"Immigration into this country keeps inflation down.."

[Mallard]

But...but...that would actually be sticking to the traditional values of the left wing rather than mixing up half-baked leftwing thinking with a load of reactionary tabloid rhetoric. Utterly outrageous - you are clearly a tool of the bosses, a true snake in the grass

Indeed!

 

[urbanrevolt]

double post

 

[urbanrevolt]

Yes but Red what is the solution?QUOTE]

A strong working class movement in the developed countries and a strong national liberation/ independence movement in the developing countries, strong enough to provide a counterbalance to capital and resist Washington Consensus economics. Global capital has thoroughly outmanouvered both since 1973.

Well I'll agree with that! What practical steps should we take towards it?

 

[Brainaddict]

How we keep the developing world poor these days is by attaching conditions to World Bank/ IMF loans that insist the recipient country open up their economies to free foreign trade and investment and remove all controls on capital.

This is hardly a complete analysis of why poor countries are poor. It's partially true in some cases but there's a lot more going on. Try asking why it is that, in general, Asian countries have done much better economically than sub-saharan African countries. G'wan, just ask!

The fact is, even if we have the revolution tomorrow (but see poll on other thread ) we're going to have poor countries with us for a long time to come. Suggesting shutting out the desperate people who want to make better lives for themselves here makes you look about as interested in social justice as Sir Digby Jones.

 

[Red O]

double post

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure.

 

[Mallard]

Well, I'll agree with that! What practical steps should we take towards it?

1) Arguing that any workers being exploited by low wages and lack of security/basic benefits is not only wrong but actually effects all workers adversely

2) Pointing out that migration is actually inevitable under the current system but it's 'bad effects' can actually be minimised for the benefit of all.

3) Arguing that the Labour Movement needs to expand from the Public Sector and other areas of strength if it is to ever have more influence in the future.

5) Arguing for the above in meetings/workplace/local newspaper/pub etc

 

[Red O]

This is hardly a complete analysis of why poor countries are poor. It's partially true in some cases but there's a lot more going on. Try asking why it is that, in general, Asian countries have done much better economically than sub-saharan African countries. G'wan, just ask!

The fact is, even if we have the revolution tomorrow (but see poll on other thread ) we're going to have poor countries with us for a long time to come. Suggesting shutting out the desperate people who want to make better lives for themselves here makes you look about as interested in social justice as Sir Digby Jones.

The Asian Tigers are doing better than sub-Saharan Africa precisely because they've been able to resist Washington Consensus economics: they've had large scale state intervention and infant industry protection, and haven't been subject to capital liberalization, whereas other parts of the third world have simply been raped by Western capital. The best person to read on this is a Korean economist at Cambridge, Ha-Joon Chang, there's a precis of his thinking here: http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm. I never suggested shutting out the poor and desperate, I merely pointed out what senior representatives of UK plc say about immigration.

 

[mk12]

they've had large scale state intervention and infant industry protection, and haven't been subject to capital liberalization

Is this your solution?

 

[Red O]

Is this your solution?

It's how every developed country in the world became developed in the first place. If you want a more egalitarian world, this is how to do it, it's how the world became more egalitarian between 1950 and 1973: the third world national liberation movements were strong enough to resist western capital and embark upon independent courses of state-led development. Loans from the IMF and the World Bank are largely conditional on not following this course.

 

[kyser_soze]

Can I just ask...how much of this is down to the UKs geo-demography? Is it simply the case that the country lacks the skilled workers to do the jobs that EEs are taking in specific areas that working people can't move to? Or is it that as a country we're so hopelessly underskilled that had there been a huge medium term planning fuck up in skills based education? Or has multi-generational long term unemployment fucked bits of society so much?

 

[Brainaddict]

The Asian Tigers are doing better than sub-Saharan Africa precisely because they've been able to resist Washington Consensus economics: they've had large scale state intervention and infant industry protection, and haven't been subject to capital liberalization, whereas other parts of the third world have simply been raped by Western capital.

But the fact remains that the WB and IMF are criticised for having a 'one size fits all' approach. So their solutions to the problems of Asian nations are the same as their solutions to the problems of African nations. It was the behaviour of the countries themselves that made the difference. Some of the Asian nations were economically advantaged to begin with but others not so much.

For what it's worth, I reckon the nation state structure was more suitable to a lot of Asian nations than to a lot of African ones and this is the root of many African problems.

Anyway, the point is, have you ever considered the idea that the problems of the world are, like, complex? That there isn't a one-line description of what is wrong that can capture the truth of it?

It is precisely this kind of simplistic thinking that drives supposedly 'left' people to say things like 'Immigration drives wages down so lets have less immigrants please'.

 

[Mallard]

Can I just ask...how much of this is down to the UKs geo-demography? Is it simply the case that the country lacks the skilled workers to do the jobs that EEs are taking in specific areas that working people can't move to? Or is it that as a country we're so hopelessly underskilled that had there been a huge medium term planning fuck up in skills based education? Or has multi-generational long term unemployment fucked bits of society so much?

I think it's largely due to the low wages and seasonal/transient nature of some of the jobs for example veg/fruit picking in Lincolnshire or cleaner. Many 'native' people know these are hard and low paid jobs and either do not wish to do them/put up with appalling conditions or the wages are below/just/above/on a par with benefits and people rightly don't want to get up at 5am every morning to earn an extra £15 a week in a deadend job. If wages and conditions were improved they might.

 

[Red O]

But the fact remains that the WB and IMF are criticised for having a 'one size fits all' approach. So their solutions to the problems of Asian nations are the same as their solutions to the problems of African nations. It was the behaviour of the countries themselves that made the difference. Some of the Asian nations were economically advantaged to begin with but others not so much.

For what it's worth, I reckon the nation state structure was more suitable to a lot of Asian nations than to a lot of African ones and this is the root of many African problems.

Anyway, the point is, have you ever considered the idea that the problems of the world are, like, complex? That there isn't a one-line description of what is wrong that can capture the truth of it?

It is precisely this kind of simplistic thinking that drives supposedly 'left' people to say things like 'Immigration drives wages down so lets have less immigrants please'.

The point is that the Asian Tigers that have done so well in recent decades haven't been subject to the prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank, they've been able to follow a course of independent, state-led development, as the Western countries did long ago. Your point about the viability of nation state structure is a valid one, but again, surely the root cause of the lack of this in sub-Saharan Africa is the centuries of western imperialism, preventing independent development?

 

[Mallard]

The point is that the Asian Tigers that have done so well in recent decades haven't been subject to the prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank, they've been able to follow a course of independent, state-led development, as the Western countries did long ago. Your point about the viability of nation state structure is a valid one, but again, surely the root cause of the lack of this in sub-Saharan Africa is the centuries of western imperialism, preventing independent development?

1) A huge increase in unionisation and fairly militant unions in S Korea for example helped.

2) Asia has an equally long history of 'Western imperialism'

 

[kyser_soze]

The point is that the Asian Tigers that have done so well in recent decades haven't been subject to the prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank, they've been able to follow a course of independent, state-led development,

Ermm, remember the Asian currency crisis in the mid-90s? Aside from Malaysia, most of them underwent the yoke of IMF imposed restrictions on public spending and interest rates for several years. That event wiped out something like 40% of the local economy, so it's not just the usual IMF bogeyman that is the cause of problems, since all are going guns again...

 

[ViolentPanda]

And this is why our establishment trade unions have badly let their members down by taking a PC line on the free movement of labour.

They haven't taken a "PC" line on it, they've pretty much adopted the neo-liberal line on it, nothing "politically correct" about it at all.

They should be opposing the import of cheap labour full stop.

Which would play straight into the hands of several interested parties.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, that would be playing into the hands of the bosses. That would be a short-sighted, bigoted viewpoint. There should be a multi-pronged defence of the workforce through continued pushing against the politics of blind profit and that attacks on organised labour, labour rights, and divisive employment practices that we see at the moment, and free movement should be allowed and indeed encouraged from a socialist united viewpoint.

Plus an engagement with immigrant labour so that they can either self-organise, or unionise within existing trade union structures, IMO.

 

[Mallard]

I don't understand the obsession some have with 'imported' cheap labour and arguing against migration. If all labour was properly protected this would be much less of a problem. It's like blaming migrants for the lack of affordable housing when the real problem is an absence of social housing and allocation by the market coupled with an increase in lower occupancy houses.

Why do some persist in blaming the poor (wherever they are form) for problems which they are a symptom/victim of not the cause?

 

[Brainaddict]

The point is that the Asian Tigers that have done so well in recent decades haven't been subject to the prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank, they've been able to follow a course of independent, state-led development, as the Western countries did long ago. Your point about the viability of nation state structure is a valid one, but again, surely the root cause of the lack of this in sub-Saharan Africa is the centuries of western imperialism, preventing independent development?

This is all offtopic, but the way you talk about things verges on conspiraloonery. No one said "Hey, let's force the nation state structure on Africa because that will really fuck it up and supply us with cheap resources for generations to come."
They simply assumed that the nation state structure was the only way to do things. And that assumption has imperialist overtones, but they didn't know then how badly it would work out and they (and most Africans I imagine*) didn't see any other choice at the end of empire period.

The World Bank/IMF policy is a bit more sinister because as both are controlled by the US govt they came heavily under the sway of US business interests - the IMF more than the world bank - but I think you would be surprised how many well-meaning people actually believed that what they were doing what was in the best interests of poor people. Their biggest moral error is probably arrogance rather than malice/greed.



*aside from the pan-African movement, which was a super-state idea

 

[Fruitloop]

Eh? The nation state was a product of the reproduction of power structures within western society, so it's no surprise that it had similar effects elsewhere. No need for a conspiracy, just ideology.

 

[Red O]

No one said "Hey, let's force the nation state structure on Africa because that will really fuck it up and supply us with cheap resources for generations to come."
They simply assumed that the nation state structure was the only way to do things. And that assumption has imperialist overtones, but they didn't know then how badly it would work out and they (and most Africans I imagine*) didn't see any other choice at the end of empire period.

I'm not saying a nation-state structure was forced on unwilling Africans, but positing the idea that Africa has an inappropriate or less than optimum state/ administrative structure as a result of centuries of Western dominance. Africa's state structure would look very different had they been allowed to develop independently.

 

[Brainaddict]

I'm not saying a nation-state structure was forced on unwilling Africans, but positing the idea that Africa has an inappropriate or less than optimum state/ administrative structure as a reult of centuries of Western dominance.

I just take issue with the idea that anyone is deliberately keeping poor countries poor. In fact corporations would benefit from more rich countries as they would have more consumers (and they don't even use most of the cheap labour available in Africa, so making Africans into consumers would slot them into the system nicely).

The West does many things that do keep poor countries poor, I'm not disputing that. I just don't think anyone plans it that way and to phrase it as though it is an Evil Plan seriously reduces the credibility of what you're saying.

 

[Fruitloop]

The intention of corporations is not to keep the countries poor, but to take advantage of the deregulated markets to make money. Obviously this does keep the countries poor, but it's a price they are prepared to pay to turn a profit.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Well of course individual capitalists and corporations want to maximise profits for themselves- there's no evil conspiracy as such. Just certain conseuences that flow from it.

 

[tbaldwin]

Well actually it' the exact opposite for reasons already outlined.

The bosses want and encourage anti-immigrant feeling so they can divide us all the better. The fact that some including some on this board fall into their laps shows that we have got a way to go in fighting what should be very simple divide and rule tactics- simple but still effective unfortunately.

I am not so sure about the use of the word bosses,,bit generalised but...
Anyhow my main point here UR is that yeah some on the right do use anti immigration arguements, but they are totally inconsistent with right wing world views.
I personally think its a shame that more people dont question why the right say one thing about immigration and practice the opposite.
How many of the people handing out the London paper and london shite are from this country. And lets face it murdoch and the mail, have done more than most to stir up anti immigrant feeling over the years.

I think some on these boards have fallen into a trap on immigration. believing that to question the role of migration somehow means your on the political right. Which is increasingly misguided.

 

[Fruitloop]

Anti-immigration is inconsistent with r/w views? Better tell the BNP!

 

[urbanrevolt]

Exactly Fruitloop.

...
Anyhow my main point here UR is that yeah some on the right do use anti immigration arguements, but they are totally inconsistent with right wing world views.
I personally think its a shame that more people dont question why the right say one thing about immigration and practice the opposite..

The point I've made time and again is that the elite in society want to use cheap labour, often cheap immigrant labour and are also happy to see anti immigrant feelings used to divide the working class. Of course some on the right are also genuinely completely anti immigrant and against all immigration but capital itself needs immigrants and the more segmented and divided the working class is the better, from th epoint of view of the capitalist elite.

 

[durruti02]

1) Arguing that any workers being exploited by low wages and lack of security/basic benefits is not only wrong but actually effects all workers adversely

2) Pointing out that migration is actually inevitable under the current system but it's 'bad effects' can actually be minimised for the benefit of all.

3) Arguing that the Labour Movement needs to expand from the Public Sector and other areas of strength if it is to ever have more influence in the future.

5) Arguing for the above in meetings/workplace/local newspaper/pub etc

good post ..

 

[durruti02]

I don't understand the obsession some have with 'imported' cheap labour and arguing against migration. If all labour was properly protected this would be much less of a problem. It's like blaming migrants for the lack of affordable housing when the real problem is an absence of social housing and allocation by the market coupled with an increase in lower occupancy houses.

Why do some persist in blaming the poor (wherever they are form) for problems which they are a symptom/victim of not the cause?

hi mallard .. imho no one on here BLAMES migrants .. they attack how migrants are used .. e.g. see your post 42? you are right .. but working people really only have one power .. and that is to NOT work .. or to withdraw labour ( also demos but forget that for now) ..

so we have a situation where capital wants to lower wages to increase profits ( or compete with the far east) .. well if there is no way they can get someone to work at that rate they can NOT do that can they?

so the traditional power of the working class has been 2 fold .. one in organising to have a full union shop and second to what marx called the 'reserve army of labour' .. (generally the unemployed who MIGHT be prepared to work at lower rates) .. with a full 'shop' labour had enormous bargaining power .. with a small reserve army, labour equally had enormous bargaining power .... and conversely with a large reserve army ( or one that did not give a fuck) and weak unions, labour has little power

but what happenned in this country is a generation of people is NOT prepared to work at cheap labour rates .. so what does capital do?? it, thru the state can either force the millions out of work to work into these cheap/ low rates ( and as treelover points out there are moves toward this now) OR they can allow cheap labour in from outside the equation .. and as we see in this country now this is what they did ( the expansion of the EU was reasoned and deliberate and key to this process)

'labour' had capital in a deep crisis .. and let the advantage go ..

 

[Mallard]

but what happenned in this country is a generation of people is NOT prepared to work at cheap labour rates .. so what does capital do?? it, thru the state can either force the millions out of work to work into these cheap/ low rates ( and as treelover points out there are moves toward this now) OR they can allow cheap labour in from outside the equation .. and as we see in this country now this is what they did ( the expansion of the EU was reasoned and deliberate and key to this process)

'labour' had capital in a deep crisis .. and let the advantage go ..

Cheers durruti. I pretty much agree with this analysis and see the role of the EU in much the same way.

The only solutions to this do have to be an increase in wages (through a higher minimun wage) and a strengthening of the Labour Movement as even if Britain did pull out of Europe (which in the short term is unlikely) the neo-liberal policies of all three major parties would still lead to a depression of wages and the liklehood of the exportation of jobs to other countries (mainly outside the EU) where labour is cheaper regardless of whether migrants are here or not. Other factors like affordable/free childcare and housing have also got to be included as people are often stuck in a 'benefit trap' if they have dependents.

The decline of the Labour Movement is another thread I suppose but you are right to link it to the above problems imo.