UK European Union referendum

Submitted by Steven. on June 22, 2016

New thread for discussion of the EU referendum tomorrow. There was a previous thread here but that got derailed. So please do not resurrect the derail discussion. This thread is for continued discussion of the EU referendum and its ramifications.

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on June 28, 2016

SF

Your remark was patronising because you presumed that Fingers didn't know anything about anti-fascism. She wasn't asking about 101. She was asking about what to do about the backlash created by the referendum.

I don't presume anything one way or the other. This what the question was, and it is quite clearly she wasn't asking about big O "organization", and I wasn't providing an answer about organization. I was talking about rapid response of friends and comrades to aid someone under attack:

People keep saying 'well we will need to organise against far right activity but we would have had to anyway' but what the hell do we do to organise against people being racially abused on buses and jumped in the street?

My suggestion was that you use means of communication among friends so that, after you do what Cactus9 so correctly recommends, you can get some bodies to support you. That's all that was intended.

Now I understand that I don't make it easy for people to think that I'm actually being serious, and not trying to "one up" anybody, but that's really all there is to it. It's all about communication. Anybody else besides me remember the Brixton Rising of 1981? Here in NYC, there were reports of how exasperated the police were because the kids were using hand-held radios (we call them "citizens' band" over here) to report the cops' locations and movements and keep the kids out of harms way?

Ever been jumped in the street? What's the first thing you wish you had with you? Somebody else-- to watch your back. What's the next thing? A weapon. What's the next thing? Some way of getting this "down" -- photographed-- so when I get out of it, my friends and I can track this motherfucker down and give him a good old fashioned 80%-- 80% so he'll know there's another 20% still to come.

Serge Forward

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on June 28, 2016

S.A. I am aware that some people who didn't give a toss either way about the EU voted Remain (rightly or wrongly) to back their workmates, neighbours and friends, knowing that a win for Leave would certainly make life more precarious for their friends and would very likely see an increase in racist attacks. The uncertainty for some people from outside the UK is already palpable and racist attacks have shot up since Friday. I don't believe for one minute that these people voted Leave because they supported the status quo and ongoing attrocities in the name of Fortress Europe. To claim that, as you do, is somewhat cynical and dishonest.

By the way, you've quoted someone else but attached my name.

Gulai Polye

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Gulai Polye on June 28, 2016

fingers malone

sorry I don't have any photos as I don't take photos on anti fascist mobilisations.

I dont have much doubt as to what you are saying is true, however having a picture would be nice.
All that i would like to see is two groups, one fascist the other antifascist and then the fascist group should be bigger.

Having those kinds of pictures can serve a good cause. Like we can show the neutral workers that the fascists are getting strong, so we need to get organised too. The workers dont have the luxury to be lazy these days (lazy = unorganized).

Anyway such pictures can always serve a historical role in many years to come.

Gulai Polye

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Gulai Polye on June 28, 2016

If there was a debate over capitalism i wouldn't be afraid to show a picture proving capitalism is strong like here
http://www.northropandjohnson.com/search/result.htm?yacht_profile_type_id=1&vessel_category_id=10

Jamal

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jamal on June 28, 2016

Fuck all yall and this whole thread. This website is a fucking honeypot anyway. If capitalism ends and all these cowards are left to run things, we're totally done. I might as well pick up an opiate habit and never check libcom again

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on June 28, 2016

Serge Forward

S.A. I am aware that some people who didn't give a toss either way about the EU voted Remain (rightly or wrongly) to back their workmates, neighbours and friends, knowing that a win for Leave would certainly make life more precarious for their friends and would very likely see an increase in racist attacks. The uncertainty for some people from outside the UK is already palpable and racist attacks have shot up since Friday. I don't believe for one minute that these people voted Leave because they supported the status quo and ongoing attrocities in the name of Fortress Europe. To claim that, as you do, is somewhat cynical and dishonest.

It doesn't matter what they thought they were doing. They were voting for the status quo. And all your twists and turns and rationalizations mount to nothing but semantic games.

Those who voted for remain were voting for Britain to remain in the EU. That's the status quo. To pretend you're not actually doing something when you are in the very midst of doing it is the signature feature of many leftists:

"Oh I voted for Syriza, because if not, the austerity imposed by the Troika will be unbearable."

"Oh I voted for Allende, because if I didn't, then the right and the military would see he has no support and right wing violence would become unbearable."

"Oh I'm going to vote for Rousseff, otherwise the corrupt oligarchs and their representatives are going to roll back the gains made under Lula."

Do you honestly think those on and off Libcom who voted Remain are more sincere, more intelligent, more honest than those people who have voted for Syriza, Allende, Rousseff?

Your voting "remain" to "prevent" racist attacks is identical to looking to the police to protect you from the KKK.

EDIT: I did not misquote you: The initials SF stand for Sharkfinn

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 28, 2016

So, does anyone like the leaflet?

Khawaga

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on June 28, 2016

Fuck all yall and this whole thread. This website is a fucking honeypot anyway. If capitalism ends and all these cowards are left to run things, we're totally done. I might as well pick up an opiate habit and never check libcom again

Seems like you've already smoked all the opium.

Rachel

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Rachel on June 28, 2016

Great work, Fingers Malone. First really helpful thing I've seen, I can put it to practical use tomorrow.

Serge Forward

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on June 28, 2016

Fingers, nice work.
S.Artesian, nice try, not biting.

jef costello

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jef costello on June 28, 2016

fingers malone

So, does anyone like the leaflet?

Asuming the Spanish is correct then yes.

if you're supporting people who're going for UK citizenship then they need to have the modern right to remain card, the older version will get your application rejected (I know of at least one person who paid for the checking service and still got refused for this reason)

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 28, 2016

Thanks, it took so long cos I had to rewrite it three times, due to the advice I was working from changing three times between Sunday morning and Tuesday morning. My mate checked the links and stuff so should all be ok. We are doing an English version and a Polish version right now.

I'll talk to people who are going for citizenship and check the point about the right card.

potrokin

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on June 28, 2016

Jamal

Fuck all yall and this whole thread. This website is a fucking honeypot anyway. If capitalism ends and all these cowards are left to run things, we're totally done. I might as well pick up an opiate habit and never check libcom again

Thats a bit intense.

potrokin

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on June 28, 2016

Khawaga

Fuck all yall and this whole thread. This website is a fucking honeypot anyway. If capitalism ends and all these cowards are left to run things, we're totally done. I might as well pick up an opiate habit and never check libcom again

Seems like you've already smoked all the opium.

Lol! Libcom is hilarious right now!

Gulai Polye

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Gulai Polye on June 28, 2016

Jamal

I might as well pick up an opiate habit and never check libcom again

Nice ideology - Well funded, maybe if you put a little more effort into it you could even get a couple of followers

Jamal

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jamal on June 28, 2016

Yeah, that's the truly sad part. Can't even afford it. So instead I'm just angry at the world

Jamal

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jamal on June 28, 2016

The mods will have to ban me from this site to prevent me from derailing this scabby fucking thread by the way

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 29, 2016

Polish version

Brexit i Ty
W referendum w dniu 26 czerwca Wielka Brytania zdecydowała opuścić Unię Europejską. Co to oznacza dla obywatelek/eli UE mieszkających w Wielkiej Brytanii?
Na razie obywatelki/ele państw Unii Europejskiej (również Szwajcarii, Islandii, Liechtensteinu i Norwegii) mają nadal prawo do życia i pracy w Wielkiej Brytanii, o ile mają status "osoby uprawnionej" (qualified person). Określenie "osoba uprawniona" oznacza osobę aktywną zawodowo: zatrudnioną, samozatrudnioną, szukającą pracy, samowystarczalną (na przykład ne emeryturze) lub studiującą.
Wielkia Brytania nie opuści UE od razu. Rozpoczną się teraz negocjacje, które mogą trwać do dwóch lat lub nawet dłużej. Dopóki opuszczenie nie wejdzie w życie, obywatelki/ele UE będą mogli swobodnie żyć i pracować w Wielkiej Brytanii. Nie da się powiedzieć co się stanie później. Możliwe, że będą przepisy chroniące ludzi, którzy mieszkali i pracowali w Wielkiej Brytanii przed "Brexit". Podobnie było gdy Grenlandia opuściła Wspólnotę Europejską w roku 1985. Posiadanie dowodu, że żyłaś/łeś i pracowałaś/łeś tu przed opuszczniem UE może być wtedy ważne.
Istnieją pewne dokumenty potwierdzające prawa, które masz teraz jako obywatelka/el UE. Mogą one być przydatne w przyszłości jako dowód, że żyłaś/łeś, pracowałaś/łeś i "korzystałaś/łeś z prawa do swobodnego przemieszczania się" w Zjednoczonym Królestwie przed opuszczniem Unii Europejskiej.
Jeśli mieszkałaś/łeś w Wielkiej Brytanii przez okres krótszy niż pięć lat, możesz ubiegać się o zaświadczenie o rejestracji jako "osoba uprawniona". Wytyczne i formularz znajdują się tutaj:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-registration-certificate-as-a-qualified-person-form-eea-qp
Jeśli mieszkałaś/łeś tu przez pięć lat lub dłużej i byłaś/łeś ekonomicznie aktywna/ny, możesz ubiegać się o kartę stałego pobytu (a permanent residence card) lub dokument poświadczający prawo stałego pobytu (a document certifying permanent residence) w Wielkiej Brytanii. Ten sam formularz służy do ubiegania się o oba dokumenty. Wytyczne i formularz znajdują się tutaj:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-document-certifying-permanent-residence-or-permanent-residence-card-form-eea-pr
Możesz także spróbować ubiegać się obywatelstwo brytyjskie. Wymaga to spełnienia wielu warunków. Jednym z nich jest uzyskanie karty stałego pobytu po pięciu latach mieszkania tutaj (z użyciem powyższego formularza). Następnie, po kolejnych 12 miesiącach możesz ubiegać się o obywatelstwo brytyjskie (wymaganie dla osób w związku małżeńskim z obywatelką/elem brytyjską są inne). Jest to kosztowny i skomplikowany proces i najlepiej skontaktować się wcześniej z prawnikiem imigracyjnym.
Te zasady najprawdopodobniej zmienią się w najbliższej przyszłości. Prawo imigracyjne jest skomplikowane i nalepiej skonsultować z prawnikiem imigracyjnym zanin podejmiesz jakąkolwiek decyzję. Bezpłatną poradę prawną możesz uzyskać w Centrum Prawnym (Law Centre):
http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/
lub Biurze Porady Obywatelskiej (Citizen’s Advice Bureau):
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/how-we-provide-advice/advice/search-for-your-local-citizens-advice/

libcom

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by libcom on June 29, 2016

Jamal has been banned for derailing and threats to the admins off-site.

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 29, 2016

Fucking hell.

Serge Forward

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on June 29, 2016

Lol! Libcom is hilarious right now!

Except it's not. Too many people going all weird. Then again, I suppose it's just an ultra left microcosm of the general weird shit going on elsewhere.

Intifada1988

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Intifada1988 on June 29, 2016

libcom

Jamal has been banned for derailing and threats to the admins off-site.

The "threat" was a guarantee that if I ever live long enough to see a prolonged revolutionary situation, I would have no problem permanently seperating democratists and parliamentarians like Juan Conatz, the admins of this site and any others who think this is a fucking game from their petty-bourgeois consciousnesses

Serge Forward

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on June 29, 2016

Is that threat just for Libcom users or would you include every worker who's ever voted in an election or referendum? If the former, then join the queue, otherwise, you'd be better spending your energies on something more useful in revolutionary terms. If it's the latter, then you'll have a bit of a job on.

wojtek

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on June 29, 2016

To clarify from the other thread, if perm migrant workers don't care about me, dc about immigrants/refugees in their home country and/or talk shit about muslims in this one, i have to stick up for their freedom of movement?

potrokin

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on June 29, 2016

Serge Forward

Lol! Libcom is hilarious right now!

Except it's not. Too many people going all weird. Then again, I suppose it's just an ultra left microcosm of the general weird shit going on elsewhere.

Sory about that. I was stoned and had the giggles and read khawaga's comment without reading the rest of the thread, having read the rest of it- it ain't so funny. Will try and avoid this site in future when I'm high.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 29, 2016

wojtek

To clarify from the other thread, if perm migrant workers don't care about me, dc about immigrants/refugees in their home country and/or talk shit about muslims in this one, i have to stick up for their freedom of movement?

Jesus fucking christ. Can we just go ahead and make a thread called racists out yourselves here?

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on June 29, 2016

wojtek

To clarify from the other thread, if perm migrant workers don't care about me, dc about immigrants/refugees in their home country and/or talk shit about muslims in this one, i have to stick up for their freedom of movement?

WTF? You don't care when fascists goons attack one sector of the working class because you're in another sector? Now that's class consciousness, isn't it?

Serge Forward

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on June 29, 2016

Is it something in the water? Do I need to get some tinfoil headgear? Yet another long term poster is coming out with some weirdy shit that sounds a bit too racist for comfort.

Burgers

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Burgers on June 29, 2016

I think wojtek has been reading to many Michael Schmidt books.

wojtek

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on June 29, 2016

So am I banned now? Ugh sorry.

I was just pissed at atomisation :/

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 29, 2016

I took a look at the article you linked in the thread umder Andrew Flood's article--the one about migrants and the mafia. I haven't finished it yet, but I wonder, do you have some experience with 'atomization' of Eastern Europeans? As I recall it was a similar concern you mentioned in the other thread as well.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 29, 2016

Burgers

I think wojtek has been reading to many Michael Schmidt books.

Not to derail too far but...

Interestingly, it was the Schmidt situation that immediately came to my mind. Not putting wojtek in same boat with Schmidt per se, but
because when the whole thing broke with MS I immediately gave him the benefit of doubt, thinking there had to be a viable explanation. Not because i have an ideological connection to platformism (i don't) but mainly because I'd never encountered outright, intentional racisism in communist circles before. Of course, there's all kinds of stuff goimg on with the racism involved with living in a white supremacist culture, needless to say.

But all of that to say if another situation like Schmidt came around today, I'd be much less likely to think 'there's gotta be a misunderstanding here.' because clearly, something is going on.

Khawaga

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on June 29, 2016

Care to expand, Wojtek? Not that any of us deserve an explanation, but it's kind of disconcerting when posters who you normally tend to respect and mostly agree with says something like that. To be honest, given how many posters have made racist and sexist remarks recently, combined with my experience of my old org defending patriarchy and rape culture, it's shook my belief that organized anarchists can actually do any good given that we seem to alienate anyone who isn't white and male.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 29, 2016

Khawaga

it's shook my belief that organized anarchists can actually do any good given that we seem to alienate anyone who isn't white and male.

It's hard enough to fight despair on any given day, given the state of things. But when it rears it's head into unexpected places, it can be a real gut punch for me.

Fleur

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fleur on June 29, 2016

Khawaga wrote:

it's shook my belief that organized anarchists can actually do any good given that we seem to alienate anyone who isn't white and male.

I've been feeling like that for quite a while now. I'm not running on much hope anymore.

Khawaga

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on June 29, 2016

Yeah, it's been like this for a few years for me too, though libcom used to be an exception....

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 29, 2016

Khawaga

Yeah, it's been like this for a few years for me too, though libcom used to be an exception....

exactly this

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on June 29, 2016

What was it Kane said in Alien? "We must go on. We can't go back now." Of course that was before his close encounter of the nasty kind on the derelict spacecraft..

factvalue

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by factvalue on June 29, 2016

Or the last lines from Beckett's Unnamable:

You must go on.

I can't go on.

You must go on.

I'll go on. You must say words, as long as there are any - until they find me, until they say me. (Strange pain, strange sin!) You must go on. Perhaps it's done already. Perhaps they have said me already. Perhaps they have carried me to the threshold of my story, before the door that opens on my story. (That would surprise me, if it opens.)

It will be I? It will be the silence, where I am? I don't know, I'll never know: in the silence you don't know.

You must go on.

I can't go on.

I'll go on.

Juan Conatz

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Juan Conatz on June 29, 2016

Can someone smarter than me explain what is happening with Corbyn and the Labour Party right now? It's kinda confusing to me. The majority of MPs are trying to ouster him? Because of the results of referendum? That and something else?

Fleur

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fleur on June 29, 2016

Can someone smarter than me explain what is happening with Corbyn and the Labour Party right now? It's kinda confusing to me. The majority of MPs are trying to ouster him? Because of the results of referendum? That and something else?

It's certainly a soap opera. I'm not in the UK - perhaps some UK folk can fill in the blanks.
There's a coup going on in the LP and evidence suggests that it was cooked up before the referendum, I expect it would have happened if the referendum went the other way but this is the excuse for it. The Blairite wing are trying to oust Corbyn but it doesn't look they have much of a plan really. Next week the Chilcot Report into the Iraq war is published (unless it's postponed yet again, wouldn't be surprised) and it's expected to lambast Tony Blair. Corbyn was expected at this point to formally apologize on behalf of the Labour Party for this and possibly press for war crimes charges to be levied against Blair. If a leadership challenge goes ahead, Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot paper and as far as I know, they haven't come up with a challenger who didn't vote in favour of the Iraq war, which would be a bit embarrassing if the Chilcot Report findings are as bad as they expect.

There's a battle for the direction of the Labour Party. The MPs are by and large on the right/Blairite side and the membership, the unions and the constituency parties are largely supporting Corbyn right now. What will emerge from the rubble, I don't know.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 30, 2016

Yeah, can I add on to Juan's questions? Some of this is pretty indecipherable to americans. Like someone said on twitter, things like 'The Shadow Cabinet' have a real bond super villian sound over here.

So Fleur, is the leadership battle more about protecting Blair and his former cabinet/staff or is more neo-liberalism v social democratic ideology or some unholy mixture of the 2? It just seems like neither of those reasons would be worth the fall-out, particularly amongst the party base and young people. I gather Corbyn is very popular with the membership but equally unpopular with the PLP (which i learned this week means parliamentary labor party, is that right?)

Like, are most leadership battles this drawn-out? I mean, it seems from the US to be glacially paced. Or is this just another sign of the plotters' utter incompetence?

Fleur

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fleur on June 30, 2016

I am British but I don't live there anymore and I'm watching this from afar, so UK posters would be in a better position to explain it than me.

A lot of political titles and terms in the UK are really archaic and sound really daft when you're not there. Shadow Cabinet is just the name for the opposition front benchers, shadowing the government ministers, ie the Shadow Minister for Education etc. The PLP is the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Labour MPs. It's just the MPs and the Labour Party refers to the party as a whole.
The Constituency Labour Parties are party members living in particular political constituencies (districts) who are responsible for selecting candidates for election. (I know it doesn't exactly work like that & that candidates are often parachuted in but that's the gist.) So far, a lot of the CLPs are supporting Corbyn over the PLP.

So Fleur, is the leadership battle more about protecting Blair and his former cabinet/staff or is more neo-liberalism v social democratic ideology or some unholy mixture of the 2?

Fuck knows. It's hard to know what they're playing at. A time when there's a huge political, economic and constitutional crisis seems like the perfect timing to engage in a spot of auto-cannibalism. The Labour Party has shifted to the right under Blair & his successors and this is reflected in the politics of the MPs. Corbyn is more left-leaning and is very popular with the membership who voted him as leader and has the support of the unions. The PLP has never liked him and I guess they're seizing on the opportunity to get control of the leadership back.

Like, are most leadership battles this drawn-out? I mean, it seems from the US to be glacially paced.

I don't know about drawn out, he's only been the leader of the Labour Party for about 8 months.
The Blairites have a bit of a reputation for being Machiavellian but this lot just seem incompetent. Perhaps they just expected him to step down and they could put whoever they wanted on the ballot. If he hangs on, he'll automatically be on the ballot and he won the leadership in a landslide last time and there's no reason to suggest he wouldn't do so again.

Like I said though, I'm only an outside observer and someone in the UK would be able to give a better analysis than me. I'm just watching from across the Atlantic and thinking what a clusterfuck it all is.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 30, 2016

Thanks for taking a minute Fleur!
Fleur

I don't know about drawn out, he's only been the leader of the Labour Party for about 8 months.
The Blairites have a bit of a reputation for being Machiavellian but this lot just seem incompetent. Perhaps they just expected him to step down and they could put whoever they wanted on the ballot. If he hangs on, he'll automatically be on the ballot and he won the leadership in a landslide last time and there's no reason to suggest he wouldn't do so again.
.

I meant for a party leadership coup. Like in the US, the last leadership challenge Speaker of the House Boehner had a year before he steeped down was really secretive and essentially over a day after the plot was discovered. Except for primary season, public party unity in the US is really important to the establishment. So, even after the Freedom Caucus attempt to take a shot at the Speakership, they were putting forward a good face of party unity the next day. That's what I meant by this seeming drawn out...

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 30, 2016

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12029786/brexit-uk-eu-immigration-xenophobia

According to research cited in this vox article public hostility to migrants in the UK proceeded the increase in immigration by more than a decade.

mikail firtinaci

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by mikail firtinaci on June 30, 2016

Jesuithitssquad:

To say that people are ignorant and that produces nationalism is akin to saying that people are religious because they are stupid. There is a continuity between the contemporary anti working-class sentiments and bourgeois anti-clericism of the 18th and 19th centuries. The only difference is that previously anti-clericism was a tool of the capitalist class in its fight against feudalism. Today, on the other hand, "stupid racist white worker" argument is a capitalist tool aimed to divide the working class.

I don't really know every aspect of contemporary class composition in Britain. However, from what I read in the last couple of weeks, I got a sense that those regions of UK that voted heavily for Brexit were the regions most hit hard by the Thatcherite restructuring of 1980s. It is not surprising that this segment of our class feels most scared from the competition with workers who are economically closest to them, the immigrant workers. Experiencing crippling decades of precariousness, experiencing the changing of the British economy from an industrial one to whatever it is now, can actually give the sense of being buried alive and replaced by other people who will do the new jobs that the old workers are not fit to do...

Academic-establishment left which was carried away by the winds of post-modernism did not help either. Throughout the 90s those who used the word proletariat were looked down on in universities and official politics as ignorant peasants from the dark ages. Was not it the age of "globalization"? Was not the blue collar worker, "stupid" and "industrial" as he was had to go and replaced with "creative" smart young geniuses who (as leftists like Paul Mason may claim) stand almost on the verge of something like communism because they are using those 3-D printers and other similar toys now?

In one sense 1980s was not only the period of restructuring for the British industry, but also the British political and intellectual factories, i.e. the establishment left and universities. Labor Party (just like other establishment left parties everywhere else) retreated from being mass political parties to small advertisement companies designed to produce election strategies for election cycles and campaigns for single issues.

Was Keynesianism, social-democracy etc. any more rational than populist right nationalism? This depends on which class we are talking about. For the working class both mobilize emotions like fear and anxiety in the service of the bourgeoisie and hence they are counter to the working class interests. A politics based on hope and other positive emotions, a program for a future in which private property will be abolished will sound "irrational" for the establishment custodians of rationality in any case. Is not that the challenge though? what else can unite the workers, young and old, from all national backgrounds? Certainly not Richard Seymour/Paul Mason type pro-Corbynist, pro-Free Market "clever" but desperate high political strategy devising leftism...

Maybe, there is a lumpenised segment of the working class which is already lost to a communist movement and won over to right-wing populism... Saying that they are stupid because they voted in support of a section of the Bourgeoisie against another will never help though...

Schmoopie

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Schmoopie on June 30, 2016

To say that people are ignorant and that produces nationalism is akin to saying that people are religious because they are stupid. There is a continuity between the contemporary anti working-class sentiments and bourgeois anti-clericism of the 18th and 19th centuries. The only difference is that previously anti-clericism was a tool of the capitalist class in its fight against feudalism. Today, on the other hand, "stupid racist white worker" argument is a capitalist tool aimed to divide the working class.

Excellent! You may add that the patronising "stupid racist white worker" argument is a tool aimed directly at opposing the movement of communism.

Maybe, there is a lumpenised segment of the working class which is already lost to a communist movement and won over to right-wing populism...

I think you allow too much concession to the reactionary argument you outline above.

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 30, 2016

I don't know too much about it, but in the last couple of decades there were a lot of changes in the way the Labour Party functions so that the members and local branches have much less power, eg the conference is much more a show for the media and much less for party democracy and ordinary members to have discussions.
The people that have any kind of actual say in decisions are now more likely to be people who went to top universities and who started out in political careers young, not people who have spent years and years as trade union reps or council estate TA reps or people like that.
The old Labour Party was shit too, yeah, for the record, it was sexist, it was corrupt, it was boring, not saying it was good, but there was a disempowering of the grassroots and also a switch to an image of glossy posh people talking manager speak.
I'm not to sure of the details, but the way the leader was elected changed, you could pay 3 pounds as a supporter and then vote for the Labour Party leader, and this produced the unexpected result when Jeremy Corbyn stood because thousands of people joined and voted for him. The majority of the existing members also voted for him. The PLP are really angry that somehow this was ever allowed to happen. I believe their problem with him is a) the Iraq war issue b) he's not a party machine man, this makes the party machine, plus most of the journalists and lobbyists feel like the rug's pulled from under them c) he's basically left wing and they don't want a left wing party leader.
I'm no expert in this stuff, I will ask my workmate who knows loads more than me.

mikail firtinaci

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by mikail firtinaci on June 30, 2016

I think you allow too much concession to the reactionary argument you outline above.

You are right, but I meant people like Golden Down cadres, who may fight against us to the end...

Joseph Kay

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on June 30, 2016

I think there's an element of tea-leaf gazing in interpretation of the results, with people seeing whatever patterns they want to see. The 'stupid poor white racists' and 'working class revolt' narratives both seem wrong. I haven't looked into the data in any depth, but this seems worth posting on class/race:

Even more worrying: Pro-Brexit vote maybe less about economics & more about "values" https://t.co/PZmcW1Xq6l pic.twitter.com/PSeExePrNE— Andrew Stroehlein (@astroehlein) June 29, 2016

(however, I'd take this with a pinch of salt, if you go fishing for correlations in a large dataset you're bound to find some)

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 30, 2016

Mikail- thanks for the contribution. quickly though, i didn't make any such argument about proles being ignorant, leading to an attraction to nationalism. quite to the contrary, i agree with most of what you write above.

(i linked to the vox article because i found the poll interesting--that attitudes about immigration don't always match the reality.)

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 30, 2016

Some anecdotal examples from work:

yes there's a lot of different motivations for people voting Leave, one workmate had a row with her childminder about it, who voted leave, and the woman said she wanted to shake things up a bit. Most of the students in my department don't have the vote. The ones who don't are also the people who are at risk of their status being affected by it. Those students are really upset, angry, anxious. I know some of their classmates who do have the vote, voted leave, and you can see the effect it's had on their own classmates. Some of those leave voting students said they did it because there's too much immigration and you can't even get a doctor's appointment now. However it looks like the racist backlash is affecting Muslim people at least as much as EU migrants if not more, so it looks like those students have voted for something that has triggered a racist backlash against people like them.

fingers malone

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on June 30, 2016

Just to clarify though, I looked up breakdown of the vote by ethnicity, and Asian voters voted remain roughly two thirds to one third leave, and black voters voted higher, about three quarters remain to one quarter leave.

Spikymike

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Spikymike on June 30, 2016

The current UK Labour Party shambles might deserve a split off thread from here perhaps as it has some way to go yet?

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on June 30, 2016

fingers malone

Some anecdotal examples from work:

yes there's a lot of different motivations for people voting Leave, one workmate had a row with her childminder about it, who voted leave, and the woman said she wanted to shake things up a bit.

Just on this bit, as with many things with Brexit this has a strong counterpoint with.Trump here in the US. A lot of Trump's supporters say their number one reaon for voting Trump is to shake things up/send a message to the elite/etc. I think in that case it is too simplistic to say all of Trump's rise is only about race--though.obviously it is to a large degree.

Clearly, I don't know enough about the UK to know how large a role anti-elitism/time-for a shake up played, but that certainly rings true to the mood here.

*interestingly, as a side note that ties in with Joseph Kay's point above, out of all possible indicators, the #1 predictor for being a Trump supporter is one's tolerance for authoritarian governance.

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on June 30, 2016

Spikymike

The current UK Labour Party shambles might deserve a split off thread from here perhaps as it has some way to go yet?

I agree, because there's a distinct possibility that the Labor Party itself might split. Not so the Tories, (blood, money, and schools).

wojtek

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on July 1, 2016

Care to expand

0hrs, treated like a ragdoll, the power imbalances. The sad thing is if it weren't for my w/c e.european friends, i wouldn't be intergrated into society. And now i'm prepared to throw them under a bus...

D

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by D on July 1, 2016

Am I misinterpreting something or is wojtek openly expressing blatant anti-immigrant beliefs?

Red Marriott

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Red Marriott on July 1, 2016

Surely he could clarify for himself, but judging by his earlier posts (p.11) I think wojtek's saying 'if my immigrant workmates are themselves prejudiced/only self-interested why should I be against policies that attack all those in their position as immigrants?' Which is surely depressing to experience from workmates but his conclusion drawn is not really seeing the bigger picture.

The ever-opportunist SWP are spinning brexit/lexit as a working class anti-austerity vote and claiming racist incidents are being exaggerated to discredit proles - conveniently ignoring that many post-vote incidents are of the vote-related 'go home' variety;
https://twitter.com/_joshdavies/status/747863004516065280
This is all supposedly no more than propaganda;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/30/police-report-fivefold-increase-race-hate-crimes-since-brexit-result

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on July 1, 2016

wojtek

Care to expand

0hrs, treated like a ragdoll, the power imbalances. The sad thing is if it weren't for my w/c e.european friends, i wouldn't be intergrated into society. And now i'm prepared to throw them under a bus...

I finished the guardian article you posted in the other thread and it is truly depressing.

the type of exploitation reported in that article surely means we need more solidarity, not less. working class migrants in that situation are amongst the most exploited.

wojtek

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on July 1, 2016

You're all right. l'll stop digging and shut up now.

jef costello

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jef costello on July 1, 2016

Makes me think of this but without the hatred.

[youtube]-3U4-mv5_08[/youtube]

Can't stand the kowtowing to the posh. And Johnson's amiable buffer routine is fucking annoying. I know class isn't just about background etc but when I hear one of those braying fuckers...

jesuithitsquad

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on July 1, 2016

wojtek

You're all right. l'll stop digging and shut up now.

I don't know, it seems to me like you're self aware and are struggling, so it might be best to not bottle it up...

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on July 1, 2016

The ever-opportunist SWP are spinning brexit/lexit as a working class anti-austerity vote and claiming racist incidents are being exaggerated to discredit proles

It can be both-- the working class voting anti-austerity and still be a racist outcome, with or without the working class themselves participating in racist incidents.

One thing it, the vote, certainly was not, was a working class victory. If it had been, and the way it would have been, would have been for a working class struggle to go forward, consciously, against capitalism, for protection of migrant workers, against the EU's treatment and rejection of refugees.

It is not the outcome of the vote that determines the class basis and class nature of the issue. It is the movement of the class in engaging the issue, which in case anyone is wondering, why I still maintain that engaging for the end of the EU, against participating in a union of capitalists, on the basis of class solidarity with workers in Greece, with refugees from EU member assaults (Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) retains its validity.

patient Insurgency

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by patient Insurgency on July 2, 2016

Two things: Firstly my earlier comment about a response to this was in terms of analysis and what kind approach people should take in the wake of Brexit. I was not asking what the ultimate solution to all this was was, which is libertarian socialism. The subsequent articles and posts seem to have cleared that up for me I think.

Secondly could this vote really be about extending state power for the ruling class? I know it sounds obvious but I've seen a load of shite about this being a "working class revolt" and what not, and I can't help but wonder that although businesses and capital itself may need the EU, but the actual capitalists themselves are terrified of some kind of mass unrest following the gfc ect. Maybe they are just trying to get there first, and move the country into a facistic direction to save their own skins?

I know I don't know what I'm talking about really but I came here to learn.

I did see something a while ago about "business leaders" taking stances against their own firms.

Gulai Polye

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Gulai Polye on July 2, 2016

Well EU is already quasi fascist

Chilli Sauce

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Chilli Sauce on July 2, 2016

Gulai Polye

Well EU is already quasi fascist

If the EU is fascist - or qualified fascism of any type - the word fascist has lost all meaning.

Red Marriott

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Red Marriott on July 2, 2016

Artesian

It can be both-- the working class voting anti-austerity and still be a racist outcome, with or without the working class themselves participating in racist incidents.

We can all speculate from a mix of data, propaganda, anecdote and personal experience about motives of voters. But available evidence suggests immigration was a major issue for many working class Leavers. If it was thought a vote for either of two pro-austerity factions would end austerity it was a sad illusion and if that’s seen as a victorious blow against austerity it shows how deluded some people are. But if it really was mainly an anti-austerity vote, why was this anti-austerity sentiment not expressed in the last two General Elections? (See here; http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/anti-austerity-voters-poll-jeremy-corbyn-labour) It’s just a post-vote leftist spin put on the outcome to try to keep the Party foot soldiers optimistic.

aaron aarons

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by aaron aarons on July 2, 2016

I've spent a few hours reading the comments here and I'm struck, but not surprised, by the lack of any acknowledgement that, in being anti-immigrant, U.K. workers are acting, in large part, in defense of the relative material privileges that they enjoy as citizens of a rich country. While they, like workers in any capitalist country, have to fight the capitalists of their country over the division of the pie, they are fighting for a share of a much, much larger pie than the workers of a poor country can fight for.

This advantage for workers in rich countries is undermined by the free movement of labor and the free movement of capital, both of which allow their country's capitalists to employ other, foreign, workers either inside or outside the country's borders. So the opposition to such free movement of labor and capital by rich-country workers is as rational, in purely economic terms, as is the capitalists' desire to take advantage of it to lower their wage costs.

The point is that internationalist socialists, communists, and anarchists in rich countries cannot always be on the side of their own working class and also be consistent in their support for the global working class, and particularly of the most oppressed.

P.S. The rich countries I'm referring to are, like the U.K., rich as a result of centuries of colonial and imperialist looting, but that point is not essential to this argument. It becomes important, though, in accounting for the wide support among workers for their own countries' imperialism.

radicalgraffiti

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by radicalgraffiti on July 2, 2016

aaron aarons

I've spent a few hours reading the comments here and I'm struck, but not surprised, by the lack of any acknowledgement that, in being anti-immigrant, U.K. workers are acting, in large part, in defense of the relative material privileges that they enjoy as citizens of a rich country. While they, like workers in any capitalist country, have to fight the capitalists of their country over the division of the pie, they are fighting for a share of a much, much larger pie than the workers of a poor country can fight for.

This advantage for workers in rich countries is undermined by the free movement of labor and the free movement of capital, both of which allow their country's capitalists to employ other, foreign, workers either inside or outside the country's borders. So the opposition to such free movement of labor and capital by rich-country workers is as rational, in purely economic terms, as is the capitalists' desire to take advantage of it to lower their wage costs.

its not though, theres no evidence that more immigration mean lower wages.

thsi article goes in to it a little http://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12029786/brexit-uk-eu-immigration-xenophobia

Chilli Sauce

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Chilli Sauce on July 2, 2016

The point is that internationalist socialists, communists, and anarchists in rich countries cannot always be on the side of their own working class and also be consistent in their support for the global working class, and particularly of the most oppressed.

You're saying that if the working class in your country fails to understand the need for transnational solidarity, communists will be forced to take an "inconsistent" position of some sort?

I don't buy that. We're part of the working class in our own countries and globally. Part of that means making the argument for internationalism and, practically, building cross-border solidarity. It's not football, it's not a matter of "sides", and it's not something we relate to as spectators.

This idea that there's a conflict between the interests of the local working class and the global working class is some capitalist bullsh*t and, as revolutionaries, we shouldn't fall into the trap of believing that or making arguments which accept those premises.

I'd also point out that, in regards to nationalism and xenophobia, it's hardly reserved for the working class of "rich" countries. Just like in the West, bosses in developing countries use immigration as a scare tactic to divide the working class.

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on July 2, 2016

This advantage for workers in rich countries is undermined by the free movement of labor and the free movement of capital, both of which allow their country's capitalists to employ other, foreign, workers either inside or outside the country's borders. So the opposition to such free movement of labor and capital by rich-country workers is as rational, in purely economic terms, as is the capitalists' desire to take advantage of it to lower their wage costs.

The above is just not accurate, By "advantage," you mean higher wages, better living standards, social development of and access to education, transportation, healthcare. There is very little if any empirical evidence to support that undermining of any of those items by the free movement of labor. There is much more evidence to support just the reverse.

Increased immigration can and does accompany expansive periods of capital, as well as recessionary periods; and also the reverse-- reduced immigration accompanies wage reductions and increased unemployment of so-called "native workers."

What counts is that the free movement of labor is not a cause of capital's "short-term" cyclical distress, like overproduction, nor its long-term structural or secular trends, like the tendency of the rate of profit to decline.

The point is that internationalist socialists, communists, and anarchists in rich countries cannot always be on the side of their own working class and also be consistent in their support for the global working class, and particularly of the most oppressed.

This point, derived from the first "point" is flawed. There is no such thing as "their own working class." Only by being blind to the actual complex make-up of the working class can one make such a claim.

Take for example the resistance to industries opening up hiring in all positions to African-Americans in the US South . Was that in the interest of the "native" "white" workers in the South? First such an argument ignores the role of black labor in the development of US capitalism; secondly it ignores the fact that racism absolutely retarded the level of wages, social benefits, "development" available to all workers in the South; thirdly it ignores that "our working class" is NEVER a working class formed, preserved, and maintained by segregation, discrimination, or exclusion.

Chilli Sauce

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Chilli Sauce on July 2, 2016

So, I think there should be a rule that whenever me and Artesian agree, whatever we're agreeing on - rather whatever he's agreeing with me on ;-) - is correct.

Basically, good post.

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on July 2, 2016

Chilli Sauce

So, I think there should be a rule that whenever me and Artesian agree, whatever we're agreeing on - rather whatever he's agreeing with me on ;-) - is correct.

Basically, good post.

I agree. Although, this might be the purely random event-- like the blind pig finding the acorn, etc.

aaron aarons

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by aaron aarons on July 2, 2016

Chilli Sauce

The point is that internationalist socialists, communists, and anarchists in rich countries cannot always be on the side of their own working class and also be consistent in their support for the global working class, and particularly of the most oppressed.

You're saying that if the working class in your country fails to understand the need for transnational solidarity, communists will be forced to take an "inconsistent" position of some sort?

No, I'm saying that consistent communists, who necessarily solidarize most strongly with those most oppressed in the world as a whole, cannot expect to always be on the same side of conflicts as are the workers in their own country, who will often take nationalist positions, regardless of whether those nationalist positions are taken due to a correct, incorrect, or mixed understanding of their narrow self-interest. This is more of a problem for those on the left who hope to win elections than it is for anarchists or for those who participate in elections for propagandistic and agitational purposes.

Chilli Sauce

I'd also point out that, in regards to nationalism and xenophobia, it's hardly reserved for the working class of "rich" countries. Just like in the West, bosses in developing countries use immigration as a scare tactic to divide the working class.

Xenophobia occurs everywhere, but the working-class economic nationalism and related xenophobia I'm referring to generally occurs in countries that are relatively rich compared to the sources of immigration. South Africa is, thanks to the ANC's counter-revolution, a good, i.e., awful, example of this.

baboon

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by baboon on July 2, 2016

The "White Working Class", i.e., a contemptuous and divisive expression, has been around as such for a few years now as a term of abuse and has really taken off in the UK (and the US) with the rise of popularism. After the Brexit result the media were full of it and leftist type intellectuals blamed the vote to leave on the "white working class".

It's very difficult to know what's in the heads of workers who vote in bourgeois elections or referenda, the real purpose of them to scramble the heads of the isolated individual who. responding to the campaigns of the ruling class, traipses into the polling booth as an atomised "citizen".

Those that voted for Brexit might have thought that it was a protest vote; a "revolt" against the establishment. A revolt which is not a revolt but a plea to the very "elite" that the vote is supposed to be against. On the other hand a vote to remain followed the main lines of the national interest with its post-facto "inclusiveness" and "openness" - a real laugh from a government (and opposition) that helped to drown the Arab Spring in blood and wound up racial divisions in Britain over decades.

The working class, already weak, were mobilised to vote for choices neither of which were in its interests and this must be a further factor in its present division and demobilisation.

Mr. Jolly

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mr. Jolly on July 2, 2016

Interesting wee documentary interviewing people post Brexit in Doncaster (a pretty deprived post industrial town in the North of england where 69% voted exit)

https://vimeo.com/172932182

Chilli Sauce

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Chilli Sauce on July 2, 2016

No, I'm saying that consistent communists, who necessarily solidarize most strongly with those most oppressed in the world as a whole, cannot expect to always be on the same side of conflicts as are the workers in their own country, who will often take nationalist positions, regardless of whether those nationalist positions are taken due to a correct, incorrect, or mixed understanding of their narrow self-interest. This is more of a problem for those on the left who hope to win elections than it is for anarchists or for those who participate in elections for propagandistic and agitational purposes.

So I have to say, I find that pretty odd communism and anarchism there.

Our goal as communists should be to cement and practice solidarity where we're at and in the places where it can be most effective. I'm all for offering support to struggles internationally, but that support is often, at best, symbolic or monetary. In terms what we can really do, in practice, often the best we can offer is to spread the word or send an email - which, if we're honest with ourselves, isn't that much.

In other words, capitalism isn't some far off thing. By building power and solidarity in our own jobs and communities and linking up those struggle across borders, that empower the global working class - it's not about who we most strongly "solidarize" with.

As for anarchists participating in elections for any reason, what a load of (perennial) nonsense.

aaron aarons

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by aaron aarons on July 3, 2016

S. Artesian

aaron aarons

This advantage for workers in rich countries is undermined by the free movement of labor and the free movement of capital, both of which allow their country's capitalists to employ other, foreign, workers either inside or outside the country's borders. So the opposition to such free movement of labor and capital by rich-country workers is as rational, in purely economic terms, as is the capitalists' desire to take advantage of it to lower their wage costs.

The above is just not accurate, By "advantage," you mean higher wages, better living standards, social development of and access to education, transportation, healthcare. There is very little if any empirical evidence to support that undermining of any of those items by the free movement of labor. There is much more evidence to support just the reverse.

I'm not aware of the empirical evidence either way. Can you cite any?

S. Artesian

Increased immigration can and does accompany expansive periods of capital, as well as recessionary periods; and also the reverse-- reduced immigration accompanies wage reductions and increased unemployment of so-called "native workers."

Labor migration into richer countries will, of course, increase during periods of economic expansion, especially if that expansion is concentrated in those rich countries. And, in such periods, most working-class citizens of the receiving countries will see their conditions improving, so will not be motivated to turn against immigrants. It is mainly during times of contraction that "native" workers will see those from other countries as competitors for jobs, and will tend to greatly exaggerate the part that that competition plays in their own unemployment.

S. Artesian

What counts is that the free movement of labor is not a cause of capital's "short-term" cyclical distress, like overproduction, nor its long-term structural or secular trends, like the tendency of the rate of profit to decline.

Who said anything like what you are refuting? I certainly didn't!

S. Artesian

aaron aarons

The point is that internationalist socialists, communists, and anarchists in rich countries cannot always be on the side of their own working class and also be consistent in their support for the global working class, and particularly of the most oppressed.

This point, derived from the first "point" is flawed. There is no such thing as "their own working class." Only by being blind to the actual complex make-up of the working class can one make such a claim.

By "their own working class" I meant the working class of their own country, and, because we were discussing the results of an election, I was referring to the national, citizen, working class. My argument is mainly directed against those who orient towards elections, and who often adapt, perhaps unconsciously, to that segment of the broader class.

I am not, at this time, going to try to deal with the separate but similar question you raise of the position of white and Black workers in the U.S. South.

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on July 3, 2016

Aaron,

If you're not aware of empirical evidence either way, then why do make the following claim:

This advantage for workers in rich countries is undermined by the free movement of labor and the free movement of capital, both of which allow their country's capitalists to employ other, foreign, workers either inside or outside the country's borders. So the opposition to such free movement of labor and capital by rich-country workers is as rational, in purely economic terms,

??

As for evidence that immigrant laborers do not "undermine the advantage for workers in rich countries"

Many workers born in Mexico and Central America are employed in occupations that require little formal education. In 2009, 70 percent of workers from Mexico and Central America were in occupations filled by people with a relatively low average level of education, but only 23 percent of native-born workers were in such jobs. In particular, relatively large percentages of workers from Mexico and Central America hold farm, construction, and food service jobs that require little formal education.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/07-23-immigrants_in_labor_force.pdf

Not exactly taking the cream of jobs away from workers. The loss of jobs in industry has been due to the asset-stripping, and "restructuring" that has seen production jobs in the US drop by 50% since 1970, not because workers from Mexico took the jobs the "native" workers had. Where immigrant labor has replaced "native labor"-- as in meat-packing, etc., it only occurred after strikes were broken, workplaces closed, and the wages were reduced . Immigrant labor did not cause the breaking of the strikes or the unions, or the subsequent reduction in wages. T

See also: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/06-02-foreign-bornpopulation.pdf

Other studies have shown that immigrant populations contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits funded by taxes.

It's easy enough to find studies analyzing the economic benefits of immigration, try googling just that and reading. It becomes readily apparent what little impact immigrants have on the wages, benefits, and employment available to "native workers." Here's one--

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_18.pdf

aaron aarons

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by aaron aarons on July 3, 2016

S. Artesian

As for evidence that immigrant laborers do not "undermine the advantage for workers in rich countries"

Many workers born in Mexico and Central America are employed in occupations that require little formal education. In 2009, 70 percent of workers from Mexico and Central America were in occupations filled by people with a relatively low average level of education, but only 23 percent of native-born workers were in such jobs. In particular, relatively large percentages of workers from Mexico and Central America hold farm, construction, and food service jobs that require little formal education.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/07-23-immigrants_in_labor_force.pdf

But the migration of workers from Mexico and Central America is definitely not an example of the free movement of labor. It is tightly controlled by a system of selectively-enforced immigration laws, so the main job displacement is among the politically powerless, largely non-white, less educated sections of the U.S. working class. Although there are millions of university-educated people, and skilled manual workers, in Mexico who could be working in well-paid jobs in the U.S., they generally have to work in unskilled, menial jobs at low pay unless and until they are lucky enough to get legal status.

To make it clear, if I haven't already, I am not opposing the free movement of labor, or any other real or imagined threats to first-world privilege, but am trying to refute the illusion that there is a material basis for expecting the bulk of the workers of rich (usually imperialist) countries to act in the interests of the majority of the world's working class and plebeian masses.

S. Artesian

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on July 3, 2016

But the migration of workers from Mexico and Central America is definitely not an example of the free movement of labor. It is tightly controlled by a system of selectively-enforced immigration laws,

So is the "free movement of labor" in the EU. The movement is limited to EU citizenship. The term the "free movement of labor" is for "home-born" simply another term for immigration.

Is it your contention that immigration, "legal" and/or "illegal" is different in the supposed impact on "native" workers than the free movement of labor?

so the main job displacement is among the politically powerless, largely non-white, less educated sections of the U.S. working class.

You make these claims without providing any empirical evidence. You even claim you are not aware of any studies showing evidence either way, so how can you make any claims regarding job-displacement? And even if your not empirically based claims have any validity, then why aren't the "largely non-white sections...of the US working class" leading the opposition to immigration?

to refute the illusion that there is a material basis for expecting the bulk of the workers of rich (usually imperialist) countries to act in the interests of the majority of the world's working class and plebeian masses

You are claiming something else, actually-- that there is a material basis for the "bulk" of the workers in the advanced countries to oppose immigration. That's a bit different.

And again, you are claiming this without empirical evidence for such a "material basis."

factvalue

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by factvalue on July 3, 2016

aaron aarons

To make it clear, if I haven't already, I am not opposing the free movement of labor, or any other real or imagined threats to first-world privilege, but am trying to refute the illusion that there is a material basis for expecting the bulk of the workers of rich (usually imperialist) countries to act in the interests of the majority of the world's working class and plebeian masses.

This has a chance of working if you accept capitalism as reality and forget that all labour and the products of labour are made by society as a whole and should belong to all the people, rather than a few individuals who having stolen it all at gunpoint, dole a small fraction of it back to those who made it. in scarce enough supply to keep them at each other's throats, i.e. you just forget about communism/reality entirely.

Chilli Sauce

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Chilli Sauce on July 3, 2016

t am trying to refute the illusion that there is a material basis for expecting the bulk of the workers of rich (usually imperialist) countries to act in the interests of the majority of the world's working class and plebeian masses.

This is a false dichotomy.

factvalue

7 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by factvalue on July 3, 2016

Why not take the opportunity to draw attention to the differences between production for profit and production for use in terms of hours worked and people employed/necessarily unemployed?

aaron aarons

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by aaron aarons on July 4, 2016

No, I don't have any more studies to prove in general the impact of immigration on the workers of rich, imperialist countries than you have to prove that such immigration, despite leading to greater competition for jobs, does not have a negative impact on those rich-country workers. I'm sure, though, that one can find studies of different areas done by different methods that will have whatever result one is looking for. And please show me any studies that demonstrate that, despite appearances to the contrary, including the almost total lack of any manifestations of such unity, there is a material, economic basis for unity between (a) the most poorly paid workers of countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, the DRC, Mozambique, Bolivia, Honduras and Haiti and (b) the citizen workers of the main imperialist countries who earn, on average, at least 50 times as much in money terms, and certainly at least 20 times as much in local purchasing power, as the former. And, regardless of any studies, do you think that it is materially possible, even with the elimination of the enormous waste that is capitalist production, for the planet -- human society and nature -- to provide every worker in the world with even half the level of material consumption enjoyed by an average "native" worker in an imperialist country?

I do think that a hypothetical global socialist/communist revolution would be great for most of humanity and for the environment, but a lot of the partial victories that will have to precede such a revolution will have a negative impact on the material conditions of the better-off sections of the global working class and will be resisted by those sections, in alliance with their middle classes.

S. Artesian

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by S. Artesian on July 4, 2016

(a) the most poorly paid workers of countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, the DRC, Mozambique, Bolivia, Honduras and Haiti and (b) the citizen workers of the main imperialist countries

Hmmh.....well, let's look at this... steel workers in Wales are facing closure of the largest single steel plant there, and.....steel workers in China are facing shutdowns and layoffs there.

Hmmh..... miners in the UK have lost almost everything and miners in Zambia face wage reductions and vicious discipline.

Hmmh..........workers in the "home country" of Wal-Mart confront below subsistence wages, requiring them to seek welfare supplements like food stamps; and textile workers in Bangladesh confront working conditions that are near-lethal, if not lethal.

So call me a Pollyanna, call me Pangloss, but I think there's a bit of material basis for such solidarity.

factvalue

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by factvalue on July 4, 2016

Or, again taking a more complementary view, since the accomplishment of even the minutest task of labour, including everything which constitutes human society, requires the labour of many generations of people from our class, since all labour and the products of labour is made by society as a whole, why are people in Bangladesh and Wales being put through this? I think you've lost sight of some basic realities AA, as well as a huge chunk of the history of class struggle and globalisation. You're mired in capitalist Malthusian axiomatics.

Schmoopie

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Schmoopie on July 5, 2016

...a hypothetical global socialist/communist revolution...

Were the slave uprisings, the Paris Commune, the 1917 insurrection and all the other instances of our class war not a part of the proletarian revolution?

One thing is for sure, the recent referendum was the antithesis of proletarian revolution and I for one am ashamed of myself for the extent that I got embroiled in it. Never mind! We live to fight another day.

Schmoopie

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Schmoopie on July 24, 2016

From the BBC:

Conservative party chairman Patrick McLoughlin... dismissed claims by some motorists [delayed at the port of Dover] that the French authorities were "punishing" British holidaymakers for the Brexit vote.

Gulai Polye

7 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Gulai Polye on July 29, 2016

EU is like cancer that needs to be cut off from supply lines (taxes) so it can die.

wojtek

7 years 6 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on September 17, 2016

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/why-did-south-asians-vote-for-brexit

Rachel

7 years 6 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Rachel on September 17, 2016

good article, I heard all these reasons locally too. One thing the article doesn't mention is the many thousands of South Asians who are also EU migrants to the UK.Depressing to learn how the drop in the value of the pound is affecting migrants who must support people back home.

wojtek

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on October 7, 2016

The brief post-Brexit spotlight on Wigan in the NYT and Vice was amusing.

But it is not just German power that bothers him. He is more uneasy over a local imbalance of power that has left his own hometown, Leigh, controlled by the Borough Council in Wigan after the merging of several districts in 1974. That amalgamation, which had nothing to do with Brussels, has left many in Leigh resentful of Wigan, which is only five miles away but which they see as an alien and bullying force.

“We feel pushed around,” Mr. Gorton said

wojtek

7 years 3 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on December 29, 2016

Do you reckon it's a coincidence that Paul Mason and Andy Burnham both have links to Leigh? Hehe

cactus9

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by cactus9 on January 17, 2017

So everyone is spoofing Theresa for not having a Brexit plan. Is she not going to spin it out until she has won/ looks certain to win a comfortable majority over Corbyn-addled Labour and then fuck it up? I love Corbyn as much as the next person but saying she has no strategy is a joke. Come to think of it I'm not sure she even needs to spin it out for very long.

Long story short, she doesn't give a f***.

wojtek

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on January 18, 2017

I like it when they tell you to 'get on your bike' and then call you a citizen of nowhere.
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/o7MGWQf

cactus9

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by cactus9 on January 18, 2017

wojtek

I like it when they tell you to 'get on your bike' and then call you a citizen of nowhere.
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/o7MGWQf

I would love to meet a racist intelligent enough to say "citizen of nowhere". I hope you're ok.

wojtek

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on January 18, 2017

Ah it wasn't an incident. I was referring to Noman Tebbit's catchphrase and Theresa May's Brexit comments. My bad :/

cactus9

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by cactus9 on January 20, 2017

wojtek

Ah it wasn't an incident. I was referring to Noman Tebbit's catchphrase and Theresa May's Brexit comments. My bad :/

I don't want to meet them.

potrokin

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on January 24, 2017

Supreme court rules that there must be a vote in parliament on Article 50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38720320 Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies denied a say by the look of it.

Reddebrek

7 years 2 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Reddebrek on January 27, 2017

Well Corbyn's put a three line whip on his party to vote for Article 50

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/corbyn-to-impose-three-line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50