bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Can you not just fuck off and get your own love-in thread. This is my and revol68's thread defending communist internationalism against Anarcho-Bealiesm
Why is Urban Pol full of racist threads?
- Thread starter bolshiebhoy
- Start date
Paul Marsh
NeitherWashingtonNorMecca
bolshiebhoy said:
What you have to remember is what a sane working class person considers racist, and what a leftist like yourself considers racist, are a country mile apart.
On this you are basically wrong.........
Oh dear, i wondered when the accusations of racism would appear for the SWP posters, lose the argument, resort to slurs, won't wash. Then again the SWP have a long history of witchunts where innocent people have lost their jobs because of their meddling.,
btw, many of the erm, departed, would have been even more robust and perhaps more incisive in thier posts about these issues, than the so called 'racists,
give it up.
btw, many of the erm, departed, would have been even more robust and perhaps more incisive in thier posts about these issues, than the so called 'racists,
give it up.
revol68
what, fucking what?
who the fuck is a SWP member?
I'm not saying they are racist but some people seem to have bought into the media hysteria about immigrants and are tried to "rationalise" such bullshit vis a vis a crass political economy. the reason they feel the need to rationalise it is because they fetishise the working class as it is, or rather a charicature of the class. they seem to imagine the working class holds some sort of "essential" truth, and only "middle class" liberals would criticise the views of the working class.
I'm not saying they are racist but some people seem to have bought into the media hysteria about immigrants and are tried to "rationalise" such bullshit vis a vis a crass political economy. the reason they feel the need to rationalise it is because they fetishise the working class as it is, or rather a charicature of the class. they seem to imagine the working class holds some sort of "essential" truth, and only "middle class" liberals would criticise the views of the working class.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Well said!revol68 said:
revol68 said:
Rubbish......Its not fetishising the working class to look at the different consequences migration has nationally and internationally.....Its not Racist to look at African countries who are losing doctors and nurses to richer countries and question it..
Its not buying into media hysteria to look at who benefits from Liberal migration policies and who loses out.....
revol68
what, fucking what?
tbaldwin said:
of fucking course not, but it is reactionary to try and build a campaign around immigration and press the government to implement "son's and daughter's" housing schemes. It is also reactioonary bollocks to imagine you can implement immigration controls which will act as a deterrent to people moving here, and instead they will stay in their own poverty ridden countries.
BettyButterfly
New Member
tbaldwin said:
Said countries train too many nurses, etc to export if you like and then they can send their money home and bolster the economy that way. With small countries, e.g. the caribbean it is the policy of governements to do this!
BettyButterfly said:
The World Health Organisation and Nelson mandela both spoke out about the UK poaching Doctors and Nurses from South Africa and other African countries......The benefits of a few families getting money sent from abroad will never outweigh the consequences of a country that loses so many skilled workers...
revol68
what, fucking what?
tbaldwin said:
1. The campaign that Durruti02 was formulating, and which you are well aware of.
2. a) "we" do not continue to plunder anything, the economic imbalances in the world lead to it.
b) I suggest offering solidaroty to migrants, to campaign for their rights and also to support struggles in the native countries. It's simple "internationalism" and doesn't rely on the state repressing people looking for a decent life.
3) Many "developing nations" are trapped in poverty because of the farming and industrial subsidies granted by the EU and various other governments in the "developed" world. Do you suggest that we support the removal of such subsidies,that we campaign to see workers and small farmers in the west thrown into an economic abyss?
Or rather do we campaign to go beyond this bourgeois zero sum politic and offer solidarity to all small farmers and workers in their struggle to eek out an existance?
revol68
what, fucking what?
1. Well he is trying to formulate a postion for the formation fo such a campaign.
2. I mean supporting their struggles for rights, supporting them in their struggles against exploitation and therefore reducing the ability of capital to use them as a highly exploitable and precarious section to undermine working conditions.
It also means offering solidarity gloabbly to those people struggling to raise their won conditions in countries from which immigrants come.
3. So hwo do you think this argument would go down with workers laid off here? haven't you just bought into the zero sum game of "that someones gain always comesanothers lose".
Also, many people argued against women entering the wider workforce on the basis that they represent a capitalist attack on wages and conditions, and at the same time this pushed most women into a position of double exploitation as they continued to bare the brunt of non waged labour. Should we have campaigned against this, should we have campaigned for a programme by which women are allowed in the workforce at under auspices of "Unions"?
2. I mean supporting their struggles for rights, supporting them in their struggles against exploitation and therefore reducing the ability of capital to use them as a highly exploitable and precarious section to undermine working conditions.
It also means offering solidarity gloabbly to those people struggling to raise their won conditions in countries from which immigrants come.
3. So hwo do you think this argument would go down with workers laid off here? haven't you just bought into the zero sum game of "that someones gain always comesanothers lose".
Also, many people argued against women entering the wider workforce on the basis that they represent a capitalist attack on wages and conditions, and at the same time this pushed most women into a position of double exploitation as they continued to bare the brunt of non waged labour. Should we have campaigned against this, should we have campaigned for a programme by which women are allowed in the workforce at under auspices of "Unions"?
Blackmushroom
New Member
Its interesting to see the evoloution of an anti-immigration streak in British socialism on these threads. I suppose its similar to Tony Blair adopting conservative policies to gain power for the Labour party. The new left is trying to reconcile the anti-immigrant attitudes of the white working class, which have led to electoral success for the BNP, with their socialist beliefs. The rationalisation seems to be that immigration leads to wage deflation and makes the poor poorer and so is something that should be resisted. Problem solved, you can now go to Dagenham and Barking and campaign under an anti-immigration banner with a clear conscience.
revol68 said:
To an extent under capitalism hat arguement is often correct....But id argue that people in the west incl farm labourers would benefit if more people in developing countries escaped from extreme poverty...
The women arguement is a very poor analogy.
revol68 said:
The analogy is poor because its a totally different situation....It was hardly progressive to oppose women working....But any internationalist who looks at the consequences of taking the workers from poorer countries they need most would oppose it.
People moving in some cases thousands of miles fits much more into theories of economic slavery than any shallow analogy with "Some people opposed women entering paid work"
revol68
what, fucking what?
Oh so now your converned about our new economic slaves, you think they don't know what's best for themselves, and it's up to you to save them from themselves.
I imagine I could have argued that to women too, don't fall into the idea that work is freedom, don't fall for the double exploitation.
The fact is that you were arguing that see should argue against "open immigration" because it is used as an economic weapon by capital, that it depresses wages and has a negative effecton the "native" countries.
Now how is this much different from women entering to workforce, and let's substitute "native" country for the "family". I mean there is no doubting that having two parents working full time jobs has a detrimental effect on the happiness of kids and family relations. But since we aren't reactionaries, we do not start by trying to turn back the clock, we support women when they fight for workering rights, when they fight for maternity leave, when they fight for better child benefit and we also support struggle for paternity leave. If we argued that women's entry into the workforce should be organised and facilitated by "closed shops" and the unions, we would be reactionary fucks, and allowing sectional interests of the working class to undermine unity.
Infact the experiance of closed shops and craft unions in the US was one of the things the IWW formed to oppose, and it was the craft unions who became bastions of racist reaction and whose legacy continues to inform white working class racism.
I imagine I could have argued that to women too, don't fall into the idea that work is freedom, don't fall for the double exploitation.
The fact is that you were arguing that see should argue against "open immigration" because it is used as an economic weapon by capital, that it depresses wages and has a negative effecton the "native" countries.
Now how is this much different from women entering to workforce, and let's substitute "native" country for the "family". I mean there is no doubting that having two parents working full time jobs has a detrimental effect on the happiness of kids and family relations. But since we aren't reactionaries, we do not start by trying to turn back the clock, we support women when they fight for workering rights, when they fight for maternity leave, when they fight for better child benefit and we also support struggle for paternity leave. If we argued that women's entry into the workforce should be organised and facilitated by "closed shops" and the unions, we would be reactionary fucks, and allowing sectional interests of the working class to undermine unity.
Infact the experiance of closed shops and craft unions in the US was one of the things the IWW formed to oppose, and it was the craft unions who became bastions of racist reaction and whose legacy continues to inform white working class racism.
revol.......I dont know if you would call yerself an anarcho or a socialist?
I think your arguement is against planning and regulating....Something which i suppose would be consistent with some anarchos thinking but......I dont agree with it at all......
Its a bit silly really saying that somebody who thinks the consequences of taking skilled workers from poorer countries is bad....Must therefore be a sexist.......
I think your arguement is against planning and regulating....Something which i suppose would be consistent with some anarchos thinking but......I dont agree with it at all......
Its a bit silly really saying that somebody who thinks the consequences of taking skilled workers from poorer countries is bad....Must therefore be a sexist.......
revol68
what, fucking what?
tbaldwin said:
Sorry, why would immigration labour require more "planning and regulation" than that of any other "new wave of labour" ie women
I do beleive in planning but I do not believe that it is the job of the working class to plan and manage the contradictions and crisis of capitalism, rather i think we need to push these contradictions, to follow the mistake through to the end to reach a solution.
There can be meaningful solution to immigration under capitalism, atleast not one in the interests of the working class.
Similar threads
