Why is Urban Pol full of racist threads?

[revol68]

One question, are you in the IWCA or are a sympathiser?

The whole idea that we are so "defeated" that to demand "housing for all" is utopian, is just the hieght of reformism? Why is it utopian? Do we not have enough houses? Do we lack the resources and labour? Are we in the 12th century?

Your position is the worst possible mix of utopianism and reformism.

On the one hand you think that we aren't in a position to demand "Housing for all", and instead we need an intermidite step of "son's and daughters policy" and a return to "closed shops". This is absurd, as if capitalism would allow such a ridiculous reactionary step, as if it would throw out all it's legislation and hand over the right to hire and fire to a bunch of cunts in the TUC. And further more you not only propose the implementation of your utopian policies on State housing but want to extend it to the Private sector, as if the state would rupture the whole housing market, overturning capitalist supply and demand market prices for the laugh?

A working class that was capable of imposing such demands on capitalism would be a working class more than capable of demanding "housing for all". Infact a working class that could demand and implement such reactionary utopian ideals would be fucking terrifying, a working class mobilised to restructure capital, that's solidarity extends only within community, that does not demand more for everyone but rather for it's "son's and daughters", that wishes to protect the continuity of it's "community'? Anyone getting any mental images?

Thankfully such a mobilistion for such parochial demands is unlikely and certainly unlikely to find an ally within the ruling classes.

 

[nightbreed]

Who then go onto become new bureaurocrats.

What do you mean? They give you a pill and you wake up next morning and you are a bureaucrat? Destined to sell out at will?

 

[tbaldwin]

IMHO a "sons and daughters" policy is only acceptable when and if enough social housing is being built to provide some form of decent housing to all. At any other time (say, for example, the present) it's wrongheaded purely because it becomes a divisive force in communities.

.

The alternative the Homeless persons act ensures that it is easier for someone from Turkey to get Housing in Hackney than it is for somebody who was born and raised in the area......And that really is divisive..

I think its just about as wrongheaded as you can get to say the priority for local housing should be for people with no/little connection to an area.

 

[revol68]

What do you mean? They give you a pill and you wake up next morning and you are a bureaucrat? Destined to sell out at will?

no you get put into a position whereby your job is to mediate between the workers and bosses, that you are seperated from the actual centre of struggle and your now a paid bureaucrat.

Why do you think every Trade Union leadership shafts it's members? Bad luck? Just keep picking wrong'uns?

 

[revol68]

The alternative the Homeless persons act ensures that it is easier for someone from Turkey to get Housing in Hackney than it is for somebody who was born and raised in the area......And that really is divisive..

I think its just about as wrongheaded as you can get to say the priority for local housing should be for people with no/little connection to an area.

It's ridiculously wrong headed to be arguing over who is more deserving of somewhere to live, I mean what the fuck it's not a fucking Dicken's novel.

And obviously it's wrongheaded to give "local housing" to people with little or no connection to an area. then again the whole idea of "local housing" is absurd, how the fuck can housing not be fucking local? It's meaningless phrase, a tautology, as anyone who lives in the house would be local, or have you turnt into the old biddy at the bus stop who calls people who have lived here for 50 years "runners in"?

To be arguing this kind of shit with the BNP wouldn't be too bad, to be arguing with socalled "socialists" is an illustration of just how fucked the working class is.

 

[durruti02]

rev .. your are very good at spouting words .. except none of them actually relate to how we give back people pride and power ..

when you play football first you study the oppositions tactics .. how come you and your swp mates \can not do this with capitalism .

their tactics are clear .. anti social stability - anti sons and daughters - pro immigration - anti closed shop - anti trade union etc etc .. and we see clearly all the legislation from housing to TUs on this line ... yet incredibly you line up WITH them!!

instead of trying to lecture us maybe you should go away and analyse what is going on .. what is neo liberalism in effect .. and therefore what directly can we do PRACTICALLY to resist it ( not in the future but now to fight it )

to fight for sons and daughters is not reactionary at all .. it is deeply human to look after ones own ( to look after others comes later ) .. when my fathers community took in refugees from the basque country in 1936 it was beacuase they were a STRONG community not a fragmented community .. fragmented communities we have now can offer NO defence or support to refugees

maybe you do not understand ( being from belfast) how outside of NI and a few other strong w/c areas HOW fragmented and weak most w/c communities have become after 25 years of neo liberalism

the same with the closed shop .. you go on and on about people being kept out by bureaucrats .. but in fact the closed shop has more relationship with the shop stewards era .. and that they are exclusive .. well yes sherlock .. that is and always was the aim of trade unions!!! .. to put pressure on the bosses over labour to force them to improve wages and conditions!

BY FALLING FOR THE CAPITALIST AND LIBERAL ARGUEMENT THAT IMMIGRATION IS GOOD YOU TAKE AWAY LABOURS POWER .. FOR WE ONLY HAVE POWER TO WITHDRAW AND CONTROL LABOUR .. WITHOUT THIS WE ARE POWERLESS do you not see this??????????????????

we are at year zero .. we need simple things that will draw people together ( and also unlike NI, i am talking about englands cities/ about ethnically diverse areas ) .. things that after 25 years of bullshit rampant individualist liberalism juts give people a bit more strength and hope for the future

you can NOT disagree that the left/@ are essentially without support in the UK .. this is to a greater extent because they do not prioritise these simple things that make sense to people

yes people are selfish ... i will kill you rather than have you kill me or my loved ones .. what the left do is demand that the w/c be selfless when all around are selfish .. it is bullshit

 

[durruti02]

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.

half right but significantly wrong .. what you miss is the importance of how we rebuild the w/c .. clearly the swp and all have failed and are increasingly marginalised in the our multi cultural w/c ...

few people are racist .. what they do not understand is why the left seem more interested in supportting the state on increasing immigration than in supportin them resist neo liberalisms effects ..

 

[revol68]

I gazed at the length of this post and thought "fuck he's actually attempted to respond indepth", but alas my gaze solidified, the letters became words and the words extended into sentences and the sentences where just empty bluster of rhetoric.

You have in no way dealt with the central point, so i'll repost it again.

The whole idea that we are so "defeated" that to demand "housing for all" is utopian, is just the hieght of reformism? Why is it utopian? Do we not have enough houses? Do we lack the resources and labour? Are we in the 12th century?

Your position is the worst possible mix of utopianism and reformism.

On the one hand you think that we aren't in a position to demand "Housing for all", and instead we need an intermidite step of "son's and daughters policy" and a return to "closed shops". This is absurd, as if capitalism would allow such a ridiculous reactionary step, as if it would throw out all it's legislation and hand over the right to hire and fire to a bunch of cunts in the TUC. And further more you not only propose the implementation of your utopian policies on State housing but want to extend it to the Private sector, as if the state would rupture the whole housing market, overturning capitalist supply and demand market prices for the laugh?

A working class that was capable of imposing such demands on capitalism would be a working class more than capable of demanding "housing for all". Infact a working class that could demand and implement such reactionary utopian ideals would be fucking terrifying, a working class mobilised to restructure capital, that's solidarity extends only within community, that does not demand more for everyone but rather for it's "son's and daughters", that wishes to protect the continuity of it's "community'? Anyone getting any mental images?

when you play football first you study the oppositions tactics .. how come you and your swp mates \can not do this with capitalism .

their tactics are clear .. anti social stability - anti sons and daughters - pro immigration - anti closed shop - anti trade union etc etc .. and we see clearly all the legislation from housing to TUs on this line ... yet incredibly you line up WITH them!!

Firstly I have fuck all to do with the SWP and certainly don't line up beside them or their various cross class mates.

Secondly just because capitalism is pushing something doesn't mean to say you oppose it with it's polar opposite. When Marx studied capitalism, it was tearing apart local communities, guilds and artisans, he did not line up beside the Young Englanders and all those dipshits that yearned to turn the clock back, rather he sought to go beyond it.

 

[durruti02]

rev .. you just do not know your stuff .. e.g. check the marx on immigration thread .. he was clearly against immigration being used to disrupt unions in the states etc ..

you continually misunderstand the relationship between demands/process and what can be acheived ..

your 'demands' e.g. no borders,is wrong on all accounts .. it is unacheivable before a revolution AND does nothing to create w/c of the sort THAT could acheive it in its campaign .. it is also the aim of capitalism AND actually not far off what currently happenning .. therefore it is worthless demand

of course equally we can not acheive either sons and daughters or closed shop tomorow .. BUT the process is fundamnetally differrent .. fighting for it brings people together .. small bits of alternative power can be created .. it inspires .. it motivates .. and every bit you win is a bit taken off the opposition ..

 

[ViolentPanda]

The alternative the Homeless persons act ensures that it is easier for someone from Turkey to get Housing in Hackney than it is for somebody who was born and raised in the area......And that really is divisive..

With limited social housing resources need is the best gauge of who get's housed.
As for your comment about "someone from Turkey", how often is that the actual case, rather than the sort of "everybody says it so it must be true" tosh that get's put about in boozers?

I think its just about as wrongheaded as you can get to say the priority for local housing should be for people with no/little connection to an area.

And I think its wrongheaded to use familial connection as the primary factor for deciding whether or not someone gets housed.
Take it into account by all means, but it shouldn't be the primary factor.

 

[tbaldwin]

It's ridiculously wrong headed to be arguing over who is more deserving of somewhere to live, I mean what the fuck it's not a fucking Dicken's novel.

And obviously it's wrongheaded to give "local housing" to people with little or no connection to an area. then again the whole idea of "local housing" is absurd, how the fuck can housing not be fucking local? It's meaningless phrase, a tautology, as anyone who lives in the house would be local, or have you turnt into the old biddy at the bus stop who calls people who have lived here for 50 years "runners in"?

To be arguing this kind of shit with the BNP wouldn't be too bad, to be arguing with socalled "socialists" is an illustration of just how fucked the working class is.

But when there is a limited supply of housing,there is always going to be a debate about it....Would you rather just stay out of the debate and leave it to others?

Local people should get preference in most cases...Strong local communities are a generally good thing.

 

[Fruitloop]

For who?

 

[revol68]

you continually misunderstand the relationship between demands/process and what can be acheived ..

your 'demands' e.g. no borders,is wrong on all accounts .. it is unacheivable before a revolution AND does nothing to create w/c of the sort THAT could acheive it in its campaign .. it is also the aim of capitalism AND actually not far off what currently happenning .. therefore it is worthless demand

of course equally we can not acheive either sons and daughters or closed shop tomorow .. BUT the process is fundamnetally differrent .. fighting for it brings people together .. small bits of alternative power can be created .. it inspires .. it motivates .. and every bit you win is a bit taken off the opposition

This is an absurd argument you are raising, when people call for the "Abolishment of the state", do they mean that they would want the state to abolish tomorrow under current conditions ie to have something like Iraq in the days after Saddam's regime fail? Or do they mean the abolishment of the state through struggling against current conditions, that the struggle creates the conditions that makes the abolishment of the state not only viable but a necessity?

When I support "No Borders", it is in the same sense as I support the smashing of the state. Not as something that would be implemented tomorrow under current conditions but as a statement of intent, to change the conditions to make it a possibility.

Your cretinous, parochial campaign to unite the "Working class" (understood obviously as always "local") is one that can only lead to reactionary outcomes. It, like "No Borders" is a call to change current conditions, a battlecry, but which seeks to change current conditions in a half baked manner.

I am saying that your campaign for "closed shops" and "son's and daughters" is useless, because in order for it to be implemented it would require a working class of such militancy and unity that it would negate it's very justification ie creating the conditions for a strong and united working class. Infact any strong working class movement that imposed such conditions would be closer to fascist.

Infact isn't National Socialism not the short circuiting of revolutionary socialism? In it's battle against the destructive nihilism of capitalism it seeks a "community" but lacks the imagination to embrace internationalism and so instead settles for the Nation. Fascism is the dream of communism dragged into the gutter of parochialism.

I note that you have yet to address my points about women entering the workforce, or how exactly a closed shop and son's and daugthers system would stop the marginalisation of new waves of immigrants and the disasterous effect this would have on ALL the working class.

as for Marx and immigration, I'm not particularly bothered by what Marx thought on certain particular topics, I'm interesting primarily in his methodology, something he wasn't always honest to eg how his theory often stood directly at odds with his politics.

Marx said plenty of things about the Irish and Jews but I see them as superflous to his central points. Like Blochs hatred of Jazz, it's a little blip.

 

[durruti02]

With limited social housing resources need is the best gauge of who get's housed.
As for your comment about "someone from Turkey", how often is that the actual case, rather than the sort of "everybody says it so it must be true" tosh that get's put about in boozers?

And I think its wrongheaded to use familial connection as the primary factor for deciding whether or not someone gets housed.
Take it into account by all means, but it shouldn't be the primary factor.

but VP you are assuming we are all being fair here .. i posted some stuff about how the laws were changed under thatcher to make out it was about need .. well need always was ..( pre the thatcherite immigration period ) about families .. her laws which were ONLY put in place as an attack on w/c communities and as a prelude to immigration changed that

all of a sudden we assume an immigrant family is more in need than a kid still living at home .. yes to an extent BUT we are missing the trick .. the immigrant family is ONLY here becuse the state wants them here for cheap labour ..

 

[In Bloom]

the immigrant family is ONLY here becuse the state wants them here for cheap labour ..

What's your point here?

Would it be harder for them to be exploited as cheap labour if they were completely destitute?

 

[revol68]

all of a sudden we assume an immigrant family is more in need than a kid still living at home .. yes to an extent BUT we are missing the trick .. the immigrant family is ONLY here becuse the state wants them here for cheap labour ..

yes, they are obviously only here cos the state wants them here for cheap labour, sure they don't have fucking dreams, fears, desires or anything else that might undermine your crude economism, nope these people are nothing but robotic scabbing cyborgs.

You pathetic, grasping lil cunt!

 

[durruti02]

immigration breaks families, kills communities ( in the home countries), is based on inequality, does NOTHING to solve or destroy capitalism and in fact is totally advantageous to capitalism .. it takes nurses from the third world while leaving 4 million on the dole in this country .. it takes doctors from the third world while the govt cuts training .. IT IS NOT ABOUT CHOICE ..

immigration under capitalism has little to do with dreams or desires but everything to do with feeding moloch ..

why are you so racist and or prejudiced against the people who currently live in this country? why do you care so little about them and their dreams and desire and needs for jobs and decent homes ..

you are a callous bastard yerself mate ( see we can all be grown up and swear ) if you care so little for people who live around you

this deabte also sums up the differrence between the anarcho liberals like you and the sw, and socialism ..

under socialism ( as im REAL not cyber world) we can not always do what we want .. your freedom of choice is just capitalist bullshit what is destroying all around us ..

 

[revol68]

oh so because I don't put the needs of "my own" first I'm some sort of self loathing whitey? I have never said that immigrants interests should come before "natives' or vice versa, I have instead stuck with age old socialist priniciple that we should resist such divisive approaches and instead seek to formulate a strategy on the basis of common interests.

You know you sound like a stupid sectarian prod arguing against equal oppurtunities legislation, that the fenians will take your jobs, that there cheap papist labour that will work for nothing so they can squander it on booze and 20 kids.

Now do you fancy addressing my points or are you going to flap about like some sort of Richard Littlejohn?

have a wee fucking read of your opening line about Immigration and just think for a minute, think who you sound like, think what it would sound like to any immigrant, you are no better than the dicks who went on strike for Enoch Powell and who dressed up racism in "economics". Afterall britain was happy lil place before those bloody blacks arrived, it's never been the same since, eh?

As for my so called "freedom of choice", well mate i'm not the one sitting at home formulating social policy that would make UKIP blush. I start from the reality, immigration is happening, it's a fact, how do we stop it undermining wages and polarising the working class. for me that comes from supporting all workers in struggle, that means undercutting capitals ability to exploit migrants ie fighting for them to have equal rights.

I'm not the one standing pissing over the White Cliffs of Dover into the sea, screaming "Fuck off ye cunts' don't ye see your a disgrace to internationalism, feck off, your only here to take our jobs and houses!, feck off, back to poverty where i can send 3 quid a month to get you water!"

 

[BettyButterfly]

thats interesting - didn't know that. do you have a link?

No, It was in document about Barbados and training of Nurses. They train too many knowing that people will emigrate and send money back.

It is a small country reliant on tourism so using its brain power is another way to bolster the economy.

 

[In Bloom]

You know you sound like a stupid sectarian prod arguing against equal oppurtunities legislation, that the fenians will take your jobs, that there cheap papist labour that will work for nothing so they can squander it on booze and 20 kids...

As much as I agree with a lot of your analysis, do you think it's necessarily helpful to paint people who are worried about their jobs, working conditions and housing prospects as parochial, racist, Ian Beale-a-likes?

 

[revol68]

As much as I agree with a lot of your analysis, do you think it's necessarily helpful to paint people who are worried about their jobs, working conditions and housing prospects as parochial, racist, Ian Beale-a-likes?

What way do you want me to portray the sectarian dickheads who haven't the foresight to see past their nose.

I grew up with these people, my Da heard the same shit from his prod mates, about how if the fenians where given equal status they would stal their jobs and undercut wages, he heard the same thing about women too. Infact his excuse for being a cynical git these day's is that he got laid off after organising industrial action over a pay issue and the one's on the shop floor didn't have the guts to back it up, yet a month later they all walked out on strike when the local Unionist politician called for a strike over "Power Sharing". These people might be concerned for their jobs, of course they are, Ian Beale does nothing but worry about his economic position, but it does not excuse bigotry, racism or sexism, and it more importantly didn\t stop the protestant working class getting shafted by those who would "look after their own".

Also i'm suppoused to be discussing this with a "socialist" someone who can apparently see through the media whipped hysteria, so he really has no excuse.

 

[Blackmushroom]

immigration breaks families, kills communities

Really? Says who?

 

[revol68]

Don't you know that families all over China are sending their sons and daughters cash earned in England back with notes saying "Fuck off you scab bastard!".

 

[ViolentPanda]

but VP you are assuming we are all being fair here ..

I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

i posted some stuff about how the laws were changed under thatcher to make out it was about need .. well need always was ..( pre the thatcherite immigration period ) about families .. her laws which were ONLY put in place as an attack on w/c communities and as a prelude to immigration changed that.

Actually, the change in housing law was mostly as a direct result of "right to buy" and the contraction of social housing stock, and was undertaken by local authorities with that in mind, not forced on them by the witch.
Contracting supply = allocation by need.

all of a sudden we assume an immigrant family is more in need than a kid still living at home ..

You might assume that, I certainly don't.

yes to an extent BUT we are missing the trick .. the immigrant family is ONLY here becuse the state wants them here for cheap labour ..

And you wonder why people think you might be a racist.
If I were you I'd choose my language a bit more carefully, because to some folk that looks suspiciously like the age-old cry that "they come over here to take our jobs".

See, I can think of quite a few recent non-European nationals I know who've come here in the last couple of years, and not one of them conforms to your stereotype, so I have to ask myself, do any, or is your stereotype of "...the immigrant family is ONLY here becuse the state wants them here for cheap labour" a cartload of bullshit?

 

[In Bloom]

Also i'm suppoused to be discussing this with a "socialist" someone who can apparently see through the media whipped hysteria, so he really has no excuse.

True, though I would argue this idea of the media controlling the working class' views on immigration (or at least being one of the largest influences on it) is largely grounded in the assumption that the media's apparent belief that their readers and viewers are the world's most gullible halfwits is true.

 

[ViolentPanda]

immigration breaks families, kills communities ( in the home countries), is based on inequality, does NOTHING to solve or destroy capitalism and in fact is totally advantageous to capitalism ..

Really?
Is this another of your sweeping generalisations, or can you actually back it up?

See, I only have to look into my own family history to see how immigration saved some of my family, while the rest of 'em who stayed at home, got starved and shot by Stalin's emissaries, and gassed by Hitlers'.

And you can see the same thing happening today.

So stick your self-serving generalisations up your tailpipe.

it takes nurses from the third world while leaving 4 million on the dole in this country .. it takes doctors from the third world while the govt cuts training .. IT IS NOT ABOUT CHOICE ..

4 million?
Ah, I suppose you're like tommy boy, and want all the crips gainfully employed too.
Amazing how keen you are to buy into certain elements of capitralism, isn't it?

immigration under capitalism has little to do with dreams or desires but everything to do with feeding moloch ..

And yet another sweeping genralisation...

why are you so racist and or prejudiced against the people who currently live in this country? why do you care so little about them and their dreams and desire and needs for jobs and decent homes ..

you are a callous bastard yerself mate ( see we can all be grown up and swear ) if you care so little for people who live around you

this deabte also sums up the differrence between the anarcho liberals like you and the sw, and socialism ..

under socialism ( as im REAL not cyber world) we can not always do what we want .. your freedom of choice is just capitalist bullshit what is destroying all around us ..

Ah, I see you've picked up your mate's practice of trotting out the namecalling when you don't have a decent argument.

Well done.

 

[revol68]

True, though I would argue this idea of the media controlling the working class' views on immigration (or at least being one of the largest influences on it) is largely grounded in the assumption that the media's apparent belief that their readers and viewers are the world's most gullible halfwits is true.

your right of course, and that;s why despite what Durruti 02 would have us beleive i've not met many working class people who put immigration at the top of their concerns, and the one's who do, aren't exactly worried about the "economic status" of the working class, they tend to be more concerned about the smell's, diseases and even imigrants desire to eat swans, or other aspects of their "otherness".

 

[TonkaToy]

your right of course, and that;s why despite what Durruti 02 would have us beleive i've not met many working class people who put immigration at the top of their concerns, and the one's who do, aren't exactly worried about the "economic status" of the working class, they tend to be more concerned about the smell's, diseases and even imigrants desire to eat swans, or other aspects of their "otherness".

Are you saying that immigrants don't eat swans? Lookit, whether we have proof or not, most people believe immigrants are responsible for the missing swans. If immigrants didn't eat the swans, who fucking did?

Blame it on whitey yet again, why don't you?

 

[Jessiedog]

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...

Still no link for this, I guess?

I asked you the first time you trotted out this slime.



Yer a fuckin' idiot, tbaldwin. A little, nationalist, facist who wishes to jail people for wanting to better the lives of their families.

Disgusting.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

thats interesting - didn't know that. do you have a link?

The Philippines is not a small country, but it has more than 10% of its entire population working overseas. Home remittences are the countries largest source of external income and contribute over 10% to the GDP of the country.

Millions of people would probably (literally) starve were it not for these remittences.

Woof