Why is Urban Pol full of racist threads?

[ViolentPanda]

Ahem. I think I've already said, most people want them.

Ah, the notorious and much-discredited "most people" gambit, as popularised by tbaldwin. Whenever you want to attempt to bluster, bullshit or otherwise bamboozle people you just have to claim that "most people" are in agreement with your point of view.

Fair enough then.

Prove your claim that "most people" want immigration controls.

I await your doubtless information-packed reply with bated breath.

 

[snadge]

Ah, the notorious and much-discredited "most people" gambit, as popularised by tbaldwin. Whenever you want to attempt to bluster, bullshit or otherwise bamboozle people you just have to claim that "most people" are in agreement with your point of view.

Fair enough then.

Prove your claim that "most people" want immigration controls.

I await your doubtless information-packed reply with bated breath.

I've already asked him, with no reply.

TT comes across as as selfish egotist who wants the world to act like it is there for his own personal fantasies and other peoples desires are irrelavent.

he is also a liar.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

good points, sons and daughters type policy will always alienate people, it also lets others live a life of apathy, nepotism in the workplace is rife and should also be addressed.

It will always alienate SOME people but you can't please all the people all the time. Sons and Daughters is a policy that does need to be carefully played so that although there is priority given to those who have lived in an area for two years plus and have a connection with the area with families (both blood relations and family like support groupings) but that it doesn't exclude. Sons and Daughters doesn't have to exclude it just needs to prioritise. What is causing the problems in Dagenham is that people are seeing demographic change and incomers getting housing because of homelessness points whilst those who have contributed to the borough over several generations are excluded.

The BNP and their ilk are gaining support all the time, sometimes I think that politico types want this, create a situation where mainstream parties can introduce draconian laws due to the extreme parties gaining support, blair and his cronies seem very clued up on this, manipulating peoples fears to their advantage.

You may have a valid point there. Look how they have used the spectre of Islamic terrorism to bring in a whole raft of repressive laws that were not even in place when the country was really on it's knees between 39-45.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've been skimming this thread and am slightly concerned that the OP said that there is a rise in 'racist' threads.

I can't say I've noticed them. What I have noticed is a rise in the number of posters / threads challenging the 1970's / 1980's concept of 'identity politics' as the be all and end all of socialist thinking. Our identity is our politics to a certain extent but it shouldn't be the whole thing. It is recognised that people occupy lots of different identities ie you can be female/unwaged/muslim and gay all at the same time.

Ah yes, 2 decades of political stagnation while people argued about whether their identity(s) set them higher in the pecking order of the opressed than the next person.
If I never live through that again it'll be too soon.

The lack of a Sons and Daughters housing policy (abeit with safeguards to prevent ethnic gerrymandering) coupled with the effects of right to buy and demographic change has created a mass of resentment in WWC areas like Dagenham which is being exploited by the far right. There is a shortage of housing for everyone but the attitudes of the local authority and the language used is alienating people thereby allowing the bnp to paint themselves quite successfully as the peoples saviour.

I don't agree that the lack of a "sons and daughters" policy is responsible. Surely it's the lack of available social housing for rent per se (exacerbated by stock depletion through right to buy) that's the problem?
If the housing stock were there, "sons and daughters" wouldn't need to even be considered.

All this academic posturing about what Marx said etc etc is not going to shift one bnp councillor. It's just the equivilant of debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Amen.

It's not racist to want immigration controls that are fair and balanced similarily it's not racist to want to see those who've lived in an area fora fair while be given priority inhousing rather than be allocated via other means such as housing points or fast tracked via homelessness legislation.

I agree that it's not "racist" per se, what it is[/I] though, is a manifestation of a particular kind of self-interest.

The middle class Trot left has created a situation where the long serving labour councillors who really do care about their consituents and have served them well for many years in some cases are just not trusted as they are percieved to be against the people.

I'm notsayin tht people on te left should steal the bnp's clothes but socialists need to reclaim the working classes in my area by getting off of their arses and doing some thing positive.

The best thing that could happen to the left is if all the trot groups took a coach trip together off of Beachy Head.

This middle class liberaly leftism is turning off a lot of people and the reciepents of support are people who'd I'd rather see nowhere near even the sniff of power.

Problem is, as we know, that many professedly "socialist" groups make one of two mistakes; they either talk down to people, or they're not particularly interested in grassroots local politics (I'm not counting the swappies because they make both mistakes).

 

[snadge]

It will always alienate SOME people but you can't please all the people all the time. Sons and Daughters is a policy that does need to be carefully played so that although there is priority given to those who have lived in an area for two years plus and have a connection with the area with families (both blood relations and family like support groupings) but that it doesn't exclude. Sons and Daughters doesn't have to exclude it just needs to prioritise. What is causing the problems in Dagenham is that people are seeing demographic change and incomers getting housing because of homelessness points whilst those who have contributed to the borough over several generations are excluded.

ok I should have put some people but my point stands.

As for housing, I have been on the council waiting list for 22 yrs, as a single male I have no chance but I knew that when I did it, I have applied for houses and flats on a regular basis with no success.

I have options though, one of the reasons that I am still on the waiting list is because I really would like to see if I could get a flat off the council.

I actually own my own home but am registered as homeless, just as an experiment like.

You may have a valid point there. Look how they have used the spectre of Islamic terrorism to bring in a whole raft of repressive laws that were not even in place when the country was really on it's knees between 39-45.

I think it's more than may, immigration is hot at the moment especially my points of wages being cut, is it cynical of me to think that the reason there is no protection for wage rates is because certain people in power feel it necessary to implement immigration control because the voters are demanding it?

 

[revol68]

It will always alienate SOME people but you can't please all the people all the time. Sons and Daughters is a policy that does need to be carefully played so that although there is priority given to those who have lived in an area for two years plus and have a connection with the area with families (both blood relations and family like support groupings) but that it doesn't exclude. Sons and Daughters doesn't have to exclude it just needs to prioritise. What is causing the problems in Dagenham is that people are seeing demographic change and incomers getting housing because of homelessness points whilst those who have contributed to the borough over several generations are excluded.


You may have a valid point there. Look how they have used the spectre of Islamic terrorism to bring in a whole raft of repressive laws that were not even in place when the country was really on it's knees between 39-45.

oh yes and if there is one thing we can bank on is that the state will not use Son's and Daughters policy to divide people, they will surely do it for the benefit of us.

Not to mention the fact that it is straight away an acceptance of an artificial shortage, that there is no need rrason why we should have fight over housing.

Still no one has told me how we can have a working class united and militant enough to even think of imposing these demands? Afterall the reason such a policy is being put forward instead of the "housing for all with no qualifications" is that working class isn't strong enough for such a demand.

 

[snadge]

oh yes and if there is one thing we can bank on is that the state will not use Son's and Daughters policy to divide people, they will surely do it for the benefit of us.

Not to mention the fact that it is straight away an acceptance of an artificial shortage, that there is no need rrason why we should have fight over housing.

Still no one has told me how we can have a working class united and militant enough to even think of imposing these demands? Afterall the reason such a policy is being put forward instead of the "housing for all with no qualifications" is that working class isn't strong enough for such a demand.

It's not that the working class aren't strong enough, more on the lines of there is no framework left to enable them to fight for their rights.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Ah yes, 2 decades of political stagnation while people argued about whether their identity(s) set them higher in the pecking order of the opressed than the next person.
If I never live through that again it'll be too soon.
.

All that achieved was to divide people to a large extent. Although I have identity as a bisexual person I have other identities as well.

I don't agree that the lack of a "sons and daughters" policy is responsible. Surely it's the lack of available social housing for rent per se (exacerbated by stock depletion through right to buy) that's the problem?
If the housing stock were there, "sons and daughters" wouldn't need to even be considered.
.

Couldn't agree more. But it will take a long time to build new stock if the money was available (if we weren't paying for Tony's Middle East Misadventure that is) we would need some way of letting people know that things were changing and that things were getting better.

I agree that it's not "racist" per se, what it is[/I] though, is a manifestation of a particular kind of self-interest.
.

Good point.

Problem is, as we know, that many professedly "socialist" groups make one of two mistakes; they either talk down to people, or they're not particularly interested in grassroots local politics (I'm not counting the swappies because they make both mistakes).

The Swappies are part of the problem. Especially in my area.

 

[johnboy10]

I've been skimming this thread and am slightly concerned that the OP said that there is a rise in 'racist' threads.

I can't say I've noticed them.

that's probably because you don't interpret immigration rules as inherently racist - some people do.

Anyone who starts a sentence with "its not racist to ..." can normally be guaranteed to be about to start saying something that I interpret as being racist in my experience - either that or doing a stand-up impersonation of Jon Reed, Minister for Authoritarianism

It's not racist to want immigration controls that are fair and balanced similarily it's not racist to want to see those who've lived in an area fora fair while be given priority inhousing rather than be allocated via other means

I think it is exactly racist to want immigration controls - how do you intend to decide who is eligible for entry into the UK and who isn't? Presumably all other people who can prove some kind of inherited tie to Britain (i.e. they are British) are allowed in, and the rest have to make a case to support their claim for entry (either they can provide work, they are members of other EU nations, or they are being persecuted (but not economically persecuted)). I can't see how this is not racism.

 

[snadge]

that's probably because you're too busy posting them.

Anyone who starts a sentence with "its not racist to ..." can normally be guaranteed to be about to start saying something racist in my experience - either that or doing a stand-up impersonation of Jon Reed, Minister for Authoritarianism



if I can reinterpret this quote using a bullshit filter:

I want Me and My Family and Friends to have nice places to live, and I don't want no outsiders coming in and spoiling it for us - especially if the outsiders are so different from Me and My Family and Friends that they once lived in Foreign (which, to be perfectly honest, I'd prefer them to go back to, or better still, not have come in the first place)

I'll interperate that bullshit as one of the biggest problems we have, sorting out tosspots like yourself that decide to interperate genuine problems that need to be addressed as point scoring oppurtunities, reading your own loaded agenda into everything.

Fuck off back into your dream world cunt and address the real issues that have been raised.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

that's probably because you're too busy posting them.

Bollocks go back over any of my posts on this subject and find me something that is outright racist.

Anyone who starts a sentence with "its not racist to ..." can normally be guaranteed to be about to start saying something racist in my experience - either that or doing a stand-up impersonation of Jon Reed, Minister for Authoritarianism
\

Yawn. Any country needs to protect it's borders to a greater or a lesser degree. No borders is a recipie for disaster. No borders is the quickest way to wind people up and increase support for racist parties. I believe that we should have effective and fair border control coupled with better resourcing of housing and other services and a better deal for the countries where people are comng from. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if we weren't paying for Mr Tony's mid east misadventure we would have more money.

if I can reinterpret this quote using a bullshit filter:

I want Me and My Family and Friends to have nice places to live, and I don't want no outsiders coming in and spoiling it for us - especially if the outsiders are so different from Me and My Family and Friends that they once lived in Foreign (which, to be perfectly honest, I'd prefer them to go back to, or better still, not have come in the first place)

What an idiotic statement. Why should families of all races and creeds who have CONTRIBUTED over genertions to an area be pushed down to the bottom of the
pile when it comes to allocating resources because of homelessness rules pushing people up he list who have moved from other parts of London or the country or elsewhere? Shitting on one group of people whilst patting another group on the head (or being percieved as patting them on the head) is a sure fire way of encouraging support for racist parties and attitudes.

My area is going through demographic change but the demographic change is being handled badly by the powers that be and this is contributing to the rise of the bnp. I live in Dagenham I see and hear what goes on.

I want everyone to have a nice place to live not just me and mine but what is happening is that there isa shortage of housing and the authorities are prioritising on the grounds of 'need' and this is pushing those who have been waiting for years for decent housing further down the list.

I'd be grateful if you take back the unwarrented racist slur on me.

What is your solution to the Dagenham situation - to parachute a load of middle class students with 'no nazi's here' banners into the area to insult the locals and call then fascists and drive them further into the arms of the bnp? That is the solution that the SWP seem to favour.

Or to start up a blatantly race and religion based party which also divides which is another SWP action.

Come live down my area for a while see how the govt has taken over 4 million (at the last count ) from the local health authority because of a govt cock up and see how that is exploited by the fash.

You really have no idea what is going on here it seems. A properly managed re prioritising of resource allocation (while services are rebuilt ) with safeguards against racism would cut the feet from beneath the bnp so that the could no longer erroneously claim that they were the real choice of the working man.

My bullshit filter is telling me that there is a strong possiblity that you may be a follower of some sort of authoritarian trot sect although being a reasonable person I'm willing to be corrected. One thing that you will notice about me is if I'm wrong and I'm called on it then I'll admit it. I just don't like being called a racist especially as I narrowly avoided getting my head kicked in on Sunday night for challenging some meathead in the pub over his comments tht 'the best thing for this country would be if they got the gas chambers working again for the muslims and the jews'

 

[118118]

Why should families of all races and creeds who have CONTRIBUTED over genertions to an area be pushed down to the bottom of the
pile when it comes to allocating resources because of homelessness rules pushing people up he list who have moved from other parts of London or the country or elsewhere?

Because thats what your arguing against in the first place
Whats that, you weren't originally arguing for entitlement, you were arguing for "democracy"?
Not that you are using "liberal"/capitalistic arguments, of course Shrug.

PS what we really need to do is learn how an homnest days work for a good employer entitles us to things, and is good for our family

Etc:

 

[johnboy10]

Dear KeyboardJockey,

I've edited my post, I hope, accordingly.

I still think that any immigration policy is inherently racist, but I accept that you might not be directly racist, especially in the way that you interpret the term (although I still can't see how it's possible to support immigration regimes and also not be racist).

I hope this is sufficient.

I also have a number of other comments to your latest post, which I'll answer shortly

JB

 

[johnboy10]

go back over any of my posts on this subject and find me something that is outright racist.

If you interpret immigration regimes as inherently racist (i.e. they attempt to keep one race (the mother-race Ingerlish) in and the others out) then most of this actual post can be intepreted as implicitly racist.

Any country needs to protect it's borders to a greater or a lesser degree. No borders is a recipie for disaster. .

no - nationalists want to protect their nation from other nations. internationalists don't need this.

No borders is the quickest way to wind people up and increase support for racist parties

no - racism and nationalism and talking about the inherent need for countries to protect themselves and for workers in one community to benefit over those from other communities is the best way to increase support for racist parties

I believe that we should have effective and fair border control coupled with better resourcing of housing and other services and a better deal for the countries where people are comng from.

not possible - oxymoron.

better resourced housing - ok

better deal for countries where people are coming from - make up your mind, I thought you wanted resources for "our" communities

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if we weren't paying for Mr Tony's mid east misadventure we would have more money.

who is this "we"?

My area is going through demographic change but the demographic change is being handled badly by the powers that be and this is contributing to the rise of the bnp. I live in Dagenham I see and hear what goes on.

I want everyone to have a nice place to live not just me and mine but what is happening is that there isa shortage of housing and the authorities are prioritising on the grounds of 'need' and this is pushing those who have been waiting for years for decent housing further down the list.

ok - so attack the powers that be - not immigrants/others from outside "our" communities. otherwise you're helping to fuel the BNP mentality.

What is your solution to the Dagenham situation?

well, it would begin by looking a little bit past the boundaries of Dagenham. But in order to tackle Dagenham BNP it would be something along the lines of trying to make a coherent argument showing that people's lack of resources is due to the exploitation/control of certain powerful interests within our contemporary society, and that we need a solution based on the principles of mutual and voluntary cooperation on a global basis.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Whats that, you weren't originally arguing for entitlement, you were arguing for "democracy"?

I'm arguing for both. There is an issue of entitlement and there is also the democratic issue. What has happened is that after the post 45 settlement people paid into a central fund whether it be NI or taxation and got services. Whats wrong with that you put in and then you get out services when you need them? What is being percieved is that those who haven't contributed to society are getting stuff whereas those who have paid in get fuck all when they are in deep shit and need help. It is this fact coupled with a visible demographic change that is being exploited by the bnp in Dagenham.

It is not a race issue it is an issue of fairness. What has happened is that over the years peoples offspring could expect that if they kept their nose clean they would be housed near their relatives and the rest of their community if they so chose.

However, because of right tobuy and a lack of land available for public housing this is not possible and housing authorities are allocating housing on other grounds mostly on the grounds of genuine need but this is leaving out those who may have kids but are in overcrowded dwellings or are needing housing on other grounds.

By prioritising those who are classed as homeless (because of a statutory duty) the LA is contributing to the pushing down of those who have lived in the area to give housing to those who have moved into the borough from other parts o fthe country.

I think that if we want to rebuild public housing we need to look at creative ways to raise money like taxing new build private housing by 25% as well as dealing with the use of wasteful parasites such as managment consultants in central govt.

People need to feel that a) if they play their part in society in some way then they will be entitled to help when they need it and b) they need to feel that they can influence society and feel empowered. It is partly the feeling of disempowerment that is fuelling the rise of the bnp in my area this disempowerment is being effectively exploited by the fash.

Not that you are using "liberal"/capitalistic arguments, of course Shrug.

So what. We aint going to have some form of glorious socialist revolution tomorrow are we. It's a capitalist society and change is going to have to be gradualist at least in the medium term.

PS what we really need to do is learn how an homnest days work for a good employer entitles us to things, and is good for our family

Etc:

Whats wrong with an honest days work? Equally there is nothing wrong IMO with someone claiming benefits if they need them. Some of the most committed local activists and community advocates I have come across are unemployed.

There is a link between rights and responsibilities like it or not. If I walked into your house and ate your food drank your booze and then shat on the carpet Idon't think you would have me round again and it should work out like that in the wider community. If you trash neighbours property or don't contribute in some way to society if you are able to why should society support you?

Good employers are getting harder and harder to find as the Thatcher / Blair employment laws rather than increase employment has just made it easier for bad employers to treat people like shit and bring in cheap labour if they complain or try to get access to what limited rights are left.

I'm a socialist but not one who blindly follows some dogma like some of the people on here.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Dear KeyboardJockey,

I've edited my post, I hope, accordingly.

I still think that any immigration policy is inherently racist, but I accept that you might not be directly racist, especially in the way that you interpret the term (although I still can't see how it's possible to support immigration regimes and also not be racist).

I hope this is sufficient.

I also have a number of other comments to your latest post, which I'll answer shortly

JB

Thanks for that accepted and noted.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Dear KeyboardJockey,

I've edited my post, I hope, accordingly.

I still think that any immigration policy is inherently racist, but I accept that you might not be directly racist, especially in the way that you interpret the term (although I still can't see how it's possible to support immigration regimes and also not be racist).

I hope this is sufficient.

I also have a number of other comments to your latest post, which I'll answer shortly

JB

Thanks for that accepted and noted.

I can see your reasoning why you think that an immigration policy is inherently racist but it doesn't have to be.

First of all you would need to take away from the Home Office ALL immigration and asylum functions and put it into a separate ministry made up of secondees from HO, FCO, DFID and MOD as a policy and managment provider with a core admin base with no involvement from the private sector. This would be especialy useful in dealing with asylum issues for the following reasons.

HO staff are comfortable working n an enforcement setting and are good at designing systems and practices for such work, DFID and FCO have a considerable amount of knowledge of the situations in country. I'd involve MOD as they have a lot of cross border links with overseas military and would be useful in providing specialist knowledge about what the military in the country are up to when someone claims asylum. This would be a much more open and streamlined system than the mess we have at themoment. If people can be convinced that the asylum system is not being abused then one plank of the bnp support is gone.

As regards general immigration then this will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis but with published overall rules. So for example spouses of UK citizens could enter and be naturalised and people with skills and/or pre organised jobs could come in along with people who can show that they can support themselves for a certain period and hve a return ticket etc etc etc. Basically similar rules to what we have now but administered far far better.

The system is a total mess and a lot of people have lost confidence in it so much that those who wish to divide and exploit the situation are getting support.

I can see how an immigration system could become racist but with work it doesn't have to be.

 

[revol68]

I'm arguing for both. There is an issue of entitlement and there is also the democratic issue. What has happened is that after the post 45 settlement people paid into a central fund whether it be NI or taxation and got services. Whats wrong with that you put in and then you get out services when you need them? What is being percieved is that those who haven't contributed to society are getting stuff whereas those who have paid in get fuck all when they are in deep shit and need help. It is this fact coupled with a visible demographic change that is being exploited by the bnp in Dagenham.

It is not a race issue it is an issue of fairness. What has happened is that over the years peoples offspring could expect that if they kept their nose clean they would be housed near their relatives and the rest of their community if they so chose.

However, because of right tobuy and a lack of land available for public housing this is not possible and housing authorities are allocating housing on other grounds mostly on the grounds of genuine need but this is leaving out those who may have kids but are in overcrowded dwellings or are needing housing on other grounds.

By prioritising those who are classed as homeless (because of a statutory duty) the LA is contributing to the pushing down of those who have lived in the area to give housing to those who have moved into the borough from other parts o fthe country.

I think that if we want to rebuild public housing we need to look at creative ways to raise money like taxing new build private housing by 25% as well as dealing with the use of wasteful parasites such as managment consultants in central govt.

People need to feel that a) if they play their part in society in some way then they will be entitled to help when they need it and b) they need to feel that they can influence society and feel empowered. It is partly the feeling of disempowerment that is fuelling the rise of the bnp in my area this disempowerment is being effectively exploited by the fash.




So what. We aint going to have some form of glorious socialist revolution tomorrow are we. It's a capitalist society and change is going to have to be gradualist at least in the medium term.


Whats wrong with an honest days work? Equally there is nothing wrong IMO with someone claiming benefits if they need them. Some of the most committed local activists and community advocates I have come across are unemployed.

There is a link between rights and responsibilities like it or not. If I walked into your house and ate your food drank your booze and then shat on the carpet Idon't think you would have me round again and it should work out like that in the wider community. If you trash neighbours property or don't contribute in some way to society if you are able to why should society support you?

Good employers are getting harder and harder to find as the Thatcher / Blair employment laws rather than increase employment has just made it easier for bad employers to treat people like shit and bring in cheap labour if they complain or try to get access to what limited rights are left.

I'm a socialist but not one who blindly follows some dogma like some of the people on here.

This is analysis has got nothing to do with socialism, it's a cretinous appeal for a "nice" capitalism.

The notion of "good employers" is something so niave as to warrant a smie. As if the problems with capitalism have anything to do with the "badness" of individual bosses. The problem lies on the fact it is founded on exploitation, on the seperation of the vast majority of the population from the means of production, and so they must sells themselves if they wish to live, this set's in motion a dynamic whereby labour sells itself to capital for a price and capital then sets it too work, labour produces more than the value of it's wage, and capital takes this surplus, invests it, and the dynamic continues, therefore the gap between the portion that labour recieves steadly decreases, hence locking labour further into a dynamic of selling itself.

For a socialist to not even understand this is a disgrace, and represents just how "socialism" has been collapsed into a vague desire for a "nicer" world.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

If you interpret immigration regimes as inherently racist (i.e. they attempt to keep one race (the mother-race Ingerlish) in and the others out) then most of this actual post can be intepreted as implicitly racist.

I see your point but what when the immigration is from so called white countries. Thats not a racial issue. One of my work colleauges is in no way racist but he feels that there are too many Aussies here.

no - nationalists want to protect their nation from other nations. internationalists don't need this.

I'm internationalist enough to see that is the ultimate goal (the EU for example has protected western europe from ripping the shit out of each other for the last sixty years).

I'd like to see international law strengthened and given teeth by the UN then you would be able to deal with inequalities inthe world.

no - racism and nationalism and talking about the inherent need for countries to protect themselves and for workers in one community to benefit over those from other communities is the best way to increase support for racist parties

But shitting on your own community or being percieved as shittingon your own community also increases support for racist parties. So what is the answer?

not possible - oxymoron.

I think that the immigration system can be made much fairer than it is at present but be effective - see my other post.

better resourced housing - ok

Definitely needed.

better deal for countries where people are coming from - make up your mind, I thought you wanted resources for "our" communities

If the ruling class in this country are exploiting workers in other countries to such an extent that living in a hovel over here is better than living ina hovel there then people will try by hook or by crook to get here. If life is made better for those in the countries where people are desparately trying to escape from people won't want to leave. That means dealing with the gross economic inequalities and also dealing with things like civil strife and the supply of small arms that are fuelling said civil strife.

who is this "we"?

Every man woman and child inthis country who buys stuff an pays taxes etc.

ok - so attack the powers that be - not immigrants/others from outside "our" communities. otherwise you're helping to fuel the BNP mentality.

Prioritising outsiders over locals wheither they be from the next door borough or from the other end of the countries causes resentment. Providing more resources and empowering people will reduce to a large extent the coalition of the desparate which is boosting the bnp. If people see that they and their families are benefiting from change then the bnp will disappear up their own arses leaving them with just thier core support of small minded nutters.

well, it would begin by looking a little bit past the boundaries of Dagenham. But in order to tackle Dagenham BNP it would be something along the lines of trying to make a coherent argument showing that people's lack of resources is due to the exploitation/control of certain powerful interests within our contemporary society, and that we need a solution based on the principles of mutual and voluntary cooperation on a global basis.

Cant say I disagree with thatstatement at all. The problem is if you present said argument it is ignored becuase the fash have done such a good job of the community politcs thing in my area.

More mutual and voluntary co-operation is something I agree with but it needs to be local as well as global.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

This is analysis has got nothing to do with socialism, it's a cretinous appeal for a "nice" capitalism..

Or better still community capitalism.

The notion of "good employers" is something so niave as to warrant a smie. As if the problems with capitalism have anything to do with the "badness" of individual bosses. The problem lies on the fact it is founded on exploitation, on the seperation of the vast majority of the population from the means of production, and so they must sells themselves if they wish to live, this set's in motion a dynamic whereby labour sells itself to capital for a price and capital then sets it too work, labour produces more than the value of it's wage, and capital takes this surplus, invests it, and the dynamic continues, therefore the gap between the portion that labour recieves steadly decreases, hence locking labour further into a dynamic of selling itself.

For a socialist to not even understand this is a disgrace, and represents just how "socialism" has been collapsed into a vague desire for a "nicer" world.

So whats your solution then? some vauge notion of a revolution which aint going to happen?

I do want a better world one where people are not exploited but stuff still needs to be done and stuff needs to be made there for people will sell their labour whether for money or in exchange for services.

Or would you prefer forcing the world back into an agrarian society a la Pol Pot?

Addendum:

I used to be an extreme internationalist like yourself until I realised that it's going to be another 10 or so generations before it comes a likelihood of happening. Its not something that can be imposed on people it is something that has to grow organically there was a huge amount of historic time between tribal societies and nation states and a huge and bloody amount of time between nation states and regional political and trading blocs it will be another huge amount of time before genuine internationalism can come about. In the meantime we have to reform the situation we have at the moment unless we have an invasion from space in which case ALL humanity will pull together.

 

[treelover]

what is it with the marxist text dwellers? they seem to analyse every sentence a dissenter posts for evidence of racism, they remind me of the witchfinder general or torqemada looking for signs of deviance or the communist regimes, scouring for the same, and i do wonder if they were in power, would they act similalry. Back off with the accusations of racism , they are dangerous and unproductive, this is an open discussion board, if you don't like it , theres the door

 

[treelover]

you have put it well there KJ, ultimately I would like open borders, but on this question i'm a gradualist.

 

[soulman]

what is it with the marxist text dwellers? they seem to analyse every sentence a dissenter posts for evidence of racism, they remind me of the witchfinder general or torqemada loking for signs of deviance or the communist regimes, scouring for the same, and i do wonder if they were in power, would they act similalry. Back off with the accusations of racism , they are dangerous and unproductive, this is an open discussion board, if you don't like it , theres the door

 

[KeyboardJockey]

what is it with the marxist text dwellers? they seem to analyse every sentence a dissenter posts for evidence of racism, they remind me of the witchfinder general or torqemada loking for signs of deviance or the communist regimes, scouring for the same, and i do wonder if they were in power, would they act similalry. Back off with the accusations of racism , they are dangerous and unproductive, this is an open discussion board, if you don't like it , theres the door

The poster who made the accusation of racism against me retracted it sufficiently to satisfy me.

But I see your point not so much with this particular poster but with others mostly from the Trot left I might add who shout 'racist' at every challenge to their point of view.

The comparsion with Torquemada and the witchfinder general is pretty apt in those situations.

I don't think that you can look at Marxism and put it onto a modern society in total as some of the 'text dwellers' want. Classic marxism has failed dismally but there is an urgent need for a more effective replacement that has the same aims but is not treated like a secular holy book.

 

[In Bloom]

I don't think that you can look at Marxism and put it onto a modern society in total as some of the 'text dwellers' want. Classic marxism has failed dismally but there is an urgent need for a more effective replacement that has the same aims but is not treated like a secular holy book.

Aye, well, cliches involving babies and bathwater come to mind with some people's posts on the subject. Just because Marx wasn't always right, doesn't mean that his critique of capitalism is utterly without worth or relevance.

 

[In Bloom]

On a sidenote, I can see some argument for giving preference over the housing in a given area to those who have lived there for a few years or have family there, as long as it is not one of the major factors in making a decision and there is plenty of housing available for everyone.

It's a shame that there's so little chance of something like the squatters' movement happening again in the near future, really.

 

[ZWord]

But I'm taking the perspective of the "immigrants" to the UK and thus see your point of view as getting in the way of poor peeps trying to better their lives. Strict immigration controls are detrimental to wouldbe immigrants.

That, once again, sets us against each other: the working class fighting against the truly poor in order to try and protect their own living standards. Understandable perhaps, if selfish, but of course it's the wealthy that truly benefit.

Madness.

Immigrants are not the enemy, they are often in desperate need. The focus needs to be on creating more equitable conditions for all.



Woof

Well if you take the perspective of the "immigrants", you're bound to think the way you do. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the left- who have no influence on our national politics as it is, to take the perspective of "immigrants" rather than the perspective of their potential supporters who are already part of this country. And that is about the closest I hope to ever get to the cynicism of realpolitik.

 

[ZWord]

This is analysis has got nothing to do with socialism, it's a cretinous appeal for a "nice" capitalism.

The notion of "good employers" is something so niave as to warrant a smie. As if the problems with capitalism have anything to do with the "badness" of individual bosses. The problem lies on the fact it is founded on exploitation, on the seperation of the vast majority of the population from the means of production, and so they must sells themselves if they wish to live, this set's in motion a dynamic whereby labour sells itself to capital for a price and capital then sets it too work, labour produces more than the value of it's wage, and capital takes this surplus, invests it, and the dynamic continues, therefore the gap between the portion that labour recieves steadly decreases, hence locking labour further into a dynamic of selling itself.

For a socialist to not even understand this is a disgrace, and represents just how "socialism" has been collapsed into a vague desire for a "nicer" world.

Cretinous.?

I wonder. Do you think that whether keyboardjockey's arguments correspond to "socialism" is really a relevant factor in deciding their worth. ?

 

[ZWord]

A world with no borders would be a much better world. And there's no good case for being against it. However, it would be a big step for the UK to unilaterally abandon its immigration controls. I would love to see it. It would be hilarious.

A big difference between the kind of "free" market we have here and the kind of free market there is in India, is that here if you want to set up a stall on the street, you need a licence from the council, who rent you the space, often for a sizeable amount of money. I don't quite understand the legality of that, as the council doesn't own the streets, but that's what happens.

Similarly, in a different sphere, part of the way in which we ensure a continually rising housing market, and continual demand in the rental sector, is by strict controls on planning permission, so that only those in the system can get permission to build, by knocking down illegal dwellings, and by enforcing the law that you can only camp on land, even if it's yours for one month in each year.

In India, - I think I'm right in saying that there are probably at least as many people of no fixed abode as live in this country. This means that the level of control that the government can exercise is completely different from what's possible in this country. It's no good some local councillors trying to enforce licences on street traders and using the police to move them on if they don't have a licence, because there are so many people setting up a stall on a lucrative street, that if you sent the police to move them on, the traders or someone else would already have come back and set up again by the time the police got to the end of the street. Similiarly when there's millions of people camping or building shacks wherever they can, it becomes a lot more difficult to move them on, or knock their buildings down.

I'd love to see this country have open borders, it would be just hilarious. I mean, I don't know quite how it would work out, but my guess is that there'd be a trickle of people coming, and it would gradually gradually turn into a flood, until suddenly we discovered we were living in uncontrollable chaos, with shanty towns growing up on waste ground outside towns. Which in all seriousness might be a big improvement for some of us on what we now have.

It's difficult to imagine Britain being much like India, but, then why is India like India,? - mainly because there's so many people there.

But in a way, the most serious problem of immigration is the drain on welfare state resources, e.g. housing. And seriously, why should people from other countries be entitled to council housing over the heads of people from this country, as they often are, in my experience. While on a personal level, I'm fairly glad that someone I know from Italy is given a council flat, I also think it's pretty unfair that I can't have a council flat, and despite being homeless I'm not considered vulnerable enough to deserve one. But they only say that because there's a terrible shortage, And why.. in her block loads of the people with flats are from other countries. And it's not like any of those other countries are going to welcome the english with open arms and give them houses. And that's like a permanent gift, ending up in the right to buy at a discount. It's very good of us as a country to be so generous... But what is so unreasonable or racist about thinking that a national government should put its own people first. That's what every other national government does. I'm not aware that I could even claim any type of benefit in any other Western European country. And it only becomes racist when you then start to define who is part of this nation on the basis of ethnicity,- and I certainly don't advocate doing that.

 

[Jessiedog]

A world with no borders would be a much better world. And there's no good case for being against it. However, it would be a big step for the UK to unilaterally abandon its immigration controls. I would love to see it. It would be hilarious.

Meh!

And I guess that's what makes this exploration so interesting.

There's no real argument with the concept of "open borders", in my view, there are just different views on how fast it's needed.

My life is spent among people who's very raison detre is to get to "the west", and personally, I'm with them. Anything that makes it easier to get to the UK (US, Canada, Oz, Western Europe, etc.) as soon as possible, is a good thing in my view. Open borders would benefit far, far more people than it would hurt. By a magnitude of many multiples.

Peeps in the UK (etc, etc.) need to accept a substantial, overall, drop in living standards, if "we" are ever going to get a fair shake.

Time has run out. The time is now. Tear down the barriers!



(Oi'd fookin' love to see a "Calcutta stylee" London, me. Class! .)





Woof