Why is Urban Pol full of racist threads?
- Thread starter bolshiebhoy
- Start date
I can see no reason why immigration would break families or communities.
It's racism, poverty, exploitation, oppression and insecurity that breaks families or communities.
And it's usually those doing the exploiting and oppressing that blame the immigrants (or sometimes their lackeys - Durruti?)
It's racism, poverty, exploitation, oppression and insecurity that breaks families or communities.
And it's usually those doing the exploiting and oppressing that blame the immigrants (or sometimes their lackeys - Durruti?)
Blackmushroom said:
No the reasoning might be that if you're involved in politics, you're involved in national politics, as you don't have the possibility of trying to take over the world government, and if you're involved in national politics from a "left-wing" point of view, because you care about people? you actually have to limit that to caring about the people of this country, irrespective of their race, rather than caring generally about the people of every country. And perhaps you realised that a compassion so generalised that it doesn't distinguish between people from this country and people from others, is also one that doesn't have much appeal to your natural political constituency, and so its only virtue is really that it's a morally impeccable viewpoint, but at the price of having any political effectiveness.
Certainly an ideal world ought not to have any immigration controls, - but it's possible to be personally in favour of something and politically against it, and a vision of an ideal world that doesn't include some possible way of getting there isn't really a vision of anything coherent.
Politics grounded solely in "compassion" or who you "care about" are a non-starter anyway. It's all about recognising class interests. Immigration controls are not in our interest as a class because while they don't actually prevent immigrants coming in, they do force them into the most casualised and worst paid jobs, however, which allows the boss class to use them to drive down the working conditions and wages of us all.
It's not complicated, compassion is a stupid thing to base your politics on and immigration controls do not benefit us anyway. How hard is it to understand?ZWord said:
The government push for stronger border controls and more casualised conditions for migrant workers because it is in the interests of the boss class, which they represent, to have a pool of casualised labour who they can use against other workers.
revol68 said:
Depends where you are i suppose....Most of your posts seem overly influenced by what is a very specific part of the UK....
The Sun today had an article quoting John Denham MP that says that builders wages have gone down by 50% since may 2004...The influx of Polish workers has forced down wages..
In Bloom said:
I don't see how there's anything to base left-wing politics on except wanting to help people, which is what I mean by compassion. So, you mean, our current immigration controls don't benefit us, and we should therefore have less of them?
In Bloom said:
There seems to be a slight contradiction in the government's position as you've described it. I haven't noticed much in the way of stronger border controls, particularly since we opened our borders to the whole of Eastern Europe.
I fully agree with you and think you're talking bollocks.
That's not left wing, that's liberalism. Left wing politics have, historically, always been about advancing our interests as a class, not some woolly, idealist notion of "helping people".ZWord said:
I mean that border controls in general don't benefit us.
Unless we're going to have every inch of the coastline covered by armed guards who shoot unauthorised incomers on sight, there will always be immigration into this country, the only thing that border controls really effect is the social status of immigrants.
I'll try to be a little clearer. The government, publically, put across a stance of being "Tough on immigration", when in fact they are trying to be tough on immigrants, because this creates the previously mentioned pool of casualised labour.
revol68
what, fucking what?
In Bloom, don't be so crudely reductionist about compassion, because it is something "liberals" have co opted, doesn't mean to say it doesn't have a central role in "class struggle", "our interests" are not restricted to a wage increase, or to ourselves but rather "our interests" are made up of compassion and empathy as well, the class struggle is what gives some direction, some dynamic to this compassion.
revol68
what, fucking what?
In Bloom said:
the foundation of my politics is my desire, and my desire is not without compassion.
If I said my desire was to see a more compassionate world is that any less rational than a desire to improve my "material conditions", or is compassion part of my material conditions.
The point is that the proletariat in it's radical chains is able to give material meaning to the idealist dreams of "compassion" and "empathy". Infact even to see ourselves as a class with common interests and concerns is to use compassion for navigation of the world, for mapping our experiances.
I want to post something clever about how that capitalm moves is good for both us and capital... either way, I would guess that not every loss for the bourgeois is a gain for us> dunno what mistake that would be, mind, reductionism - maybe, ignoring form?
In bloom: imho people don't go around telling people to be nasty, its the most counterintuitive thing to do I can think of, iyswim. Aren't the w/c the most oppressed group? It would be voluntarist, maybe, to think that the reason for you being left/etc is important, or a more pathetic moralising
Are you planning an atrocity?
In bloom: imho people don't go around telling people to be nasty, its the most counterintuitive thing to do I can think of, iyswim. Aren't the w/c the most oppressed group? It would be voluntarist, maybe, to think that the reason for you being left/etc is important, or a more pathetic moralising
Are you planning an atrocity?
So the reasoning behind your politics doesn't effect the conclusions of your politics? That's an "interesting" way of looking at things, to say the least.118118 said:It would be voluntarist, maybe, to think that the reason for you being left/etc is important, or a more pathetic moralising
As for the rest of the stuff directed at me, all I can say is "eh?
"In Bloom said:So the reasoning behind your politics doesn't effect the conclusions of your politics? That's an "interesting" way of looking at things, to say the least.
As for the rest of the stuff directed at me, all I can say is "eh?
Think about it?Er, yeah your reasoning, but compassion isn't really a type of reasoning, especially for compassionate types. Surely reasoning in politics is a case of 2+2=4, not a distillation of your emotions. Afterall, we all want the same thing, in this case, I would guess?
I mean, your basically telling people that they are the wrong kind of person - I mean that some people are just compassionate people - you really think that if they say to themselves "I am left wing to advance the class" 10 times a day before they go to bed, they will be better politicos? Obviously not, people don't work like that - so you'll have to do more change someone's self perception of their politics, to make a meaningful difference to their politics. Which is probably quite different
revol68
what, fucking what?
Why are people trying to seperate emotions, like compassion, from reason? A world without emotion would not require reason as we would have no subjectivity, no means of recognising ourselves as affected by the world, likewise reason is a means of articulated emotion, of understanding it, without reason our emotions would have no consequence or meaning.
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.ZWord said:
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
Oh for Christ's sake! If this is the level of "debate" you want to engage in, I'm not going to bother responding.118118 said:I mean, your basically telling people that they are the wrong kind of person - I mean that some people are just compassionate people - you really think that if they say to themselves "I am left wing to advance the class" 10 times a day before they go to bed, they will be better politicos? Obviously not, people don't work like that - so you'll have to do more change someone's self perception of their politics, to make a meaningful difference to their politics. Which is probably quite different
Nothing you've said relates to my argument in anything but the most cursorary and passing way.
revol68
what, fucking what?
118118 said:Erm, IMO even the greatest amongst us
Positivist because that theory was taught in psychology class! They said it was groundbreaking!
are you reading me the correctly?
I'm not denying the existence of morals or ethics, or their role in affecting our lives and decisions.
I fail to see how my position of reason and emotion being a false binary is positivist. I think you should explain yourself better cos at the moment your making no sense.
Jessiedog said:Immigrants are not the enemy, they are often in desperate need. The focus needs to be on creating more equitable conditions for all.
Woof
How can you create more equitable conditions,if you support policies that lead to poorer countries losing the workers they need most?
Similar threads
