Cardiff Radical Socialist Forum - new initiative for S.Wales left

[Zachor]

You really haven't been paying attention have you?
Most of the points you make here are based on this being a 'launch meeting' of some sort. It's not. There've been plenty of meeting of this group before which have dealt with other things issues. This one's about immigration, and it's including a talk by No Borders because they're the most active leftist immigration group in town, and they've been involved with the RSF.

Fair do's on that one. The way the OP was worded gave the impression that this ws a launch meeting.

On your point about this not being good 'PR', how do you suggest a group wishing to attract socialists to a meeting about immigration should bill itself for 'PR' purposes?

Why should a socialist group focus on immigration matters? Surely the whole point of socialist groups should be to gain more support and therefore obtain a mesure of power. Concentrating on 'ghetto' issues such as immigration at the expense of building wider community support is a losing game.

Should it drop the traditional radical socialist commitment to internationalism?

Yes. Or at the very least tone down the emphasis. You can't get people who are in deep shit to pay attention to what is happening in places like Chad if they are worrying where the gas bill money is coming from.

How far should it go? A couple of Daily Mail headlines? Or perhaps a commitment to only accepting the 'good/worthy/economically beneficial' migrants, as you seem to suggest?

The DM and other tabliods are not just leading the issue but are follwing public opinion. I would say that we should as a priroity accept for entry those fleeing persecution whereas those who are coming in purely to be cheap labour for the bosses should be kept out to a much larger extent than they are now and those jobs go to British workers. There will always be the need for specialists to be imported but it shouldn't be the current debacle where we have millions of people economically inactive whilst remittances that could boost our own ecomomy are boosting the economies of Eastern Europe etc.

This would obviously be inimical to radical socialist thought as I understand it.

Radical socialism is to all intents and purposes dead. Its not fit for the purpose of defeating neo fascism

To suggest a socialist group drop some of its core principals just because society has lurched to the right is more than a bit defeatist.

The main enemy of progressive thought and action at the moment is coming from a combination of far right forces both the nationalist fascism of the bnp and others and the various types of clerical fascism.

Its not deleting principles. It is being aware that some forms of dogma are turning people away from engagement with left of centre causes and this dogma should be examined to see if it should be junked or not.

Surely socialists now have to make our arguments even more forcefully and persuasively. To avoid the issue because the current climate is becoming dominated by far-right ideology would not only be dishonest, but morally and politically cowardly.

Whilst I applaud those who stand up and speak out for unpopular causes and have done some on occasion myself political realities have to be taken into account. I would hate to see a replay of 1920's Germany where the Left bitched and argued and didn't listen to the concerns of those in distress thereby contributing to the rise of Hitler.

Its scandalous that many people are feelign so abandoned by both mainstream politicos and more worryingly socialists that they see the bnp as a viable alternative.

Sadly socialists have played their part in this growth. The question is how to stop it and are socialists of various types going to bite the bullet and oppose fash effectively? I do hope so.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Firstly, socialists should defend migrants simply because its the right thing to do.

People who are victims of injustice should have an advocate and not be left to struggle or suffer alone. Just as socialists should stand up against all forms of oppression against women, LGBT people, ethnic minorities, homeless, travellers etc. even if it makes you unpopular or wins no friends.

Secondly, racism is a strategy used by the rich and powerful to divide and rule working class people, and scapegoat minorities for problems caused by their policies. How can we effectively defend the NHS or argue for decent housing, for example, if working class people blame migrants for problems rather than our rulers?

Any socialist movement that doesn't challenge the development of racism in the working class is cutting its own throat because racism that divides the working class and nationalism that binds it to its ruling class are obstacles to building a more just society.

Your final argument contains a grain of truth, that a Left that seems focuses entirely on international issues while ignoring the domestic concerns of working people could end up ghetto-ising itself. The question is how to connect these disparate issues so that people see the links between the bombs that rain down on Baghdad and the cost of their weekly shop going up?

Nevertheless I think it is important for socialists to take up international issues because 1) solidarity is a good thing, and as workers in one of the centres of imperial power that is responsible for terrible human rights abuses and inflicting misery of millions we have an ethical duty to act 2) Internationalism challenges nationalism, the idea that we are all one nation cosily united from the rich in the mansion to the homeless on the street and instead builds a more humane culture that emphasises and builds bridges between people from different countries struggling for a better world.
3) Internationalism has more resonance with working class people than you might think :thousands protested the war on Iraq, thousands boycotted South African products in the 80s, in South Wales there was a large movement of solidarity with Spanish republicans in the 30s etc. the idea that in the age of the global village we should all live ni a bubble is also odd
4) war is a domestic issue - a government that says it can't afford to build hospitals, pay decent wages, pensions etc can spend billions abroad
5) There can be no socialism in one country, to achieve the kind of society we want, we have to link arms with workers from other countries

 

[Zachor]

Firstly, socialists should defend migrants simply because its the right thing to do.

Up to a point I agree with you. I woiuld add one caveat though which is that progressives and socialists should defend those fleeing persecution because it is the right thing to do. Not everyone who arrives as an immmigrant is fleeing persecution and therefore deserves a high level of support.

People who are victims of injustice should have an advocate and not be left to struggle or suffer alone. Just as socialists should stand up against all forms of oppression against women, LGBT people, ethnic minorities, homeless, travellers etc. even if it makes you unpopular or wins no friends.

I agree. However, how that support is given and how campaigns are managed is an issue. There is nothing wrong with voicing unpopular causes but every campaign needs friends. The OP's Group is not going to win friends easily. You can't make any changes to society without power. The way the OP's group is going is not going to gain any form of power.

Secondly, racism is a strategy used by the rich and powerful to divide and rule working class people, and scapegoat minorities for problems caused by their policies. How can we effectively defend the NHS or argue for decent housing, for example, if working class people blame migrants for problems rather than our rulers?

I'm fully committed against racism but the fears of the working class must be listened to as well as dealing with the underlying causes of resource supply. We can't house all who wish to come here. Especially when we can't house our own.

Any socialist movement that doesn't challenge the development of racism in the working class is cutting its own throat because racism that divides the working class and nationalism that binds it to its ruling class are obstacles to building a more just society.

Any socialist movement that ignores reality are nothing more than a laughable 'Peoples Front of Judea' type of outfit and deserve to fail. You cant' tackle racism without improving peoples social, physical and moral position. If that means a shift in emphasis from ALL migrants to those fleeing persecution then that is a moral choice I'm comfortable with.

Your final argument contains a grain of truth, that a Left that seems focuses entirely on international issues while ignoring the domestic concerns of working people could end up ghetto-ising itself. The question is how to connect these disparate issues so that people see the links between the bombs that rain down on Baghdad and the cost of their weekly shop going up?

Its a tricky one. It is difficult to make those connections but it is harder when dealing with people in extremis.

Nevertheless I think it is important for socialists to take up international issues because 1) solidarity is a good thing, and as workers in one of the centres of imperial power that is responsible for terrible human rights abuses and inflicting misery of millions we have an ethical duty to act 2) Internationalism challenges nationalism, the idea that we are all one nation cosily united from the rich in the mansion to the homeless on the street and instead builds a more humane culture that emphasises and builds bridges between people from different countries struggling for a better world.
3) Internationalism has more resonance with working class people than you might think :thousands protested the war on Iraq, thousands boycotted South African products in the 80s, in South Wales there was a large movement of solidarity with Spanish republicans in the 30s etc. the idea that in the age of the global village we should all live ni a bubble is also odd
4) war is a domestic issue - a government that says it can't afford to build hospitals, pay decent wages, pensions etc can spend billions abroad
5) There can be no socialism in one country, to achieve the kind of society we want, we have to link arms with workers from other countries

I can see your point in this last para. However I think that the only sensible thing to do is flag up the issue and let people make up their own minds. Over concentrating on international issues has alienated many people for whom 'the left' would have been their natural poltiical home. I do disagree with you however when you say that solidarity is positive end in itself. It may well be a fair bit of the time but its not a blanket 'good'. To support solidarity unquestioningly has meant that socialists have supported some pretty disgusting regimes and organisations on the specious grounds of 'solidarity'. For example the Tankies supporting the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the sight of UK 'socialists' scurrying round to heap praise on the clerical fascists of Hezbollah.

You can't improve things globally unless you first act locally.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I'm fully committed against racism but the fears of the working class must be listened to as well as dealing with the underlying causes of resource supply. We can't house all who wish to come here. Especially when we can't house our own.

Let me give you a concrete example: I was arguing with someone I work with who complained that her aunt couldn't get a council house, yet these immigrants not born here were being housed. She was therefore blaming migrants, not the government for her aunt not being able to get a council house.

Let's unpack the argument:

Firstly, the most basic reason that my colleague's aunt is on a waiting list for a council house is that local councils used to build 100s of houses every year, but under Thatcher they stopped building council houses, and people were also allowed to buy their houses leading to a massive shortage of council housing stock, that now, along with other factors has resulted in a crisis of affordable housing. So it's actually nothing to do with immigrants.

We already see why the neoliberals love racism. Instead of the question being posed that: "the problem is that the government needs to provide affordable housing to workers", it becomes: "there's a limit pool, resources are limited, we can only house so many people, and they will have to compete, and we have to privellege our own". Racism re-inforces people's willingness to see things in terms of the classic neoliberal mantra: "There is no alternative"

Secondly, it is perfectly feasible that in the 4th richest economy on the planet it is possible to house everyone in Britain. Indeed, I recall people used to comment that there were more empty houses than homeless! Another fact is that less than 1% of social housing is occupied by recent migrants, it is therefore surprising that Margaret Hodge, a government minister, made a speech where instead of arguing for building more council housing, she argued that in social housing allocation British families should be prioritised. This immediate shifts the terrain of the blame for the housing crisis away from the government and their failure to build council houses onto immigrants.

So we see in a concrete example how racism undermines the fight for decent council housing. Hence why it is a good idea for socialists to defend immigrants and challenge racist scapegoating.

 

[llantwit]

Zachor, I agree with your last line... but disagree with most of the rest of your points. I especially disagree with your principal point about distinguishing between good and bad (useful or useless, etc, however you want to spin it) immigrants.
For me 'acting locally' on this issue involves drawing attention to the fact that so-called economic migrants are victims of oppression, too. They might not have been tortured by a military junta, but they are more than likely to be the victims of (usually western-sponsored) economic injustice (meted out by the WTO, for instance, in the form of structural adjustment plans that impoverish the majority of people while making it easy for Western companies to make the most of unrestricted access to new markets).
The specious distinction between deserving and undeserving migrants that the right has succesfully manouevred into the public debate, and which you seem to have either gobbled up whole should be at the top of our list for attack.

 

[lewislewis]

I know that and its a scandal. Which is why I would like to see a prioritisation for entry of those fleeing asylum coupled with proper residential help with resettlement and care. The only way to sell this highly moral policy to the average bod would be a severe clampdown on other forms of immigration. Thisis especially important in the current tabloid media climate.

That is why it should be the job of a strengthened DFID to support displaced persons in these countries. However Blair has made this diplomaticly much it more difficult (due to the Iraq debacle) to engage in countries such as Chawhere there are over 400 k refugees and displaced persons. I agree the problems need ideally dealing with at source.

In some areas it is. Ultimately this is the fault of underresourcing which affects
everyone but it cannot be denied that extra unplanned for people must cost money.



I'm afraid that your assertion is not what is being belived on the street. You wouldn't credit the outright falsehoods that are being sold by the bnp. Unfortunatly they are being given credence by peoples own experiences of crumbling publc services coupled with demographic change that is quite rapid in some areas.

I'm not saying that immigration is a sole cause of social chaos (if I did I would go to the daily mail boards) but it is part of a mix both of itself and the effect of those who would exploit the issue.




But its what many believe. The housing bureacrats do have an influence because we have a needs based allocation system it disadvantages many who are being courted by right wing extremists. A return to a modified sons .and daughters system would amend that.


I know that which is why I'd like to see those fleeing oppression prioritised for entry and support above economic migrants.

I don't see any of these issues as being particularly evident or real.

The BNP has virtually no presence in Cardiff where several high-profile anti-deportation campaigns have been fought recently. The anti-deportation campaigners have won the argument in the press every time and have been backed by all elected political parties on most occasions (for the record although sub-standard since privatisation I don't think public services are 'crumbling' either).

Although there is a significant layer of people that share your views, the 'average bod' isn't generally in favour of deporting people that will face persecution or health risks.

I live in one of the UK's more significant urban conurbations with a substantial number of immigrants and refugees, and have not witnessed any social chaos caused by immigration at all. I am minded to think that social upheaval elsewhere in the UK would have economic causes at its heart and that any attempt to address this would need to involve as a basic principle the redistribution of wealth throughout society and the provision of equal opportunities for all. If the UK government had a positive and encouraging message towards immigrants or asylum seekers it would actually offset alot of the tabloid negativity. Although people rightly don't trust or respect the UK govt, it does have access to the media and to agenda-setting.

 

[Zachor]

I don't see any of these issues as being particularly evident or real.

The BNP has virtually no presence in Cardiff where several high-profile anti-deportation campaigns have been fought recently.

In that case Cardiff is 'unusual'. BTW I'm a bit suspect of people who say that there is no bnp presence in an area.

The anti-deportation campaigners have won the argument in the press every time and have been backed by all elected political parties on most occasions (for the record although sub-standard since privatisation I don't think public services are 'crumbling' either).

But these are local and individual issues and campaigns. And maybe you should look at other parts of the country before yo say the public services are not crumbling.

Although there is a significant layer of people that share your views, the 'average bod' isn't generally in favour of deporting people that will face persecution or health risks.

I'm not in favour of deporting people who are facing persecution. Health tourists and those who are economic migrants yes.

I live in one of the UK's more significant urban conurbations with a substantial number of immigrants and refugees, and have not witnessed any social chaos caused by immigration at all.

Please read my previous post. I didn't say that immigration is a sole cause of social chaos but it is one of the causes alongside those who explot the immigration issue.

I am minded to think that social upheaval elsewhere in the UK would have economic causes at its heart and that any attempt to address this would need to involve as a basic principle the redistribution of wealth throughout society and the provision of equal opportunities for all.

Yes I also want to see a more fair society but I also want the fucking moon on a stick and I aint going to get it or at the very least its someting that is going to have to be worked towards over a long period.

If the UK government had a positive and encouraging message towards immigrants or asylum seekers it would actually offset alot of the tabloid negativity.

Agree but in order to gain the sort of breathing space - and public sympathy -necessary to be welcoming to refugees we need to remove the pressure on services caused IN PART by economic migrants. I also feel that there would be less resentment towards refugees if they were managed better and the chancers, crims and the psychos were weeded out before they were allowed free access to the country.

Not EVERYONE who presents as an asylum seeker is either a) genuine or b) condusive to the public good.

We could take many more thousands of refugees if they were managed better.

 

[penderyn2000]

The vast majority of immigrants to this country are economic migrants, most of them encouraged to come here by this or past governments. How many of them do you want to deport? UKIP have settled on the nice round figure of 1 million - how about that for starters? And if you have the courage of your convictions, will you be assisting the authorities in their dawn raids and preventing breakouts from detention centres?

 

[Zachor]

The vast majority of immigrants to this country are economic migrants, most of them encouraged to come here by this or past governments. How many of them do you want to deport? UKIP have settled on the nice round figure of 1 million - how about that for starters? And if you have the courage of your convictions, will you be assisting the authorities in their dawn raids and preventing breakouts from detention centres?

UKIP's mistake is putting a figure on things. We as a nation do not yet know the extent accurately of the immigration situation in the UK.

Provided nobodies essential human rights were infringed yes I would. All countries have the right to remove those people who do not have right to be there. If I overstayed in India or the USA or China you can bet your life that deportation would be more brutal than it needs be.

We do owe a duty as a nation to refugees. That is a sound and unshakable moral conviction that I hold. However that doesn't mean that everyone who wants to come here should. I would rather that this country gave shelter to someone who was in fear of their life because they were a peaceful activist in a dictatorship or a gay man fromIran than someone trying for a bit of bar work or building work.

You have to make decisions on where the greatest need for theuse of a limited resource is. In this case the limited resource is the right to entry and support in the UK.

What worries me if is something is not seen to be done about economic migration then when the crash hits the economy not only will brits and non brits be fighting for the same jobs but the fash will exploit the situation.

Think of it as small pain now to avoid big pain later.

Its a distasteful choice to make but all hard choices are.

 

[penderyn2000]

No, Zachor. Contributing to the illusion that immigration is the source of the problems of hard-pressed workers is what plays into the hands of the fascists. Cracking down on immigration as you propose is exactly what the government is doing. You have nothing new to offer this debate, I am sure everyone is weary of hearing your rehash of the general line of the mass media, and I look forward to a more productive discussion with the South Walians here at the forum on Sept 3. Have a nice life.

 

[Zachor]

No, Zachor. Contributing to the illusion that immigration is the source of the problems of hard-pressed workers is what plays into the hands of the fascists.

I can see where you are coming from but I think you are wrong. I repeat what I said earlier that immigration is a part of the problem not the totality. However not doing anything about immigration problems plays in to the hands of the fash even more. It reinforces the idea that Left/Progressive forces 'dont' give a toss about us only for foreigners' as I was once told.

Cracking down on immigration as you propose is exactly what the government is doing.

But not in the right way. Rather than crack down on economic migration it goes after soft targets in order to garner headlines leaving the REAL problem of economic migration untouched.

You have nothing new to offer this debate,

Neither have you. If all you can do is trot out no borders guff then you are just a dogmatist.

I am sure everyone is weary of hearing your rehash of the general line of the mass media, and I look forward to a more productive discussion with the South Walians here at the forum on Sept 3.

I'm quite weary of what laughably passes for the left in the UK and how it constantly fails to consider POV;s outside its dogma. I wish you well with your meeting but it will change precisely fuck all.

Have a nice life.

Have a nice failiure becuase that is what is going to happen. Maybe I'll bump into you at the port when we both try to escape a future bnp govt. Then I can say 'I told you so'.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

What worries me if is something is not seen to be done about economic migration then when the crash hits the economy not only will brits and non brits be fighting for the same jobs but the fash will exploit the situation.

You seem to be saying that the way to stop the rise of fascism is essentially to pander to some of their concerns, but actually this approach just contributes to a climate where racism becomes more mainstream and respectable giving fascism more legitimacy.

When the crash hits the economy I expect (as we are already seeing) our ruling class and media will try and build a 'reactionary solidarity' by pretending that certain groups are a major problem, for example, at the moment the government and media are suddenly obsessed with welfare claimants & those on incapacity benefits, all around the cry goes up that "something needs to be done". We will see various offensives against the poor, migrants, single mothers (strongly targetted in current welfare reform), working class youth etc. all based on focusing attention on groups of predominantly working class people as the source of our ills rather than posing questions of inequality and the huge growth in power, influence and affluence of a small group of people in our society.

There will also be a surge in nationalism, which as Marx identified offers workers a 'psychological wage' that is somewhat less useful than an actual wage: yes your life may be shit but you are part of Great Britain, a great nation, you are part of a common group with your neighbours, the Queen, Millionaires defined against the Other.

Rather than accepting the argument that because their is an economic squeeze 'British' workers must be prioritised over migrant workers, we should instead pose the question why is it that the poor must pay for our rulers mismanagement of the economy?

While public sector workers are being told to tighten their belts and accept a cut in living standards and wages, you never hear the government say to billionaires, 'okay guys, for the last twenty years we have cut your taxes every year, but now with the credit crunch we're gonna have to tax the super-rich a little more, you need to tighten your belts'.

You don't hear the government say to supermarkets, 'okay, you've been taking home record profits while whacking up prices, we think that maybe rather than raising prices, you should be prepared to take home a little less profits for the sake of 'the nation' who are all feeling the pinch of the crunch'and so we are going to regulate you a little more.'

The political programme in a crash shouldn't be focusing on immigrants and dividing workers, but rather uniting workers to make sure that it is the rich and powerful who bear the brunt of the credit crunch.

Whatever the state of the economy this group will live the same lifestyle as before, carry on awarding themselves massive pay rises, avoid any attempts to tax them more etc.

 

[ddraig]

so is Zachor KeyboardJockey or what?

 

[Dic Penderyn]

No Borders South Wales will be joined by two members of No One Is Illegal UK in giving a presentation on the socialist response to immigration controls. More info here.

 

[Dic Penderyn]

Just a quick reminder that this is on Wednesday.

 

[ddraig]

No Borders South Wales will be joined by two members of No One Is Illegal UK in giving a presentation on the socialist response to immigration controls. More info here.

got this in the CCTUC mailout

 

[penderyn2000]

There's a report of the Sept forum at www.radicalsocialist.org and also an ad for the next one - Weds 1 Oct, on Iran, introduction by an Iranian activist from the Hands off The People of Iran campaign. Model Inn, 7.30 as usual. Over 30 activists have now attended the Cardiff forums, but more are always welcome.