Parochial Socialism

If migrant workers can only travel with an IWW card, then they can only get a job by being in the union.

Here's hoping eh?

I wondered where that'd gone!

Solidarity Forever - that the oral histories? One of my favourite books of all time 8)

Nope, it's even worse there, just signed up and I keep thinking I'm on a board for daily mail readers the trots on there seem sane by comparison. Is this just a web forum thing or are these (anti-immigrant) ideas really making headway on the 'left' in real life? Scary.....

You're talking about Brazilnut, who is probably on a windup. Either that, or he's regurgitating half-understood ideas in order to curry favour. Either that, or he is very anti-immigrant...

And for some, especially the ex-SWPers, it's a reaction against the 'refugees are welcome here' head-in-the-sand approach to migration.

Well yes I think he may have been playing some kind of wierd devil's advocate game (and not a very constructive one, IMO) but there are now two threads on immigration where most people seem to be arguing against it

they need revol back!

but anyway i'm not trying to start a board war or anything, I'm interested if people have heard these views expressed on the 'left' outside of internetland? I've heard them from a couple of local 'workers party - marxist-leninist' people but no-one saner than that. Anyone else?

No, in general I think the TUC/CBI approach of emphasising the benefits that immigration brings to capital is the dominant approach on the left.

you're making me nervous.....

No not really, i understand what you're saying, it's just that this seems to be the main argument being used against immigration (ie that the CBI support it so we have to be against it) and it completely ignores the fact that large sectors of capital are equally happy to scapegoat immigrants and call for more controls

Taking a knee-jerk stance against what the CBI want isn't any more useful than taking a mirror image of what the BNP ask for. TBH I think it is fringe right-wing sections of capital that are purely anti-imigration. What the general plan is, is immigration on the terms of capital - e.g. keeping out certain people such as political refugees in favour of people who can help the economy, etc etc.

Philosophically I'm in favour of immigration, because without it i wouldn't be here today. However, in concrete terms we need to help create a situation where immigration/emigration happens on the terms of the working class -which is neither a simply pro or a simply anti immigation position. Those false dualisms are used to keep us debating empty political cliches.

I tend to agree, the aggregate effect of the racist fringe and mainstream liberal capital being to simultaneously facilitate migration whilst demonising the migrants - and all without the need for a conspiracy. If capital was an agent it'd be a clever bastard

Lazlo what are you on about? Immigration/emigration in capitalism is the importing and exporting of labour. Within capitalism its impossible to ensure that immigration/emigration happens on "the terms of the working class", what does that even mean? You could say that in terms of those coming to England or Northern Ireland or where-ever that in so far as they will get better pay than at home that it is to an extent working for them. Then you'll end up arguing that workers here should be protected from immigrants undercutting their terms and conditions and pay - this is called social chauvinism and prioritises a so-called native working class.

And this is not about debating empty cliches, its a choice between accepting the realities of capitalism, and one of these realities is immigration/emigration, and attempting to deal with it in a way that does not undermine either section of the working class. This demands the building of solidarity with immigrant workers in a struggle to maintain and hopefully improve pay and terms and conditions for all workers.

Yup.

Laz you have been hanging out with those IWCA types way too much...

This is no different from the way I put it: 'help create a situation where immigration/emigration happens on the terms of the working class', so I don't understand why you contradict yourself by saying it s impossible under capitalism.

Immigration managed by gang-masters or involving the council dumping refugees on under-funded estates is against working class interests. Even within capitalism it's possible to try to stop this happening.

that's not "managing immigration" though, is it?

Yes, that's why I've never advocated managing immigration. Any more than advocating fighting for better work conditions is managing wage labour.

What does that mean? That you're fighting for there to be less immigrants?

I think there needs to be some clarification on this.

Firstly, the IWCA - I'm not aware of any IWCA contribution to threads on Urban75, and there's nothing on their website about the subject - so it's hardly fair to namecheck them in the context of this debate.

Secondly, Durruti posts on Urban75 as an individual, not on behalf of Hackney Independent - immigration isn't an issue that HI will tackle. There's never been an dicussion about immigration within the organisation itself. Personally, I think that a lot of the contributions from Durruti and Baldwin are more about winding others up then anything else - although I haven't spoken to the correspondants for quite a few months now.

I've contributed to the debate now and again, when I can be bothered.

I think there is an issue within this 'electoralism' that needs to be sorted out within HI. I've put this in inverted brackets because the strategy was never electoralism, but there does seem to be some weird political decisions take of late which seem to revolve around, But the Labour party will call us X or Y in the next election if we take that political position now. Which isn't very good really is it.

Personally, I would scrape any thought or plans for entering local elections again... but that's another discussion for another time.

Just on this point - HI, as a whole, don't see the working class as passive force to be represented. Ideally... it is an active force that represents itself: working class self-determination in the community and workplace.

The problem with entering elections is that you 'have to play the game': that is, elevating the candidates months, if not years in advance... ala Tommy Sherideen stylee...

There is an obvious contradication between working class self-determination and the elevation of local leaders and heroes, however unintentional that may be.

Yes, it is about the 'lowest common denominator' - that is at the heart of working class independence. Pick a certain amount of issues - housing, anti-social behaviour - those issues that matter to the class and stick with those issues over the years - try to set the agenda rather than being some sort of media barometer that sees hopping from issue to the next.

John - it's a debate. A theoretical one at that - it's not as if groups or individuals are propagating a line amongst the working class, and then coming back defending their position. It's a debate.

Personally, what I find so odd about publications such as the Morning Star - the so-called 'Daily Paper of the Left - is the complete absence of a debate on immigration. It's like the elephant in the sitting room - have a debate about it. It's not 'very, very annoying' to engage in debate.

There's been a similar reaction in the past to debates on anti-social behaviour and multiculturalism - this is the provence of the right, to engage in these issues automatically means you are reactionary. No it doesn't.

When I was involved in the IWCA there was very intense debate about how to approach the asylum-seeker issue. This was at the time that the SWP were saying, Refugees are Welcome Here. Clearly, this was a bullshit line to take. The debate was had because a. It was a massive issue amongst the working class b. the traditional left were making things worse with their ridiculous line. At the end of this debate the conclusion was... don't bring it up as an issue unless there is a specific reason to do so within your community. I think at the time that was the right conclusion to come up with... but it didn't stop us having the debate.

PS: Is there a problem with the smilies - they don't seem to work?

I think they do.

If you go to "my account" you can choose to display a block which shows all the available ones. You can't insert them by clicking on them though.

So Laz you don't want immigrants dumped in your underfunded council estate? More people living in an underfunded council estate is "against working class interests" is it? Would you rather they were all put in concentration camps?

Thats not only very different from the way I put it - its a million fuckin miles from what I'm talking about, I don't want to see a limit put on immigration or the amount of immigrants housed in a particular estate (loyalist paramilitaries, in true working class self management of immigration fashion, have however put upper quotas on the amount of asians living in a particular district of Belfast though so yer in fine company). What would deal with reality while not undermining either section of the working class - 'native' and immigrant - would be the building of solidarity between them to what, fuck, I don't know, maybe have conditions on the estate improved.

hmmm... I don't think Lazio is arguing this at all - I think yous is making mischief...

I've argued it before, and I'll argue it again - the ruling class is using immigration to enrich themselves and to set one part of the working class against another.

Magnifico says that the debate 'completely ignores the fact that large sectors of capital are equally happy to scapegoat immigrants and call for more controls'. Really! All I see in the national debate is capitalists tripping over themselves to say that immigrants work harder and for less pay. I think you need to source your opinion Magnifico.

Just as another point to the mods - when I went back and edited the above post for a spelling mistake, it jumped to be last post - surely something that needs attention

Well the two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but anyway....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400599&in_page_id=1770

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006390004,00.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail_pa.html?sku=11562583805698547-H0

will that do for now?

Tbh I didn't think that even needed debating - there's shit stirring about immigrants on the fromt page of at least one of the national papers almost every day, and what are these if not the mouthpeice of the capitalist class?

Oh really, maybe I should have quoted his post first:

Seems like he wants to stop immigrants being dumped on his underfunded council estate to me. Didn't say he did want concentration camps (yeah maybe a bit emotive) but really its up to him to explain how else he reckons the working class can stop this inside capitalism. As I've pointed out loyalist paramilitaries have adopted one approach in order to 'stop' this - whats Lazlos?

And we do not organise against the rich using immigrants to further enrich themselves at the expense of one section of the working class by reinforcing divisions between 'native' and immigrant workers.

But really the notion that we try to stop refugees moving into 'our' underfunded estates is the issue here and I'm sorry but I'm starting to feel a bit frustrated that people are actually arguing that we stop it - whatever that means. The issue facing working class inhabitants of an estate is not the number of refugees 'dumped' on the estate its the underfunding. This smacks of the same old scapegoating we're well used to from the right.

I think there's a clear contradiction between paragraph 1 and the following 2 - how unintentional can the contradiction be? H.I. are aware of this contradiction surely?

I'd argue, as I prev. said, that the HI and co's line is being set by the barometer of the more general rightward shift across the political spectrum. Populist electorialism forces this on those seeking votes.
And whose 'lowest common denominator', whose 'working class independence'? There's no sense of a desire or need to stuggle in common with the more recently arrived working class. Yes, the ruling class uses immigration to undercut wages and to divide the working class. The leftist rightism we are discussing here only aids the ruling class in entrenching these divisions. There's no problem with having a debate on immigration - the problem is the capitulation to one of the sides dictated by capital, presumably cos its seen as a vote winner. A major backward step, even in leftist terms; the fact that this even has to be stated here is evidence of that.