The Black Hand
Unclean
MC5 said:
I appreciate your history lesson though.
Keep Burberry british?.
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
I appreciate your history lesson though.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
You're not doing your anti-immigration argument much good - are you? This is what happens: labour for the production of [meaningless] commodities is outsourced to countries where there is no right to organise and people are forced to work for peanuts in sweatshop conditions. Jobs are lost in this country.
So much for w/c solidarity, eh? So much for your argument that immigrants are here to steal our low paid jobs.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Really? I think you've begun this thread for three reasons: the first is to get in a side argument about immigration; the second is to use Burberry as a sort of means to discuss nationalism, national symbols and 'shifty' foreigners and the the third, is to use this to smear your opponents if they dare challenge your simplistic arguments.
You will twist, smear and lie.
Keep Burberry British? The answer is we live in the capitalist environment and out sourcing manufacturing to China is the result of the drive for more profits - cheaper more exploited workers in China.
Exploited workers here in UK, in South Wales, Treorchy - yes they want to keep their jobs but the ruthless machine of Burberry capitalism grinds on.
Strangely out sourced call centres in India are now coing back to the UK. iIt is not a national question - British capitalism is no different to any other nationality of capitalism. The real question is workers' control of Burberry or not. Would one quibble if this was Chinese workers control or British? Certainly the jobs will be missed on Treorchy.
Is Al Fayed going to save the day? Wasn't clear from The Observer article.
Exploited workers here in UK, in South Wales, Treorchy - yes they want to keep their jobs but the ruthless machine of Burberry capitalism grinds on.
Strangely out sourced call centres in India are now coing back to the UK. iIt is not a national question - British capitalism is no different to any other nationality of capitalism. The real question is workers' control of Burberry or not. Would one quibble if this was Chinese workers control or British? Certainly the jobs will be missed on Treorchy.
Is Al Fayed going to save the day? Wasn't clear from The Observer article.
Keep burberry welsh!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:
What? Have you been drinking?
becky p said:
I think its difficult.
If wealth is concentrated in very small areas that is hardly a good thing. So maybe companies going to countries like India and China could be a good thing.
But it's not like they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts> Its about maximising their profits.
I think the Left has a shameful recent record on Internationalism. I support the idea of International Labour Rules helping to force companies like Burberry who want to sell their goods in this country to sign up to a standards of practice for what they produce that covers terms conditions and wages for the workers.
Hope that answers your point.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Ah, I see it's the fault of the mysterious entity known collectively as "The Left"...cue scary music.
You're quite prepared to see the bosses outsource their production to sweatshops overseas but carp on about immigration ad nauseum. You're sick in the heid.
Jessie i think anybody who calls themselves an Internationalist should be against concentrating wealth and power in a few hands and a few countries.
I want to see the wealth of the world shared out across the world and i think economic migration hinders that process.
I know you dont see it that way but i think quite a few people are begining to seriously question supporting economic migration.
I want to see the wealth of the world shared out across the world and i think economic migration hinders that process.
I know you dont see it that way but i think quite a few people are begining to seriously question supporting economic migration.
I understand that, balders.tbaldwin said:
And I think you're essentially wrong.
And those that typically support stringent immigration restrictions do so from self interest. And that's fair enough too, I guess.
But if your talking about "concentrating wealth", then I could probably introduce you to a good 500 million or so peeps who'd love to get a bit more of a share of the wealth concentrated in the hands of those on minimum wage in the UK. And the thing is, they'd like it now, not tomorrow, and not fucking next week.
It's all relative see. But again, you go on about the rights of the majority to decide, and then propose slamming the doors in their faces.
I get where you're coming from and understand you want to protect local peeps and then spread that protection from there around the world - a laudable desire.
The problem is that the majority don't want to wait that long. They're fed up with not being.....well....fed-up. They really want a better shot at things for their family's sake. They feel the system is unfair and that your attitude towards immigration will merely hinder their betterment and delay, again, any real shift in the distribution of wealth.
You are efectively espousing the "trickle down theory" you claim to despise!
I'm sure I don't speak for each of the 500 million or so that I refer to, but I've been around them long enough to understand their aspirations.
Forgive me, but I'm sure that you'll understand why I can appreciate the sense of urgency that these peeps are imbued with. They want their fucking kids educated now. They know it's the only hope the family will ever have.
Have you read much about the great leap forward, or the cultural revolution, balders? I've spoken to I don't know how many dozens who lived through one or both and have heard from them of many dozens more - friends, family - who didn't survive.
There's a massive pent-up energy in China and as the country continues to reform, open up and, yes, "liberalise", so more and more peeps are beginning to get a glimpse of the grass on the other side - and are beginning to get a grasp on the fact that it really is greener.
I guess it all depends which side of the fence you happen to be sitting, but as an internationalist, why should I deem to deny the will of the majority?
Woof
Jessie. Your right to a degree most people in the world would love to live in the kind of minimum wage available in the uk. But does that mean we should open the doors and allow a free for all. never mind the consequences, never mind those left behind or those forced into more and more overcrowded conditions in small prosperous areas.
I dont think that is what the majority of the worlds population wants
I dont think that is what the majority of the worlds population wants
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
I think it is acceptable up to a point to use grants and tricks like tax breaks to keep jobs in deprived areas. Treorchy is probably one of the poorest parts of the EU.
Attica said:Something could be done, but at too great a political cost. This battle was lost over 30 years ago when the Buy British campaign started! Imagine that today.
The dynamic feeding future class struggles lies elsewhere... What this Burburry episode is, is the froth of past times and the romantic nationalism of an imagined 'white' working class culture
what a load of rubbish .. it was about peoples livelihoods NOT about BRITAIN/british jobs etc ..
this is a company that earns millions of profits and still could do so even when paying treorchy wages. this was fight that actually could have been won but sadly the gmb run a feeble media orientated campaign
and p.s. to all the others obsessed with the idea that IN BRITAIN in 2007 to fight for jobs is somehow nationalist .. just grow the fuck up
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
MC5 said:How would you have stopped Burberry moving production to China then?
What I just said. It's been under threat of closure for nearly 10 years, in times when Burberry weren't making the profits that they are now. I think they underestimated the force of public opinion & intervention of Charlie & others. If that pressure had been brought to bear before the announcement, they may not have made that decision (or at least postponed it). It must have been in the planning stages for a long time, at least long enough for consultation to have started significantly before the closure announcement. What did the GMB do between the start of consultation and the decision/announcement?
edit: and it was never going to be a straight forward closure, it must always have been a case of moving production. There's no way that they'd stop selling polo shirts see
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Never in the history of disputes has the force of public opinion & the intervention of the aristocracy early, or otherwise proved decisive in these matters.
Occupation of the factory by the workers themselves with support from other trade unionists however may have been more effective, but sadly this was unlikely to happen in today's political climate.
It's whether anyone buys polo shirts that's important.
Occupation of the factory by the workers themselves with support from other trade unionists however may have been more effective, but sadly this was unlikely to happen in today's political climate.
It's whether anyone buys polo shirts that's important.
MC5 said:
MC i don't know how old you are so may be you do not know how these this would have worked in the 7ts ..
we used to have regional policies and support for industries from the govt
AND
the threat that if an employer wanted to shut a factory it would have to put up a fight .. surely you know this
capital is making vast sums from people currently way better than in the 7ts and YET they still wnat to maiximise profits .. the response of the uk unions to burberrys and similar has been pathetic
maybe wrongly i have failed to purge myself of the leninist doctrine that we need a better leadership!
Similar threads
