Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

(An attempt at) A progressive policy on immigration ..

durruti02

love and rage!
The last few years has seen neo liberalism ( the bosses the rich the spivs and the cowboys) , in the UK, faced with an inability to carry on its project of restructuring and pushing down wages first started in 1979 under Thatcher, by a refusal of w/c people to accept jobs at the rates of pay and level of exploitation wanted by capital/the bosses, has moved to whole scale encouragement / importation of cheap labour from abroad, the ability to do this being something that was part and parcel of the exapansion of the EU.

It appears that while cheap labour migration, in a Thatcherite way, DOES increase overall GDP, it has negative affacts on the w/c, as whole but particularly affects negatively the poorer w/c

At the same time we have over 3 million unemployed in this country, a part of the w/c that have been abandonned by the system and by trade union leaderships complicit in neo liberalism, and a w/c generally that is seeing its conditions and rates continuosly eroded and youth unemployment steadily rising, and in many places at over 50%

This migration for cheap labour ( as pointed out by Marx) also enables the state to divide us a class, and has been used in the helping the BNP secure the highest ever votes for a fascist party in the UK

A progressive w/c movement has to confront a process like this front on. The process is simply reactionary and anti working class. It is designed simply to benefit the system/the bosses/the rich.

However a progressive w/c movement has to balance the desire to increase the freedoms of w/c people and the power of w/c workforces and communities and the w/c as a class. While it supports the rights of individuals to seek to move freely it equally supports w/c communities having the right to control where they work and live.

A progressive w/c movement understands that we can not rebuild resistance to capital/neo liberalism/ the bosses if we do not start rebuilding from the very base and support people in their day to day struggles over housing and jobs (and life itself) and if we do not start to create power again in the communities and the workplaces

A progressive w/c movement ;

1) needs to analyse how large this migration has been and what affect it has had on, not just jobs and housing of w/c people, but our ability to orgainse as a class, in communities and in workplaces

2) it needs to clearly state how, why and for whos benefit this process is happenning

3) it must emphasise that the solution to peoples problems does not lie in legislation either to increase border security or to physically limit migration but in workers direct activity, at the base, to stop explotation and cheap labour, by organising and unionising

4) it must prioritise the defence of jobs and housing for those who currently live here ( of whatever background) as opposed to the jobs and housing of those who the system wishes to use for cheap labour

5) needs to emphaise the importance and rights of political refuge and note the differrence between asylum seekers/refugees fleeing political oppression and war and those migrating for economic reasons

6) it needs to scupper attempts of the bosses to use migration and racism to divde workers and divert attention from the system

.
 
Easy to sympathise with that. To be balanced it would imply a degree of protectionism though, and also basically a pull-out from the EU which aint exactly on the cards.

Anyway this was never about the w/c progressive or otherwise. This is about making money, giving liberals / the left the blame. It's working.

Remember, those immigrants arent full of w/c consciouness either. More likely to be Thatcherite fervour.
 
Simply put the working classes and the immigrant labour force need to stand together as equals to demand their working rights.

Of course, secondly we need to stand together to demand control of, and profit thereof, our own labour, as communities; for the benefit of our communities, with shared ownership, shared control, and equal rights.

And the moon on a diamond encrusted stick.
 
bluestreak said:
Simply put the working classes and the immigrant labour force need to stand together as equals to demand their working rights.

Of course, secondly we need to stand together to demand control of, and profit thereof, our own labour, as communities; for the benefit of our communities, with shared ownership, shared control, and equal rights.

And the moon on a diamond encrusted stick.

Sounds about right to me - not enough empthesis on this in the OP. (the diamond encrusted stick would be an obvious bonus)

Plus maybe w/c support for international w/c movements so folk feel less need to move.
 
durruti02 said:
A progressive w/c movement ;

...must prioritise the defence of jobs and housing for those who currently live here ( of whatever background) as opposed to the jobs and housing of those who the system wishes to use for cheap labour

This is the core of what you're after, is it not?

A bit like the Tower Hamlets "grandparent" housing policy ruled against by the ECJ in the early 90s?

Apart from your clearly being a sad obsessive who - as noted on yet another thread - starts a new one every time a feeble excuse occurs to me, it's this that makes me think you very likely are not posting from the position you claim.
 
There's 2 wider points of perspective that need to be adopted into any any practical suggestions that develop out 'progressive' programs:

1) Any w/c needs that are identified by the w/c as a result of immigration (inlcuding that section of immigrants who are w/c) should be viewed as part of the total social wage and to be collectively imposed upon the needs of state/capital across the board, not to one component part of the w/c. (Is this happening anywhere? Who? How?).

2) State/capital 'pays'.

Recognising those two points leaves a lot of room for debate about practical proposals though - and also can help ward off the sort of 'how can we help capital be more efficient' approach that appears to be dominating mainstrean discussion of this issue.
 
Good points...Durruti....But your going to need Immigration and Capital Controls (an enabling act) aernt you?
BLOOODY LIBERAL>>>>>
 
laptop said:
This is the core of what you're after, is it not?

A bit like the Tower Hamlets "grandparent" housing policy ruled against by the ECJ in the early 90s?

Apart from your clearly being a sad obsessive who - as noted on yet another thread - starts a new one every time a feeble excuse occurs to me, it's this that makes me think you very likely are not posting from the position you claim.

paranoid conspiracy bullshit nonsense .. FFS grow up mate .. look out the fling window .. we are being screwed and yet you accuse ME of being a racist strassrite whatever . i can't remember all the idiot smears and who they came from :rolleyes:

anyway .. so you disagree or agree with OP??? or by implication you smearing it as racist??

p.s. so are the SP racist too?? (please reply to this on SP thread)
 
butchersapron said:
1) Any w/c needs that are identified by the w/c as a result of immigration (inlcuding that section of immigrants who are w/c) should be viewed as part of the total social wage and to be collectively imposed upon the needs of state/capital across the board, not to one component part of the w/c.

The point.

And not the only one to make it:

Socialist Party said:
The only way that the working class can counter the consequences of increased immigration is to unite and fight for decent pay and conditions for all.

(My emphasis.)
 
laptop said:
The point.

And not the only one to make it:



(My emphasis.)
but where and when have i ever argued against this?? :D :rolleyes: .. unfortunately life though is NOT that simple that mere platitudes will suffice .. we have to have concrete ideas about concrete situations .. we do not .. the bosses and the bnp do .. result we getting fucked ..

oh and i noticed your ittle dig 'any feeble excuse' .. do you ever bother to read the papers?? to listen to the radio ?? to watch the news?? so you have not noticed that immigration is a massive political issue that is on the front pages week in week out?? that in the last week there were 3 major reports into the affect of immigration ( all saying it was significant )..


we should ignore all that? :rolleyes:
 
durruti02 said:
where and when have i ever argued against this?

I emphasised one word for a reason. It is "only".

The one substantive policy proposal you make in the OP of this thread (in case you've lost track) is to "prioritise the defence of jobs and housing for those who currently live here". So the SP document directly contradicts your stance.

And, as I pointed out, this was a policy beloved of (to pick one of the less inflammatory examples) Tower Hamlets right-wing Liberals. And they was slung out on their ear by the people of the borough.
 
durruti02 said:
3) it must emphasise that the solution to peoples problems does not lie in legislation either to increase border security or to physically limit migration but in workers direct activity, at the base, to stop explotation and cheap labour, by organising and unionising

4) it must prioritise the defence of jobs and housing for those who currently live here ( of whatever background) as opposed to the jobs and housing of those who the system wishes to use for cheap labour

Wouldn't 4 end up increasing the liklihood of new arrivals actually descending into illegal work? Also (correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't 4 require us leaving the EU? You have set yourself a rather ambitious task but by prioritising existing residents you risk alienating the new arrivals who could (and would) be used to undermine your unionised workforce. Unless you enact legislation to prevent this, again not conducive to EU law.
 
Ah, stand in solidarity with the bosses - eh, durutti? Never mind "Workers of the world unite"! Let's keep those nation-states and borders; the same nation-states that exploit us all. The same nation-states that have now been largely subordinated to multi-national companies: whose own power seems limitless.
 
laptop said:
I emphasised one word for a reason. It is "only".

The one substantive policy proposal you make in the OP of this thread (in case you've lost track) is to "prioritise the defence of jobs and housing for those who currently live here". So the SP document directly contradicts your stance.

And, as I pointed out, this was a policy beloved of (to pick one of the less inflammatory examples) Tower Hamlets right-wing Liberals. And they was slung out on their ear by the people of the borough.

so you are arguing that we should not prioritise the jobs and housing of people who live in this country???!! LOL no wonder the left/@ have no influence in britain with this sort of nonsense!!LOL

you would go to workers in this ocuntry and say they we support cheap labour workers ( who do not yet live in the country) as much as them?? :rolleyes:

and anyway you missed the sentance above :rolleyes: 'unionising and organising' ..

and yet again teh smear bullshit ( i am now a right wing lib dem!! LOL better than strasserite i guess!) .. the old 'oh they ( bnp / rightwing liberals / brown / ukip etc etc yawn) did/say it so it must be wrong' :rolleyes:

.. so mate .. tell me ,is it REALLY wrong that sons and daughters should get priority?? is it REALLY wrong that children should not keep rights to social housing??? FFS .. have a kid .. try to lead a w/c life and maybe you would sing a differrent song
 
Fledgling said:
Wouldn't 4 end up increasing the liklihood of new arrivals actually descending into illegal work? Also (correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't 4 require us leaving the EU? You have set yourself a rather ambitious task but by prioritising existing residents you risk alienating the new arrivals who could (and would) be used to undermine your unionised workforce. Unless you enact legislation to prevent this, again not conducive to EU law.

1).. the first point is people come cos they KNOW there is work .. e.g. communication is easy with poland .. if it is made clear that there is a strong w/c movement that is prepared to defend the jobs of those who live here and indeed STOP the bosses either exporting work or importing labour .. quite simply people would not come here for non existent work

2) the second point is serious and a fair comment .. that is why it is vitally important that we have a clear class perspective on why immigration is happenning in 2007 .. so people do NOT blame migrants and blame the bosses

tbh i think if the unions were stronger migrants would be MORE likely to join .. i have had little problem getting migrants to join where i work
 
A progressive policy on migration is very much needed.
Reparations to poorer nations must be a starting point.
There are far too many people from poorer nations living and working in richer nations. It is hugely divisive both in the countries they leave and go to.
 
paranoid conspiracy bullshit nonsense .. FFS grow up mate .. look out the fling window ..
Says the bloke who had the front to call me "abusive".
we are being screwed and yet you accuse ME of being a racist strassrite whatever . i can't remember all the idiot smears and who they came from :rolleyes:
I think you'll find, if you check back, that it wasn't laptop who said that about you.
 
Says the bloke who had the front to call me "abusive".

I think you'll find, if you check back, that it wasn't laptop who said that about you.
context my friend context .. if you remember idiots were accusing me of being a nazi .. would you take kindly to that? and laptop stated clearly "..it's this that makes me think you very likely are not posting from the position you claim..."

i was ( and still am ) ( and should be) sick of this intelectual feebleness that means if some says something someone disagrees with they call them ( or imply as laptop did here ) a fascist .. it is simply pathetic

btw i have no memory of who called me a strasserite ( i.e. a nazi ) but at least two other idiot posters used that original smear .. did you condemn that smear?

and yet again a thread TRYING to be constructive is derailed .. do you support the way people derail on here threads they do not like?
 
Let's travel back in time to 1905. A 1905 Durruti02 would have been for keeping we Joos from getting housing, jobs, and participating in the labour market.
 
context my friend context .. if you remember idiots were accusing me of being a nazi .. would you take kindly to that?
No, but then my words would rarely (if ever) give anyone cause to call me one.
and laptop stated clearly "..it's this that makes me think you very likely are not posting from the position you claim..."
So laptop thinks you might be telling porkies. So what?
i was ( and still am ) ( and should be) sick of this intelectual feebleness that means if some says something someone disagrees with they call them ( or imply as laptop did here ) a fascist .. it is simply pathetic
Who's called you a fascist on this thread? No-one.
Stop whining about perceived slights and engage with the issues.
btw i have no memory of who called me a strasserite ( i.e. a nazi ) but at least two other idiot posters used that original smear .. did you condemn that smear?
Yes, at length.
and yet again a thread TRYING to be constructive is derailed .. do you support the way people derail on here threads they do not like?
No, but you need to accept that threads do broaden, that topics do feed into other topics.
I mean, ffs, you've done it yourself on this thread by whinging about being called a "Strasserite" on another thread!
 
Let's travel back in time to 1905. A 1905 Durruti02 would have been for keeping we Joos from getting housing, jobs, and participating in the labour market.

A bit reductive, but it's fairly obvious (as I iterated and reiterated in the last "sons and daughters" thread) that an effect of such a policy would act to exclude the most recent immigrant communities.
"Sons and daughters" policies made sense in an environment of increasing social housing coverage. They don't make sense in an environment of an ever-decreasing social housing coverage.
 
4) it must prioritise the defence of jobs and housing for those who currently live here ( of whatever background) as opposed to the jobs and housing of those who the system wishes to use for cheap labour
Fuck off. Make the bosses pay for what the w/c needs, not just one section of it
 
Can there be a progressive policy based on nationalism? Isn't it like a progressive final solution, just a contradiction in terms?
 
Fuck off. Make the bosses pay for what the w/c needs, not just one section of it

yes i know what you mean .. but it remains IF the bosses were forced to employ the unemployed at union/decent rates, there would not be the issue of migrants needing housing in the same way, would there?

the cheap labour economic migrants are here to REPLACE workers, as cheap labour .. why should we help the bosses in that process?
 
Can there be a progressive policy based on nationalism? Isn't it like a progressive final solution, just a contradiction in terms?
where did THAT come from? this has nothing to do with nationalism .. it is all about creating a strong rooted working class that can defeat nationalism

if you wish to talk of 'progressive nationalism' you need to talk to lewis lewis .. personally i am entirely against nationalism except when wales play england at rugby :D
 
Back
Top Bottom