communities turnt into mini Cuba's but with shite weather.

Without the means of production, without acess to the whole wealth of society, the idea of self management is just a crock of shit.

 

[Spion]

1 Is that a serious question.......

Do you not think the UK is much more multi racial than it was???

And exactly how much more Social Housing do you think we need?????? Enough to house anyone from a poorer country who might like to come to the UK?

2 So you think that somebody of Turkish origin in the UK who cant claim to be homeless should have less right to housing in the UK than someone who has just arrived from Turkey?
erm..........

I read from this that you think some members of the working class have more right to things than others. Is that the case and if so could you give us your hierarchy of right?

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Society now is actually highly regulated by the state. New labour's welfare reforms have all been about tying people ever closer to the market and making sure there is absolutely no way out of market relations. This means that any attempt to move outside the control of the state and the market is a dire threat to them and the basis of their power. The state is prepared to let communities segregate along sectarian lines of course, because they are still subject ultimately to its authority and that of the market so pose no danger to state power. Disorder and chaos are not the same as anarchy, of course.

 

[belboid]

1 Is that a serious question.......

Do you not think the UK is much more multi racial than it was???

And exactly how much more Social Housing do you think we need?????? Enough to house anyone from a poorer country who might like to come to the UK?

2 So you think that somebody of Turkish origin in the UK who cant claim to be homeless should have less right to housing in the UK than someone who has just arrived from Turkey?
erm..........

you really are a bit thick arent you. Why are you racialising the question? I didnt, once more, its just showing up your obsessions.

We need about 20million more socially owned homes, something in that region. you, blairite that you are, have given up on that. So you try to tinker around the margins.

Does someone homeless have a greater need than someone not homeless, whatever there origins? yes. Simple as that. And anyone who disagree's is a reactionary twat. Simple as that too. That is not to say they have less right to housing - but if they arent homeless, they have some bloody housing by definition. That's a typical example of your dishonesty and trying to change the question tho to justify your reactionary position.

You just want to redivide the cake in a marginally 'better' way. You have nothing to say about how why the cake isnt big enough in the first place.

 

[In Bloom]

as i have stated repeatedly ( and incredibly been ridiculed by swpers who should theoretically agree) i belive their is a simple and clear w/c solution

first that the trade unions/Left come out and actually say what is going on

We'd have to have some kind of agreement on what is actually going on first, though I take your point, their is a tendancy among some on the left to use easy sloganeering ("Refugees welcome here!" etc, etc) as a substitue for taking a good look at what is actually going on with immigration.

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

I really can't see the point of campaigning specifically against recruitment abroad. If businesses are prevented from treating foreign workers worse than British workers or paying them less, where's the incentive to hire from outside the UK?

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

This would effectively give union bureaucrats the power to fire workers and final say over whether a worker is hired. Do even have to begin explaining the problems involved with that?

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

I don't think anybody here would disagree with this.

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

This is just arrant nonsense. Besides the innevitable consequences of segregation and parochialism, why should homeless people be denied social housing just because their parents didn't live there?

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

Another thing that few on these boards would disagree with.

 

[118118]

it's an attempt to prove to the left on this site that immigration is bad and wrong just the same as every other liberal-capitalist policy

I don't get it is this some kind of local loyalty? Why would that be valid

 

[tbaldwin]

you really are a bit thick arent you. Why are you racialising the question? I didnt, once more, its just showing up your obsessions.

We need about 20million more socially owned homes, something in that region. you, blairite that you are, have given up on that. So you try to tinker around the margins.

Does someone homeless have a greater need than someone not homeless, whatever there origins? yes. Simple as that. And anyone who disagree's is a reactionary twat. Simple as that too. That is not to say they have less right to housing - but if they arent homeless, they have some bloody housing by definition. That's a typical example of your dishonesty and trying to change the question tho to justify your reactionary position.

You just want to redivide the cake in a marginally 'better' way. You have nothing to say about how why the cake isnt big enough in the first place.

1 I was respoding to Spions point on Race.......... What a dim bulb.......

2 20 Million more homes......You get more and more surreal...........

3 This is typical of why the Liberal left has so little appeal to most working class people.....
Whatever did happen to Marie Antoinette????????

4 The Cake not big enough.....Any idea of how big it should be?
And why do you think i just want to redivide it in a marginally better way?
And why do all your arguements seem so based on just one country? Ever heard of Internationalism?

 

[118118]

Ever heard of Internationalism?

I mean, yeah, doesn't this just neuter your point? I mean, why would your loyalty lie with the english w/c.

Unless you have a reason why immigration is bad for the international w/c, this is crock full of contradictions, and seems to have no point, other than appearing "tuff"

 

[belboid]

1 I was respoding to Spions point on Race.......... What a dim bulb.......

2 20 Million more homes......You get more and more surreal...........

3 This is typical of why the Liberal left has so little appeal to most working class people.....
Whatever did happen to Marie Antoinette????????

4 The Cake not big enough.....Any idea of how big it should be?
And why do you think i just want to redivide it in a marginally better way?
And why do all your arguements seem so based on just one country? Ever heard of Internationalism?

you're not very good at this are you? not a single answer, nor even an attempt at one. perhaps we better wait for durutti to come along and tell you what to think.

 

[belboid]

oh i must be bored...

1 I was respoding to Spions point on Race.......... What a dim bulb.......

yet you were quoting me - prick

2 20 Million more homes......You get more and more surreal...........

socially owned homes - did you fail your basic comprehension?

3 This is typical of why the Liberal left has so little appeal to most working class people.....
Whatever did happen to Marie Antoinette????????

i guess you don't know the meaning of 'non sequitur', however you've just given us an excellant example of one

4 The Cake not big enough.....Any idea of how big it should be?
And why do you think i just want to redivide it in a marginally better way?
And why do all your arguements seem so based on just one country? Ever heard of Internationalism?

Oddly enough, as a socialist, it should be everything. And if my arguments seem that way, it's because you're not very bright.

 

[tbaldwin]

I mean, yeah, doesn't this just neuter your point? I mean, why would your loyalty lie with the english w/c.

Unless you have a reason why immigration is bad for the international w/c, this is crock full of contradictions, and seems to have no point, other than appearing "tuff"

Where have i said my loyalty lies with the english working class........
My arguements are based on not only the consequences for people in the UK competing for Jobs and Housing but on people internationally in poorer countries.......Even Polly Toynbee is now admitting that the Left has got it badly wrong on Migration.......
Only scabby twats really want to go along with free market migration policies that mean rich countries plunder poorer countries of all their skilled workers......

 

[tbaldwin]

you really are a bit thick arent you.

We need about 20million more socially owned homes, something in that region.

Even going by the standards of idiocy that some people like to post on Urban this will really take some beating!
20 Million more homes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess as they are knocking down houses up North most of these Houses would be in London and the South East...Maybe 12 Million extra homes in London an extra 35 million people?
Bellboid i think there should be some kind of a prize for this kind of post......Maybe we could call it the belboid prize........

 

[In Bloom]

I guess as they are knocking down houses up North...

They're knocking houses down up here, but it's certainly not because there's a shortage of tenants.

 

[118118]

Only scabby twats really want to go along with free market migration policies that mean rich countries plunder poorer countries of all their skilled workers......

Er, OK, anyone disagree? You don't think anti-immigration would strengthen nationalism?

 

[belboid]

Even going by the standards of idiocy that some people like to post on Urban this will really take some beating!
20 Million more homes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess as they are knocking down houses up North most of these Houses would be in London and the South East...Maybe 12 Million extra homes in London an extra 35 million people?
Bellboid i think there should be some kind of a prize for this kind of post......Maybe we could call it the belboid prize........

you really are incapable of reading arent you? hence your need to shout louder and louder. hopefully it will result in a heart attack.

do you know what 'social housing' means? where might this come from?

but of course you - bastard son of blair that you are - adore private housing so you wouldnt want to see any less of that would you? i would. lets say, 18-20 million less.

is that clear enough for you?

your utter lack of responses to the substantive points has been duly noted.

 

[treelover]

Polly Toynbee, no radical, has really gone to town on mass immigration in fridays Guardian, she highlights how the neo-cons love it as it brings down wages, supresses union militancy, yet lets them have all the services they want, cheaply. She quotes John Denham MP, who says there are now over a million poles in the uk, which if true, would be unprecendented.

mmigration is now making the rich richer and the poor poorer

Equal rights for all workers and a proper inspectorate would make exploitation of migrants much more difficult

Polly Toynbee
Friday August 11, 2006
The Guardian

It was one of those now-you-see-it, now-you-don't policy moments. John Reid appeared on BBC television to pre-announce a speech he was about to make on the fraught subject of immigration. He said he wanted to limit immigration to balance "enhancing the economy of this country commensurate with our social stability". That is indeed the dilemma - more GDP v social justice for the low paid.

Soon the EU will decide on admitting Bulgaria and Romania. If they join the union, will Britain again be one of the few to let their citizens work here immediately? And what of Turkey next?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1842072,00.html

 

[belboid]

she doesnt actually say she is against mass migration there actually. she points to ways to stop bosses exploiting such m,igratoin - a rather important distinction.

and denham says up to a million poles, not more than. a rather less important distinction.

 

[revol68]

well fuck me, the day we start looking to Polly Toynbee for our analysis is the day i get myself a nice brown shirt.

yes, they love immigration, but they love precarious imigration, it loves the maleability and flexibility of immigrant labour, and so as many have pointed out it also tightens immigration control.

There can be no solution to this on the basis of immigration controls, there can be no lobbying the state, the only way that the working class can square the cricle is by solidarity. That means supporting workers in struggle wherever they are, it means not just pushing for immigrant rights but also organising with workers in the native countries.

But ultimately it means recognising the whole "immigration crisis" as a farce, as a non issue, a means of scapegoating. As if the working class would be living it up if it wasn't for bastarding immigrants coming in and taking our share.

I'd alos like ot point out that i welcome the influx of immigrant workers to northern ireland, as it is undercutting the parochial backwardness of this lil shithole, and if it breaks up "sustained communities" all the fucking better, afterall they are just heurmetically sealed lil ghettoes, cesspools of reaction.

 

[tbaldwin]

Er, OK, anyone disagree? You don't think anti-immigration would strengthen nationalism?

It depends what you mean by anti immigration doesnt it......But if its done from an Internationalist and Class perspective absulutely not..
If its done from a we dont want nasty foriegn types in our country then yes..... But mass migration helps the spread of Nationalism.....It plays into the hands of people who want to exploit migrants for financial or political gain.

Its totally indefensible for richcountries to be plundering the developing world of skilled workers....Its Nationalist and Racist to support policies that lead to African and Asian countries losing Doctors,Engineers,Teachers etc to richer countries.

 

[tbaldwin]

you really are incapable of reading arent you? hence your need to shout louder and louder. hopefully it will result in a heart attack.

do you know what 'social housing' means? where might this come from?

but of course you - bastard son of blair that you are - adore private housing so you wouldnt want to see any less of that would you? i would. lets say, 18-20 million less.

is that clear enough for you?

your utter lack of responses to the substantive points has been duly noted.

1 A heart attack....Nice.
2 No idea....What Social housing is?????? Crikey that really is too difficult for someone as thick as me to understand......Luckily there are really clever people like you on urban......


3 So now we have it..................You dont actually want to build 20 million new homes in the UK then????????? You just want to take over 18-20 million and turn them into social housing???
Thats certainly clear enough for me.............. You really are a visionary genius a kind of cross between Stalin and Marie Antoinette....

 

[revol68]

It depends what you mean by anti immigration doesnt it......But if its done from an Internationalist and Class perspective absulutely not..
If its done from a we dont want nasty foriegn types in our country then yes..... But mass migration helps the spread of Nationalism.....It plays into the hands of people who want to exploit migrants for financial or political gain.

Its totally indefensible for richcountries to be plundering the developing world of skilled workers....Its Nationalist and Racist to support policies that lead to African and Asian countries losing Doctors,Engineers,Teachers etc to richer countries.

yes but trying to force people to stay in those countries is just reactionary shit, plays straight into the hands of those who exploit migrants, as the ones who get here will be even more precarious, it dovetails with the nationalist idea that people have to stay in one country (why should they?) and also reinforces the notion that immigration is something negative.

The point is to support working class struggle where ever it is, from the oil workers of Nigeria, to the construction workers of Dubai, to the struggle of migrants trying to make a better life for themselves.

Who the fuck are you to tell someone to saty in poverty and fight? Do you tell people never to move from their sink estates up north, "stay and fight, don't move to London or anywhere else there are jobs!". Oh sorry I forgot you see the world in terms of national boundaries, how very internationalist of you.

 

[belboid]

1 A heart attack....Nice.
2 No idea....What Social housing is?????? Crikey that really is too difficult for someone as thick as me to understand......Luckily there are really clever people like you on urban......


3 So now we have it..................You dont actually want to build 20 million new homes in the UK then????????? You just want to take over 18-20 million and turn them into social housing???
Thats certainly clear enough for me.............. You really are a visionary genius a kind of cross between Stalin and Marie Antoinette....

and once again you have absolutely no answers.

Fuck off back to playing with your train set baldwin.

 

[belboid]

Who the fuck are you to tell someone to saty in poverty and fight?

he's tbaldwin! the greatest socialist this country has seen since tblair!