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

[littlebabyjesus]

The main driver behind migration has always been primarily economic.

 

[nino_savatte]

Of course i dont deny either statement.

So when you said "people having to move south", what were you implying?

If there is no work in some place like Consett, why should anyone want to stay there?

 

[tbaldwin]

The main driver behind migration has always been primarily economic.

Very very true.

 

[Fruitloop]

But economic migration is a result of the economic disparities between one area and another, which is a result of the free movement of capital plus the restricted movement of labour. So to support the free movement of capital and the restricted movement of labour is to perpetuate the motivations for economic migration that exist in the first place. You can create a 'fortress Britain' but firstly that doesn't work and secondly it's treating the symptom not the cause.

So why not treat the disease rather than the symptom?

 

[tbaldwin]

So when you said "people having to move south", what were you implying?

If there is no work in some place like Consett, why should anyone want to stay there?

1 That we should support policies ( primarily economic) that dont encourage it.

2 Exactly

 

[Fruitloop]

But that is 'better managed capitalism', it is not progressive it is reactionary.

 

[Fruitloop]

Very very true.

Not 'always' at all. It has been about resources, about war, about changes in environment and way of life. This is a completely reified capitalistic view - socialism is not even within shouting distance here.

 

[tbaldwin]

But economic migration is a result of the economic disparities between one area and another, which is a result of the free movement of capital plus the restricted movement of labour. So to support the free movement of capital and the restricted movement of labour is to perpetuate the motivations for economic migration that exist in the first place. You can create a 'fortress Britain' but firstly that doesn't work and secondly it's treating the symptom not the cause.

So why not treat the disease rather than the symptom?

Good post Thanks.

First of all i dont support the free movement of capital, i thought you might have realised that by now. But of course it would be totally contradictory to argue for the free movement of capital but not labour and vicve a versa.

I think you have to treat symptoms as well as causes.
Both are imporant.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But economic migration is a result of the economic disparities between one area and another, which is a result of the free movement of capital plus the restricted movement of labour.

This is the heart of the matter. It's not the migration of people that should be opposed to but the migration of money.

 

[tbaldwin]

Not 'always' at all. It has been about resources, about war, about changes in environment and way of life. This is a completely reified capitalistic view - socialism is not even within shouting distance here.

So you dont think resources,wars,change in environment and way of life are influenced by economic factors?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not 'always' at all. It has been about resources, about war, about changes in environment and way of life. This is a completely reified capitalistic view - socialism is not even within shouting distance here.

My definition of 'economic' would include resources.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

First of all i dont support the free movement of capital, i thought you might have realised that by now. But of course it would be totally contradictory to argue for the free movement of capital but not labour and vicve a versa.

I don't agree with this. It's not contradictory at all to argue for the free movement of people but not money.

 

[Carousel]

The big question is how.

The big question is why. What actually is the problem? When we say “progressive”, what does that actually mean?

 

[nino_savatte]

1 That we should support policies ( primarily economic) that dont encourage it.

2 Exactly

Clear as mud.

 

[Fruitloop]

My definition of 'economic' would include resources.

But that is all back to front! Resources are real things, economics is just a concept. This is what Marx calls 'reification', where the world of actually existing stuff is subsumed beneath socially-determined concepts.

 

[tbaldwin]

I don't agree with this. It's not contradictory at all to argue for the free movement of people but not money.

So how do you stop people moving their money with them.
I know the Iranians passed an enabling act trying to stop the shah moving money out of Iran. How succesful was that? How succesful have attempts to stop other dictators moving their money with them been?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that is all back to front! Resources are real things, economics is just a concept. This is what Marx calls 'reification', where the world of actually existing stuff is subsumed beneath socially-determined concepts.

That's just a semantic difference, I think. When I use the word economic, I'm basically referring to the ability to make a living. Where there is pressure on resources, whether or not those resources are represented by the abstraction of money, there will be pressure to migrate.

 

[Fruitloop]

I mean animals defend territory and move into new ones because there are resources to be defended and exploited. Is this 'economics'? The stuff comes first, the social relations that determine its ownership and distribution come after!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I mean animals defend territory and move into new ones because there are resources to be defended and exploited. Is this 'economics'?

Essentially, yes – economics is the human version of this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So how do you stop people moving their money with them.
I know the Iranians passed an enabling act trying to stop the shah moving money out of Iran. How succesful was that? How succesful have attempts to stop other dictators moving their money with them been?

Within capitalism as it is now, you can't. First you need to address the question of ownership and get rid of the rentier class of landlord/shareholder. Not easy, of course, but it's important to identify the problem first before you can find the solution.

 

[Carousel]

So how do you stop people moving their money with them.

1970's style exchange controls. In response to the oil crisis and a run on Sterling. "Printing their way out of a crisis" the Tories called it.

 

[Fruitloop]

Essentially, yes – economics is the human version of this.

No, economics is much more than that. It is a social relationship as well. In fact it is a social relationship primarily, and about the stuff only indirectly. The 'human version' is totally different to the animal one and we have to recognise this, otherwise there is no 'progressive' at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, economics is much more than that. It is a social relationship as well. The 'human version' is totally different to the animal one and we have to recognise this, otherwise there is no 'progressive' at all.

Of course it's a social relationship. We're social animals – how could it not be?

 

[Fruitloop]

Good, then we agree about that much at least.

 

[Wolveryeti]

So how do you stop people moving their money with them.

Generally by banning it expressly and summarily confiscating any found on outgoing tourists. Malaysia experimented with currency controls during the Asian Banking Crisis of '97 and as a consequence suffered much less than the other affected countries. Even the World Bank was forced to backtrack and admit the policy was a success.

 

[Fruitloop]

India did this the last time I was there, dunno if it still does.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Generally by banning it expressly and summarily confiscating any found on outgoing tourists. Malaysia experimented with currency controls during the Asian Banking Crisis of '97 and as a consequence suffered much less than the other affected countries. Even the World Bank was forced to backtrack and admit the policy was a success.

You can do that, but most money doesn't exist as hard currency. You can't stop multinationals exporting their profits in such a way.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't think trying to restrict the flow of capital between nation-states is necessarily the answer. It's still re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic isn't it?

 

[Carousel]

The answer to what? I mean, rereading the opening post it’s full of “needs” and “musts”, but I wonder where these needs and musts come from. They don’t seem to be expressed directly by the working class, more imagined on their behalf.

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm working right now. Well, sort of.