GeorgeEliotFan
Im sorry
hipipol said:
wow almost a whole continent of cool people! I guess the west Africans have to be bad in order to balance out a region populated entirely by cool people.
Immigration a different view.
- Thread starter Epicurus
- Start date
wow almost a whole continent of cool people! I guess the west Africans have to be bad in order to balance out a region populated entirely by cool people.
hipipol said:
Come on! You can't compare Ghanians to Nigerians, Ghanians are great better than those Kenyan fucks anyday!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
SuburbanCasual said:
Come on! You can't compare Ghanians to Nigerians, Ghanians are great better than those Kenyan fucks anyday!
He didn't mention Kenyans.
Surely you're not getting people from the east African coast (Kenyans) mixed up with people from the west African coast (Nigeria)?
How...interesting.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To replace those members of "the working class of Britain" who sell out and join the bourgeoisie perhaps?SuburbanCasual said:
No, they want cheap workers. Different thing entirely.
I wouldn't know. I'm what a member of the SWP's "central committee" referred to as "council estate scum". I'm not as au fait with the economic and sociological "needs" of the middle classes as you appear to be.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
ViolentPanda said:
C'mon VP Lindsey German was directing those comments to those on some council estates (I'm from a council estate too btw) who make the lives of people from ethnic minorities hell. Only the other week, in an area I know well, I heard that a mob of 70 white youths had driven a family out of their home. In certain parts of Northern Ireland the situation is dire in this respect.
ViolentPanda said:
Not very bright are you, I was joking first of all secondly he said that east africans were OK - Kenya is an east african country!
RenegadeDog said:
That's not true, border controls are a relatively recent thing, last hundred or so years.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
MC5 said:
In which case the benighted fool should have referred to "racist scum", "fascist" idiots" or the like. To refer to such people in a way that explicitly places an emphasis on their "roots" is to express contempt for those roots, as well as to attribute responsibility for the "scumminess" of the scum to those "roots".
IMO Ms German inadvertantly revealed her own prejudices in that speech to a greater degree than she highlighted the prejudices of those she spoke of.
Perhaps if the SWP had been/were more involved in proper grass-roots community political activity rather than in electoral canvassing and paper sales her perceptions might have been different and her prejudices overturned.
RenegadeDog said:
That's not an argument and is just plain wrong. Border controls are a late 19th early 20th century construct as are a great number of nation states.
RenegadeDog said:
What on earth gave you that idea
RenegadeDog said:
She was a rabid supporter of the nation state like yourself. You sound confused here Renegade.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
SuburbanCasual said:
Depends what you mean by "border controls". England had the wherewithal to fairly effectively exclude Jews and then Gypsies from the realm back in mediaeval times, and most nations had customs posts which served a dual purpose of collecting tariffs and excluding the "undesirable" even back before that Jesus fella was born.
ViolentPanda said:
True up to a point Violent. Jews were excluded at times but not wholesale like say the expulsions of the moors after the reconquista in Spain. Nation states did not exist in the present sense and trade/migration and immigration were all halmarks of the medieval period. Borders were not secure in any real sense throughout most of the nineteenth century in europe either.
Mallard said:That's not an argument and is just plain wrong. Border controls are a late 19th early 20th century construct as are a great number of nation states.
What on earth gave you that idea
She was a rabid supporter of the nation state like yourself. You sound confused here Renegade.
The interesting thing of course is that it was the lack of border controls, etc that allowed colonialism to happen in the first place.
In the modern day world, if you abolished borders, do you really think that the result would be some glorious brotherhood of man? Would it fuck! The most powerful cultures would end up smashing all others and we would end up with a world dominated by 3 things: Han China, Islam and the USA. Of course, one could argue that the modern world is already heading in that direction, but without borders, it would happen to a much greater extent than it already does.
Borders, sense of national purpose, etc, help to protect those little eccentricities that make the world more interesting.
In which era Renegade? If 18th/19th century they were surely neglible factors behind dispartities in wealth/technology and tensions/empire building from the recently emerged or expanding nation states. I've never heard of lack of border controls as a factor in the growth of colonialism compared to say, the rush to obtain spices/wealth or the rise of early modern merchantilism in the 15th/16th centuries for example.RenegadeDog said:
RenegadeDog said:
That is clearly largely the case at the moment. Although Islam is arguably less dominant than the other two at present. There are no borders for ideas or indeed capital or information anymore but some seem to want to endlessly restrict people's freedom to travel, work and live where they themselves choose as a sort of comfort blanket.
RenegadeDog said:
Really? What actually is a 'sense of national purpose' Renegade and where is it/was it exhibited? Pol Pot's Cambodia/North Korea/Iran/The US/Nazi Germany/anywhere?
Well as a basic example, do you oppose the Palestinians desire for their own state?
RenegadeDog said:
That's a side step Renegade what about 'national purpose'?
I support their desire for autonomy and freedom from the harrassment of the Israeli state in this particular case but the nation state and strict border controls (against human beings anyway) are not the panacea that you seem to be suggesting imo.
I actually agree that in theory, a completely open world would be totally wonderful.
However, I think that in practice, the strongest would win. Places like Israel would have even more power than they do now.
However, I think that in practice, the strongest would win. Places like Israel would have even more power than they do now.
RenegadeDog said:
Personally I think the nature of power has changed and no longer resides with the nation state. It's been superceeded by the rise of globalisation/multi-nationals and the nature of transglobal capital. The actaul power of most nation states pales in to insignificance compared to say the World Bank.
I agree, but wouldn't you then say that self-determination etc are actually a weapon against that internationalist capitalism? Rather than a part of it...
RenegadeDog said:
To an extent yes like the attempted autonomy in the Zapatista 'controlled' parts of Mexico. Capital clearly has a tendecy towards monopoly and is transglobal. Personally, I object to restricting people's access to places on principle but in practical terms, recent movements to do so in europe and much of the world are like holding on to the top of a sinking ship out of desperation.
How about the argument that the people most affected by mass immigration are those least likely to be able to cope with it, such as the low waged and unskilled as it is they who feel the effects most as it is their jobs that are taken in the main.Mallard said:
It drives down their wages and conditions puts up rents for the least well off.
Epicurus said:
Sounds like a good argument to me.
Epicurus said:
It's a poor and naive one. As capital is global the jobs will simply be transposed abroad as has been seen with the shift of companies from and around the supposed 'Tiger economies' in the last decade or so.
Rents are actually being put up by a number of factors. One is increased private investment and speculation in housing and the greater number of private landlords attempting to turn a profit. This has come at a time when public housing has declined. The number of singlehouseholds has also increased significantly. When there is a market like this the poor lose out and prices rise. It really has very little to do with immigration nationally despite what The Daily Mail might say.
hahahahahahahahahMallard said:
You are just so right, it hasn't effected the poor and working-class in the UK at all nor has it been used by "global capital" to keep wages and conditions down that has all be an elusion.
I wish I was as cleaver as you, it must be wonderful to have all the answers.
I take it your view is a world view and counts for all countries in the world.
Fuck the working-class and poor of all the countries mass immigration will not effect them.
Epicurus said:
Did you actually read what I said? Wages are depressed due to international competition amongst other factors. You do indeed seem to be under some 'elusion' (sic) of how market economics work.
Epicurus said:
1) Wish whatever you like. I was just correcting what you and the other little englander's were shouting about 'cleaver' or not.
2) Look up 'global' Epicurus
Epicurus said:
Bit early for the hard stuff isn't it?
You seem to have wilfully ignored my response to your higher rent rant or point about the movement of transglobal capital. Any reason why?
Me little Englander hahahahahahahahMallard said:Did you actually read what I said? Wages are depressed due to international competition amongst other factors. You do indeed seem to be under some 'elusion' (sic) of how market economics work.
1) Wish whatever you like. I was just correcting what you and the other little englander's were shouting about 'cleaver' or not.
2) Look up 'global' Epicurus
Bit early for the hard stuff isn't it?
You seem to have wilfully ignored my response to your higher rent rant or point about the movement of transglobal capital. Any reason why?
I think this country is finished and has been in a managed decline for the last 40 years and I will be leaving to return home to Brazil next year having made some money.
I’m am an Immigrant you fool
Market economics is meaning less to 99% of working-class people, the fact that their pay packet is smaller has lots of meaning for them.
Just because YOU think it isn’t a good argument many workers who are suffering would disagree with you.
You are just another example of British “Youff” whose theories bear no relation to what is going on in the real world.
Come back again when you have some real life experience.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Epicurus said:
There's no need to "think" that the UK has been in a managed decline. There's so much evidence to be found to support the thesis that it's pretty much taken as a given. The substitution of the manufacturing sector for a service economy may have kept people in "the square mile" happy, but it shredded many communities and let to a massive loss of technical knowledge and "artisan" skills.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you entirely. It seems to me that a smaller wage packet, and the knowledge of what has caused it (especially if that "knowledge" is based around the excuses an employer gives for why he pays the minimum he/she can get away with) are inextricabley linked.
Obviously an appreciation of market economics doesn't buy an extra loaf of bread, but "meaningless"? Not if you operate on a principle of "know your enemy".
Market economics is meaning less to 99% of working-class people, the fact that their pay packet is smaller has lots of meaning for them.[/QUOTE]ViolentPanda said:
My point is that people pontificating about Global Capitalism being responsible for all the evils of the world means nothing to the builders labourers who drink in my pub and have seen their wages go down from £80 a day 3 years ago to £50 a day now, the warehouse men who were on £8 an hour and now are on minimum wage.I'm not sure I'd agree with you entirely. It seems to me that a smaller wage packet, and the knowledge of what has caused it (especially if that "knowledge" is based around the excuses an employer gives for why he pays the minimum he/she can get away with) are inextricabley linked.
Obviously an appreciation of market economics doesn't buy an extra loaf of bread, but "meaningless"? Not if you operate on a principle of "know your enemy".
My comments are in response to “ Originally Posted by Mallard
I've never heard a decent argument for having any border controls whatsoever myself”
Clearly written by someone who has spent all their life living in the land of mike and honey and thinks with a developed world mindset.
That is the context
With regard to your 2nd point I’d ask, Where do they get this info from, not their unions that have signally failed to address the issue of lower wages, not the press, so where?
I’ll tell you the only place I have read anything about it has been in the local BNP paper that came through the letter box during the last election.
PS There are a few people who post here who don't think the UK is in a managed decline
Similar threads
