The working class and the "immigration debate"

Steven.

I have been meaning to write more for a while, however often writing something from scratch I find I don't know where to start. Therefore instead I thought I would try to practice by analysing and critiquing other texts. I would appreciate feedback and comments on the article and my writing style.

i don't have any specific points off the top of my head, but in terms of knowing where to start, i've been writing a lot lately (both politics and for my uni course) and this is basically the process i go through:

1. Get a clear idea what it's about. Unless you're writing a pamphlet - and even then - it's best to stick to one core idea and drum home the point (there's exceptions, but the more you try and say the harder it is to communicate the core ideas clearly, especially if they're new or challenging ideas for your readers). it's easy when you're a communist and see how all sorts of things are interconnected to start joining dots left right and centre and subsequently lose focus, and leave readers wondering what the point of it is. If you're not entirely sure on the focus to begin with, skip to step 2 and then start over from 1 afterwards.

2. Have a brainstorm. Get everything you have in mind down as bullet points - everything from key quotes, points you'd like to make, relevant hyperlinks etc. This can easily generate a quarter of the final wordcount if not more. Once you've got a load of points down, you can start cut and pasting them around into a coherent order to create a nice structured arc of argument. Don't be afraid to leave things out if they don't quite fit; you can mention them in a footnote and/or use them as the seed of a subsequent piece. If you find it difficult to write several thousand words, it can be helpful to give yourself a word count for each bullet point, as writing 150 words on 10 points is a lot easier than staring at a blank page needing to write 1,500 words! At the bullet point stage, if any nice turns of phrase or pithy arguments pop into your head, bullet point them too as you can just drop them into the draft when you write the rest.

3. Structure. Basically, the classic structure is: Intro: summarise what you're going to say | Middle: say it | Conclusions: sum up what you just said. Obviously the middle can subdivide into all sorts of sections too, depending on the length of the piece and complexity of the argument. The intro/conclusions are more important the longer the article (and so the more likely people forget key the arguments from earlier). With a blog you can get away with a couple of sentences, with an Aufheben style article it could be 500 words or more for each

Sorry there's nothing specific to this piece (late, tired...), but hopefully this is helpful!

Steven.

and it was commented by the poster oisleep that it was "fairly decent", and you can read it online here. I thought about doing a more general post about the irrationality of workers supporting immigration controls overall, but for now I will limit myself to just addressing this set of arguments.

Steven. can I ask why you are bringing this blog by oisleep from two years ago up now? He doesnt even post here anymore.

Steven.

gypsy

Steven.

and it was commented by the poster oisleep that it was "fairly decent", and you can read it online here. I thought about doing a more general post about the irrationality of workers supporting immigration controls overall, but for now I will limit myself to just addressing this set of arguments.

Steven. can I ask why you are bringing this blog by oisleep from two years ago up now? Te doesnt even post here anymore.

more like a year and a half ago. Basically I meant to write something at the time but never got round to it, and the points are still valid now

Fair enough.

I tried to write something like this myself a few years ago; got down one sentence that I wasn't happy with and gave up. If you're arguing for open borders under Capitalism as a progressive step towards Freedom & Equality then I think you're right on the money.

Cost of living:

Only 0.6% of the Caribbean population moved to the US and England, despite the obvious economic attractions

How much was a bag of weed and a bottle of rum in Jamaica at that time?

Scarcity of housing is vital for the profitability of house building as it pushes prices up.

Important point well made! But don't the immigrant bashers argue that immigration increases the scarcity of housing and that this increases the cost of living? Don't we need to look at whether house building might deliberately lag population in order to keep their profits up?

What is a real shame in this instance is that this media bombardment is so overwhelming that a fair few self-declared anarchists and socialists, who would normally be more critical, are falling for it and actively supporting anti-working class policies.

Yes but why are these policies "anti-working class"? We need to spell out that it is not in the interest of the workers that the govenrment are instructing the police to deport our fellow workers: That this has been used to attack our ability to organise (RMT London Cleaners): That this reduces the bargaining power of the workers which in turn reduces the buying power of our class.

What is the Anarchist position regarding autonomy for people to decide whether or not they want immigration? I am pro immigration but I in my country am in the minority, the clear minority.
My brother won't vote for UKIP because he thinks they are racist but he makes a point that een the studies that show positive economic boosts to our country through the economy themselves show that new migrants have taken 95 billion in benefits since the early 90's.

I think there is an anger amongst the working class regarding newcomers taking out billions of their tax money, driving down wages in certain sectors etc. Immigration does seem to harm the native populations within the capitalist system. Obviously this forum isn't full of pro-capitalist posters and they would argue capitalism needs to be abolished and thus immigration won't have those negative effects on workers if the system was abolished.

But within the current system, if immigration does drive down wages in certain blue collar work sectors, does take billions out of the budget on new arrivals who don't pay taxes, I can sympathise with workers being anti-immigration.

Not that I agree with it, but I can certainly understand poor hardworking people feeling angry at it. Problem is that obviously the immigrants are people equal of our support, it is just a shame that immigration does seem to be a major factor in a rise of nationalism and xenophobia within our class.

Steven.

Benzo89

What is the Anarchist position regarding autonomy for people to decide whether or not they want immigration?

That's not something anyone can do, because being born somewhere doesn't give you the right to claim exclusive ownership of it. With free movement, people from an area can leave it, so obviously it would be completely unfair if people from area X were allowed to leave and live where they wanted, but people in the same area wouldn't let anyone else enter.

I am pro immigration but I in my country am in the minority, the clear minority.

if you're in the UK, this isn't true. The majority of the population want to reduce immigration, but it's not true that the majority of the population basically want us to be a prison island where no one can enter or leave. Basically most anti-migrant people's views on immigration are based on crude racism. Because no one has an issue with Americans, Australians or New Zealanders here, it's migrants from non-white countries and poor countries in Eastern Europe.

My brother won't vote for UKIP because he thinks they are racist but he makes a point that een the studies that show positive economic boosts to our country through the economy themselves show that new migrants have taken 95 billion in benefits since the early 90's.

that study showed migrants from outside the EU had a net cost in terms of benefits of £95 billion from 1995 to 2011. What that figure didn't include is the £49 billion of education and skills which those migrants brought with them and contribute to the economy (including running essential public services like the NHS).

Even if you ignore that £49 billion, that's less than £6 billion per year. Whereas you can compare that, say to tax relief for people who earn over £150,000 per year, which costs about £9 billion per year, so an equivalent of around £144 billion over that time period. What do you think is a better use of money?

Or defence, over £45 billion per year, so £720 billion over that time period. Or looking elsewhere at public spending, the government gives £4 billion per year to private rail companies. And £9 billion per year to private companies in PFI health contracts.

And that's not even to start on the billions of private wealth the superrich have accumulated in that time span, which is taken away from the rest of us no less than taxpayer money.

But of course it suits the corporate media to blame poor people from other countries rather than their owners and advertisers.

But within the current system, if immigration does drive down wages in certain blue collar work sectors, does take billions out of the budget on new arrivals who don't pay taxes, I can sympathise with workers being anti-immigration.

I wouldn't say I sympathise with it (I have no sympathy with anyone who thinks themselves better than people of another nationality, gender, ethnicity etc), but I would say I understand it. But I understand workers in the past were unhappy that women started to enter the workforce, as they were used to drive wages down. But that doesn't mean opposing women being allowed to enter the workforce is rational or productive. Rather than oppose immigration you could say you don't like new young people aged 16-18 entering the workforce, because they also bring down wages by working cheaper, and then cost the taxpayer money in benefits.

The thing is these characteristics: nationality, gender, age… are entirely arbitrary, and any working class person at random can be born with any of these characteristics which we have no control over. And if we fight each other then when will never make any inroads into actually making things better for ourselves. So some workers can complain about immigrants all they want: it won't achieve anything until we start to fight together with migrant workers for better pay and conditions for everyone.

My premise boils down to fuck the economy and help people fleeing war, however most people are not radicals and do see government spending on foreign arrivals as something they inherently don't support. I don't think my approach is best for changing peoples minds.

Steven.

Benzo89

My premise boils down to fuck the economy and help people fleeing war, however most people are not radicals and do see government spending on foreign arrivals as something they inherently don't support. I don't think my approach is best for changing peoples minds.

On this note, a poll has just been published of opinion on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34176621

40% support us taking more refugees, 31% fewer, and 26% about the same.

Worryingly though according to the BBC:

ComRes found a sharp division in attitudes based on class. Fifty-four per cent of adults in the traditionally middle class ABC1 social grade were in favour of more refugees, compared with 24% in the working class C2DE group.

Probably because immigration affects working class people. The most anti immigrant members of my family are so based on material factors. When you lose your job and Polish people get it it can and does make people angry.

As I said I support immigration but I really think it is causing xenophobia within the working class to rise. Good luck telling someone who loses his job he depends on to unite with the person who took it for less pay. It is scary seeing people you love become hate filled racists. I have seen this situation play out quite a few times unfortunately.

It's happened a lot in the past. When there were large, organized, consciously and openly anarchist/socialist movements that sought to educate working class people about their common condition with would-be scabs, non-citizen workers etc. It was difficult, because the capitalist press take it for granted that the workers "interests" are individual and reconcilable with property. That is the nub of the issue. As long as you think a Polish person, a Latina person, a Cambodian person, is what is keeping you poor and without a home etc. by "taking your job" you're duped.

You're right that the spontaneous appearance of the situation does seem to be solved "if the "Jews/Poles/Mexicans would just go way/home/disappear." But why are they there in the first place? Why do we have to work in the first place?

Yeah, good luck telling people the truth. That unless they unite as a class, conditions for all of them stand to get a whole lot worse. I'm not saying it's easy, but I mean, you gotta call them on their shit.

Pennoid

It's happened a lot in the past. When there were large, organized, consciously and openly anarchist/socialist movements that sought to educate working class people about their common condition with would-be scabs, non-citizen workers etc. It was difficult, because the capitalist press take it for granted that the workers "interests" are individual and reconcilable with property. That is the nub of the issue. As long as you think a Polish person, a Latina person, a Cambodian person, is what is keeping you poor and without a home etc. by "taking your job" you're duped.

You're right that the spontaneous appearance of the situation does seem to be solved "if the "Jews/Poles/Mexicans would just go way/home/disappear." But why are they there in the first place? Why do we have to work in the first place?

Yeah, good luck telling people the truth. That unless they unite as a class, conditions for all of them stand to get a whole lot worse. I'm not saying it's easy, but I mean, you gotta call them on their shit.

Well thats the thing though, if you believe in the state and capitalism immigration is inhernetly going to negatively affect the working class of a nation. The only valid pro immigration arguement is an anti capitalist one because that one says yeah it is bad for you they are taking your jobs, but unite and rid yourselves of the capitalist system which creates job scarcity and the entire premise of wage slavery.

However most people are not Anarchists so that line of argument is not valid within the capitalist system if you support the upkeep of that system.

Aren't you accepting the 'taking our jobs' position too easily though?

fingers malone

Aren't you accepting the 'taking our jobs' position too easily though?

I am not accepting it based on nothing, I have actually seen it. It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners, it is often the poorer segments of the working class who have their jobs taken, then well to do middle class liberals snort at them and laugh at them as dumb blue collar numbskulls.

My point is either you support capitalism and statism and then anti immigration is sensible, or you support working class revolution in which case it is irrelevant they are taking "our" jobs. When people try and argue with communist rationale about problems within state capitalism it does more harm than good.

Yes they are taking peoples jobs, people i know, the issue is should the people losing their jobs support the state and capitalism and be anti immigration or unite with those immigrants and other workers and overthrow capitalism.

What? You're saying it's not worth explaining something to somebody who doesn't understand it because they don't understand it.

Pennoid

What? You're saying it's not worth explaining something to somebody who doesn't understand it because they don't understand it.

Is this directed towards me? If so no, i am not saying that. I am saying pretending immigration does not have a negative affect on indigenous workers within a capitalist context is a lie, lying to workers isn't going to get them to support immigration.

Either tell them it does negatively affect them, as all the evidence shows and tell them to be anti immigration or pro immigration within capitalism and just face the negative affects, or offer the anti-capitalist solution, which is abolish wage slavery which in turns alleviates job scarcity or jobs as we know them under capitalism.

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

not to mention that if the job supply was fixed the doubling of the uk population over the last century would have resulted in a lot more unemployed people

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut the competition.

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut the competition.

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

if immigration actually harms native workers, which you have not in any way established, the supporting attacks on immigrant is making the problem worse. Any one who supports the idea that the logical solution for native workers is to attack immigrants is making the situation worse. native workers have at least as much capacity to show solidarity with immigrant workers and undermine the racism of the state and bosses as they do to attack immigrants and support discrimination against them

and actually, saying the immigrants are the cause of the problem, not the bosses would be a classic example of victim blaming.

And i note you ignore the rest of my post

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut the competition.

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

if immigration actually harms native workers, which you have not in any way established, the supporting attacks on immigrant is making the problem worse. Any one who supports the idea that the logical solution for native workers is to attack immigrants is making the situation worse. native workers have at least as much capacity to show solidarity with immigrant workers and undermine the racism of the state and bosses as they do to attack immigrants and support discrimination against them

and actually, saying the immigrants are the cause of the problem, not the bosses would be a classic example of victim blaming.

And i note you ignore the rest of my post

As I said above I can accept the fact (based on all the studies including ones which show net benefits of migration as well as the fact it has cost 95 billion since the 90s) that immigration negatively affects native workers and at the same time support immigrants and not attack them.

Simply lying about the negative affects is simply lying for political expediency. It also pistes off workers and drives them towards the right wing. I personally don't like lying or right wing movements so I don't play that game.

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut the competition.

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

if immigration actually harms native workers, which you have not in any way established, the supporting attacks on immigrant is making the problem worse. Any one who supports the idea that the logical solution for native workers is to attack immigrants is making the situation worse. native workers have at least as much capacity to show solidarity with immigrant workers and undermine the racism of the state and bosses as they do to attack immigrants and support discrimination against them

and actually, saying the immigrants are the cause of the problem, not the bosses would be a classic example of victim blaming.

And i note you ignore the rest of my post

As I said above I can accept the fact (based on all the studies including ones which show net benefits of migration as well as the fact it has cost 95 billion since the 90s) that immigration negatively affects native workers and at the same time support immigrants and not attack them.

Simply lying about the negative affects is simply lying for political expediency. It also pistes off workers and drives them towards the right wing. I personally don't like lying or right wing movements so I don't play that game.

you have provided 0 sources. also costing money doesn't = harms workers, also you have ignored the rest of my post, instead attacking a straw man.

Benzo89

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut .

There's been loads of militant struggles by immigrant workers in the UK recently to improve their conditions, especially by cleaners.

Benzo89

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

We don't have the power to do it magically, no. We do have the power to try to fight to improve our own working conditions and our own lives by collective action, often at some risk to ourselves and definitely involving loads of hard graft. Within that fight we have the choice about whether to fight excluding other workers and attacking them or including them and fighting alongside them. Making this choice often means making more trouble for yourself but it's the right thing to do.

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut the competition.

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

if immigration actually harms native workers, which you have not in any way established, the supporting attacks on immigrant is making the problem worse. Any one who supports the idea that the logical solution for native workers is to attack immigrants is making the situation worse. native workers have at least as much capacity to show solidarity with immigrant workers and undermine the racism of the state and bosses as they do to attack immigrants and support discrimination against them

and actually, saying the immigrants are the cause of the problem, not the bosses would be a classic example of victim blaming.

And i note you ignore the rest of my post

As I said above I can accept the fact (based on all the studies including ones which show net benefits of migration as well as the fact it has cost 95 billion since the 90s) that immigration negatively affects native workers and at the same time support immigrants and not attack them.

Simply lying about the negative affects is simply lying for political expediency. It also pistes off workers and drives them towards the right wing. I personally don't like lying or right wing movements so I don't play that game.

you have provided 0 sources. also costing money doesn't = harms workers, also you have ignored the rest of my post, instead attacking a straw man.

In what fairyland does taking 95 billion not take from workers taxes, from their health service, from their public housing options etc? This is the problem, the inability to be honest about things within the context of capitalism.

fingers malone

Benzo89

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

We don't have the power to do it magically, no. We do have the power to try to fight to improve our own working conditions and our own lives by collective action, often at some risk to ourselves and definitely involving loads of hard graft. Within that fight we have the choice about whether to fight excluding other workers and attacking them or including them and fighting alongside them. Making this choice often means making more trouble for yourself but it's the right thing to do.

But no matter what legislation or laws are pushed through regarding equal pay, desperate migrants and greedy capitalists will come to an arrangement. Especially with smaller scale businesses. It won't matter what laws are on the books about fair pay because both immigrants and employers will break those laws.

This leaves the native working class, mostly its poorest segments, losing jobs, having job spaces filled by cheap immigrant labour. And yeah abolishing capitalism will solve the problem, but seeing as revolution isn't round the corner, that isn't any help to a minimum wage worker who loses his job to immigrant labour. So if that is the only alternative you offer him he will inevitably gravitate to a far right solution.

You can't build solidarity with immigrant labour because their entire reason for migrating is to compete for your low paying job, this means that they won't unite with native workers and vice versa. As I said earlier, within capitalism immigration does harm native workers, it also exploits immigrants. So the logical stances are:

1. Support statism and capitalism and be against immigration
2. Be a libertarian and know immigration affects workers but argue wages in the first world are artificially high and welcome capital and labour and super exploitation to cross borders
2. Be anti capitalist and argue for a long sighted view, where workers simply accept the harm immigration does to them momentarily and try and organise and end statism and capitalism.

Being an Anarchist and trying to argue immigration is good within capitalism, because you support immigration and want a non capitalist system where it wouldn't harm indigenous workers, is extremely disingenuous. People see us try and fit facts to our agenda and they are instantly turned off by blatant lying.

Benzo89

You can't build solidarity with immigrant labour because their entire reason for migrating is to compete for your low paying job, this means that they won't unite with native workers and vice versa. As I said earlier, within capitalism immigration does harm native workers, it also exploits immigrants.

Not being funny mate but this sort of goes against all the history of migrants (or women) being introduced into the labour market. Asian workers in Britain were often paid much less than British counter-parts when they came to the UK, they also became a really important part of the labour movement here (i.e. Red Scar, Grunwick, Imperial Typewriters etc etc) and the struggles of migrant workers eventually helped lessen the pay disparity and help with integration. And even today, some of the most important workers' struggles going on are amongst migrant workers i.e. the numerous cleaners' struggles in London for a living wage. This idea that you can't build solidarity with immigrant labour is, then, demonstrably bollocks.

So to your 'logical stances', I'd add "4) Admit that immigration is used by bosses to negatively affect workers by increasing competition for jobs and deflating wages, but argue that that is the fault of the bosses not the migrants and organise alongside migrants to improve conditions of both native and foreign workers." As has happened in the past and indeed continues to do so today..

I mean, watch this documentary on warehouse workers' struggles in Italy since 2008 by mostly migrant workers (though often working with native Italians) and then tell me solidarity can't be built with immigrant labour (also, just watch the documentary coz it's amazing! But also relevant to this discussion..)

Ed

Benzo89

You can't build solidarity with immigrant labour because their entire reason for migrating is to compete for your low paying job, this means that they won't unite with native workers and vice versa. As I said earlier, within capitalism immigration does harm native workers, it also exploits immigrants.

Not being funny mate but this sort of goes against all the history of migrants (or women) being introduced into the labour market. Asian workers in Britain were often paid much less than British counter-parts when they came to the UK, they also became a really important part of the labour movement here (i.e. Red Scar, Grunwick, Imperial Typewriters etc etc) and the struggles of migrant workers eventually helped lessen the pay disparity and help with integration. And even today, some of the most important workers' struggles going on are amongst migrant workers i.e. the numerous cleaners' struggles in London for a living wage. This idea that you can't build solidarity with immigrant labour is, then, demonstrably bollocks.

So to your 'logical stances', I'd add "4) Admit that immigration is used by bosses to negatively affect workers by increasing competition for jobs and deflating wages, but argue that that is the fault of the bosses not the migrants and organise alongside migrants to improve conditions of both native and foreign workers." As has happened in the past and indeed continues to do so today..

I in no way whatsoever blame immigrants. If I was born somewhere with no opportunity I would illegally come looking for it. I blame the employers. This however does not change the fact it does drive down wages, takes jobs and resources from native workers.

It is possible to both support immigrants and also recognise the negative aspects of immigration impact upon the working class.

Yeah, I know mate, I'm not saying you blame the immigrants (I think on this front we're saying roughly similar things). What I'm taking issue with is your claim that "You can't build solidarity with immigrant labour" (your words) which I think is demonstrably false (both in history and today, real-life examples above) and, as a result, your three 'logical stances' which are all based on that first false premise.

Ed

I mean, watch this documentary on warehouse workers' struggles in Italy since 2008 by mostly migrant workers (though often working with native Italians) and then tell me solidarity can't be built with immigrant labour (also, just watch the documentary coz it's amazing! But also relevant to this discussion..)

Individual workers can indeed unite, immigrant and native, in labour struggles, however in the broader context immigration makes the class as a whole angry at immigrants who are driving down wages, taking jobs and getting resources from government which they are paying for.

This can be seen within formerly immigrant communities who are now expressing opposition to new arrivals. Because the now British immigrant populations are also feeling the economic impact of new immigrants.

This does not mean I advocate hating immigrants, it is merely me accepting the reality of the impact of immigration. Pretending it isn't real and saying that to people who have lost their jobs to immigrants, or can't get a council house in blackburn and are living with their mum at 35 while newly arrived immigrants have been given council housing and benefits makes native people disillusioned.

First they don't respect or get interested in radical solutions, because they feel the left and far left are lying to them and ignoring their plight. If you instead are honest about the situation, offer them solidarity and don't tell them they are lying but rather talk about employers, exploiting both sets of workers etc they will be more receptive to a radical view of the economy as a whole.

As I said earlier I have seen people I love lose jobs to immigrant labour, become broke, become disillusioned and angry and seen them go from decent guys to bitter racists. I have talked to some of them and expressed solidarity with their problems, accepted the reality immigration has had on them, but then put focus on the employers and the exploitation and framed it in a class context. This has I believe stopped a close friend from making that leap to supporting the far right.

You tell the same guy the phenomena he is experiencing isn't real despite him living through it, you might as well send him some UKIP and BNP leaflets, because they won't call him a liar and pretend the reality he is living is made up. They will then poison his mind, fill him with hate. I see this trend running pretty rampant where I live. It isn't very nice to see.

This problem is not simple. Where I live we have a lot of migrants doing work that most locals don’t want. I’ve found myself arguing with people over the right of migrants to housing and taking up a fair proportion of the primary school places. In East Anglia many people have close family units and now children are often moving away to get housing. Recently our area has been plagued by fly tipping. Guess who’s getting the blame?!! I tell the people round about that compared with the continent, Britain is a tip, though it’s like water off a duck’s back. These are just normal type people not raving racists. A lot of it I suspect is based on fear.

Firstly, I'm not so sure that what you say is true about jobs and accommodation going to immigrants. I've worked at a Crisis at Christmas shelter over the last few years and the majority of attendees were migrants that couldn't get work or a place to live. Most of the British people had mental health or substance abuse problems which would at least in part explain their homelessness. This didn't seem to be the case for the migrants. So why weren't they undercutting the British and taking their jobs?
How about minimum wage? What advantage to an employer is a migrant worker when they have to pay them the same as a British one? It's more likely in this situation that companies can't find British workers to fill the positions.
Maybe I'm wrong Benzo but there seems to be a tone of resentment towards migrant workers seeping out from all of your posts. I realise that I may be misinterpreting you but all the same, the overall vibe is similar to that of my more liberal colleagues that insist that their opposition to migrants is based purely in economics but in fact are giving vent to a prejudice streak.

Benzo89

Individual workers can indeed unite, immigrant and native, in labour struggles, however in the broader context immigration makes the class as a whole angry at immigrants who are driving down wages, taking jobs and getting resources from government which they are paying for.

This can be seen within formerly immigrant communities who are now expressing opposition to new arrivals.

Well, the fact that these older 'migrant' communities have now settled and created a space for themselves within the class as a whole shows how the struggles I mentioned (as well as an innumerable amount of other ones) changed how the 'class as a whole' came to view them and themselves. So much anti-migrant sentiment amongst black or Asian British people is based on them at least seeing themselves (and being largely accepted) as being native British now but that was only made possible by the struggles of the past (which you say are less important than the 'broader context' of the 'class as a whole' while I would say one feeds into the other). The idea of someone being both 'black' and 'British' is basically accepted now but it's also pretty new and proof of how struggles alongside migrant communities can change the class as a whole.

Benzo89

This does not mean I advocate hating immigrants, it is merely me accepting the reality of the impact of immigration. Pretending it isn't real and saying that to people who have lost their jobs to immigrants

Again, I don't think anyone's doing that (at least not that I've noticed on this thread), though I'd say it's also important to highlight that it's not 'immigrants' or even 'immigration' that is the source of the problem but how they're used for the benefit of capitalism against the interests of both native and migrant workers.

Benzo89

As I said earlier I have seen people I love lose jobs to immigrant labour, become broke, become disillusioned and angry and seen them go from decent guys to bitter racists. I have talked to some of them and expressed solidarity with their problems, accepted the reality immigration has had on them, but then put focus on the employers and the exploitation and framed it in a class context.

That's cool, but how does that sit with your comment that you can't build solidarity with immigrant labour?

Webby

Firstly, I'm not so sure that what you say is true about jobs and accommodation going to immigrants. I've worked at a Crisis at Christmas shelter over the last few years and the majority of attendees were migrants that couldn't get work or a place to live. Most of the British people had mental health or substance abuse problems which would at least in part explain their homelessness. This didn't seem to be the case for the migrants. So why weren't they undercutting the British and taking their jobs?
How about minimum wage? What advantage to an employer is a migrant worker when they have to pay them the same as a British one? It's more likely in this situation that companies can't find British workers to fill the positions.
Maybe I'm wrong Benzo but there seems to be a tone of resentment towards migrant workers seeping out from all of your posts. I realise that I may be misinterpreting you but all the same, the overall vibe is similar to that of my more liberal colleagues that insist that their opposition to migrants is based purely in economics but in fact are giving vent to a prejudice streak.

Just to clarify, my position is open borders. I don't think people should not be free to live wherever they want. I have zero problem with immigration. I had immigrant friends as a kid and that really inoculated me to the fear of the others thing many people do have. When you play football with Pakistanis and all have the same interests and mindset, you really can't then have any stance other than someones birthplaces is of zero importance.

However I do feel like you pointing to immigrants who are homeless and jobless as a way to say immigrants as a whole are not undercutting workers and getting their jobs isn't very realistic. Of course not all immigrants are receiving housing or taking native workers jobs. But pointing out the ones who are not does not dismiss the fact many are. Even the ones who are not want to. That is the whole point of coming here.

And a lot of the the immigrants for example, where i live, are taking local jobs, this includes shops, labouring jobs, the poorest least paying jobs. Immigrants here do take less than minimum wage, employers allow it and make more profit and the workers who used to work there or are jobless and want to work there are not competitive as they demand the minimum wage.

It isn't the immigrants fault, from a marxist perspective they are exploited as are all workers, but that is what is happening, they are undercutting local workers.

As for housing, in the council flats near my Nanas it is almost completely made up of foreigners, meanwhile men who have worked minimum wage jobs for ten years and their partners are forced to live with their parents while quite a significant number of people here a couple years have housing. No matter if you are a communist or not, expecting that to not irk people isn't realistic. I can be glad those new arrivals have housing, be friendly to them, but also understand how that would make people who were born here who can't get housing fucking angry. Some of the anti immigration stuff is certainly coming from a place of hate, but I think for the majority of working class people, it isn't it is coming from real problems immigration heaps upon their already shit life.

Jumping into this one a bit late, but in my experience people tend to be racist in the abstract. I've got a lot of racists in my family - but they all have black people who they're on really good terms with, often co-workers. And they may make comments about Mexicans taking their jobs or whatever, but once you point out that it's the bosses who hire them and make the choice to pay them less, people tend to agree pretty quickly.

Of course, proving a point to someone and then getting them to act on that information are completely different things. But, the again, getting people to act in active solidarity is pretty damn hard - even between people of the same racial group and nationality.

Point being, I think there are a lot of counter-currents to what you're describing Benzo - and we should build on them. That's certainly a lot better than buying into the rhetoric that immigrants take our jobs.

One final thing, I'm always amazed that proponents of capitalism are so often anti-immigration. I mean, if capitalism worked as they claim, those migrants who come in, they would increase aggregate demand, in turn, creating more jobs - I mean, that's the way the market works, right? It seems to be that if they believe capitalism works, they can't be against immigration. And, if they're against immigration, then that means capitalism doesn't function the way they claim.

Anyway, none of that shit matters anyway. It's about taking a principled, working class stance on the matter.

Chilli Sauce

Jumping into this one a bit late, but in my experience people tend to be racist in the abstract. I've got a lot of racists in my family - but they all have black people who they're on really good terms with, often co-workers. And they may make comments about Mexicans taking their jobs or whatever, but once you point out that it's the bosses who hire them and make the choice to pay them less, people tend to agree pretty quickly.

Of course, proving a point to someone and then getting them to act on that information are completely different things. But, the again, getting people to act in active solidarity is pretty damn hard - even between people of the same racial group and nationality.

Point being, I think there are a lot of counter-currents to what you're describing Benzo - and we should build on them. That's certainly a lot better than buying into the rhetoric that immigrants take our jobs.

One final thing, I'm always amazed that proponents of capitalism are so often anti-immigration. I mean, if capitalism worked as they claim, those migrants who come in, they would increase aggregate demand, in turn, creating more jobs - I mean, that's the way the market works, right? It seems to be that if they believe capitalism works, they can't be against immigration. And, if they're against immigration, then that means capitalism doesn't function the way they claim.

Anyway, none of that shit matters anyway. It's about taking a principled, working class stance on the matter.

Free market fundamentalists are all for open borders, they view wages in the west artificially high because of nationalism. Their view is let all workers compete and wages will lower as will the cost of living. If someone really supports unrestricted capitalism they usually have that stance.

Chilli Sauce

in my experience people tend to be racist in the abstract.

Agreed. There's actually a fair bit of evidence that racial prejudice is negatively associated with more ethnically mixed areas, i.e the more mixed the area, the lower the level of racial prejudice. This is the opposite of what you would expect if racist attitudes were a rational economic calculation based on competition for jobs (or resources more generally). E.g. see this study, summarised in less academic terms in this press release:

The researchers found that levels of racial prejudice among white people drop significantly when they live in ethnically mixed communities, even when they do not have direct contact with minorities. Simply seeing white strangers interacting positively with ethnic minorities is enough to reduce racial prejudice.(...) The results, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that even prejudiced people who avoid contact with other groups become less prejudiced when they live in areas where different ethnicities mix.

'Taking our jobs' (while simultaneously 'sponging our benefits') may well be a popular rationalisation for racial prejudice, but it doesn't appear to be the reason for it.

Joseph Kay

Chilli Sauce

in my experience people tend to be racist in the abstract.

There's actually a fair bit of evidence that racial prejudice is negatively associated with more ethnically mixed areas, i.e the more mixed the area, the lower the level of racial prejudice. This is the opposite of what you would expect if racist attitudes were a rational economic calculation based on competition for jobs (or resources more generally). E.g. see this study, summarised in less academic terms in this press release:

The researchers found that levels of racial prejudice among white people drop significantly when they live in ethnically mixed communities, even when they do not have direct contact with minorities. Simply seeing white strangers interacting positively with ethnic minorities is enough to reduce racial prejudice.(...) The results, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that even prejudiced people who avoid contact with other groups become less prejudiced when they live in areas where different ethnicities mix.

'Taking our jobs' (while simultaneously 'sponging our benefits') may well be a popular rationalisation for racial prejudice, but it doesn't appear to be the reason for it.

Isn't tower hamlets a stronghold of the BNP? Seems all the breeding grounds of racist groups is in heavily mixed areas where tensions are constantly high.

Apparently...

BNP support typically comes from areas affected by a rapid influx of migrants, Ukip is popular in predominantly white areas that have seen little demographic change

Which is consistent with the above research imho - a rapid influx of migrants allows short-term opportunist mobilisation by the far-right, but the experience of living in a more mixed area erodes racial prejudice and undercuts the opportunists. Whereas UKIP's base is scared white people (including some working class ex-Tories) in mostly white areas.

The guy on whose reasearch that report is based blogged about it here: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/positive-contact-or-white-flight-why-whites-in-diverse-places-are-more-tolerant-of-immigration/

In England and Wales, we find that White British people in wards with more minorities and immigrants are more open to immigration. In wards that are almost entirely white, 90 per cent of White British people want immigration to be reduced

Benzo89

You can't build solidarity with immigrant labour because their entire reason for migrating is to compete for your low paying job, this means that they won't unite with native workers and vice versa.

Well people do migrate for a variety of other reasons too, but that aside, we have been putting loafs of effort into this at my workplace for several years and we have had some success. I'd say it's hard work, but if you show solidarity to people they are a lot more likely to show it back. And since the seventies at least black workers in the UK have been heavily involved in unions and in all kinds of workplace struggle.

Benzo89

Isn't tower hamlets a stronghold of the BNP? Seems all the breeding grounds of racist groups is in heavily mixed areas where tensions are constantly high.

It was twenty years ago, it isn't now. JK is right, in heavily mixed areas white people are less racist. It's in mostly white areas near mixed areas that you get highest levels of racism, or areas where there are hardly any immigrants at all.

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

The main reasons capitalists will use immigrant workers rather than native workers are that they are in a worse situation and so willing to accept worse conditions and pay, and because they are already trained to do things eg nurses, the logical solution for an native worker who is afraid of there job being taken by an immigrant short of full communism is to improve the condition of immigrates, demand they have the same rights to healthcare benefits etc, then they will not need to accept shit from capitalists and the capitalists will have no incentive to use immigrant workers. and for the second issue then the solution would be to demand better education and free to, so that anyone who wanted can be trained in any kind of work they want.

but i notice that people who are "concerned that immigrants are taking there jobs" do the opposite of this, eg i notice that anti immigration people never oppose work fair, which replaces paid workers with free labour. so we have to conclude that their response is not based on a rational analysis of how they are being harmed by immigration but in fact racism.

racism fueled by propergander from the media, of cause, the cause of the racism is not immigration, people are the most hostile to immigrants where there are the least immigrants, its caused by anti immigration propaganda

So basically you just said immigration does affect indigenous workers. But then said workers should fight for immigrants to be paid higher wages, somethings immigrants are not on board with as the only way capitalists will employ them over native labour is if they will take worse wages and undercut the competition.

This is basically snobbish victim blaming and completely unrealistic. It is basically acknowledging immigration does negatively affect native workers and then blaming those people for not magically having the power to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as them. If that was possible economic migration wouldn't be a bloody phenomena.

if immigration actually harms native workers, which you have not in any way established, the supporting attacks on immigrant is making the problem worse. Any one who supports the idea that the logical solution for native workers is to attack immigrants is making the situation worse. native workers have at least as much capacity to show solidarity with immigrant workers and undermine the racism of the state and bosses as they do to attack immigrants and support discrimination against them

and actually, saying the immigrants are the cause of the problem, not the bosses would be a classic example of victim blaming.

And i note you ignore the rest of my post

As I said above I can accept the fact (based on all the studies including ones which show net benefits of migration as well as the fact it has cost 95 billion since the 90s) that immigration negatively affects native workers and at the same time support immigrants and not attack them.

Simply lying about the negative affects is simply lying for political expediency. It also pistes off workers and drives them towards the right wing. I personally don't like lying or right wing movements so I don't play that game.

you have provided 0 sources. also costing money doesn't = harms workers, also you have ignored the rest of my post, instead attacking a straw man.

In what fairyland does taking 95 billion not take from workers taxes, from their health service, from their public housing options etc? This is the problem, the inability to be honest about things within the context of capitalism.

you still haven't provided a source for that number and your ignoring that immigrants also pay taxes, and the idea that the nhs would have go the money if no one had claimed the benefits is absurd, as for housing i'm willing to bet most immigrants are in private rented accommodation, they don't get priority for council housing, although homeless people do.

its also the case that paying benefits to people who are out of work reduces the competition for jobs, which benefits people in work (of cause, not all benefits are paid to people out of work, and all people pay taxes, whether they have a job or not)

Immigrant labor in the US has hardly taken jobs from "native" (if such a thing can be said to exist in the US) workers. Immigrant workers are overwhelmingly employed in low wage/low benefit jobs that the so-called "native" workers will not accept OR where the jobs were transformed into low pay low benefit jobs by asset liquidation, and union-busting before being then "assigned" more or less to immigrant labor-- for example meat-packing in the US.

As for housing.. sub standard pay means sub standard housing.

Does any of this stop the anti-immigrant mongering in the US? Of course not-- reality does not matter, has no impact on the jingoism. Does anyone believe in reality that Mexico is "exporting" its drug dealers and rapists to the US? Doesn't matter. It appeals to the little petty-bourgeois inside every person who knows things are getting worse but can't do anything about it.

The "remedy" is explicit class-based programs of solidarity-- for example workers opposition to immigration police raids in workplaces (Obama's specialite) , arrest of working parents etc. etc.

And BTW studies done in the US show migrants pay proportionately more in taxes than they "claim" in benefits; migrants are not burdens on the welfare systems, educational systems, etc. etc. etc. but then that's just more of the facts that don't register to those worried about the "hordes" of "foreigners" ready to swamp the good old USA, especially when the foreigners are darker-skinned.

S. Artesian

Immigrant labor in the US has hardly taken jobs from "native" (if such a thing can be said to exist in the US workers). Immigrant workers are overwhelmingly employed in low wage/low benefit jobs that the so-called "native" workers will not accept OR where the jobs were transformed into low pay low benefit jobs by asset liquidation, and union-busting before being then "assigned" more or less to immigrant labor-- for example meat-packing in the US.

As for housing.. sub standard pay means sub standard housing.

Does any of this stop the anti-immigrant mongering in the US? Of course not-- reality does not matter, has no impact on the jingoism. Does anyone believe in reality that Mexico is "exporting" its drug dealers and rapists to the US? Doesn't matter. It appeals to the little petty-bourgeois inside every person who knows things are getting worse but can't do anything about it.

The "remedy" is explicit class-based programs of solidarity-- for example workers opposition to immigration police raids in workplaces (Obama's specialite) , arrest of working parents etc. etc.

Where are people getting this idea that working class people don't want low paying jobs, for millions of us that is all we can get. It is a fantasy that everyone in the west has a degree and thus won't do cleaning work, or kitchen work, or manual labour. These jobs are the ones we are losing access to, because employers can easily find Polish or Middle eastern immigrants to take less pay than we will. That does not mean we don't want those jobs, it means we expect minimum wage, which workers of this country fought hard for.

Benzo89

Where are people getting this idea that working class people don't want low paying jobs, for millions of us that is all we can get. It is a fantasy that everyone in the west has a degree and thus won't do cleaning work, or kitchen work, or manual labour. These jobs are the ones we are losing access to, because employers can easily find Polish or Middle eastern immigrants to take less pay than we will. That does not mean we don't want those jobs, it means we expect minimum wage, which workers of this country fought hard for.

I agree that people sometimes overstate the 'English people won't do cleaning work' thing, but I was one of those cleaners that you are angry with, well to be precise there wasn't a minimum wage back then, but I was definitely working for less than the going rate. This idea of English people sticking to the minimum wage and immigrants undercutting it is a bit oversimplified. In a chip shop, or domestic cleaning, or various other small businesses, there probably is a lot of working under the minimum wage, in big companies probably much less, you have large numbers of migrant workers and large numbers of English workers in both and what people are prepared to put up with depends on a great many factors.

In a lot of jobs now there is a two tier workforce, with some on old contracts that are better and some on new contracts that are worse, and who is on what and whose fault that is depends on many factors, age, when you started, even things like self confidence (that rate cutting cleaning I did, they said 'it's one twenty five an hour' and I said 'ok' didn't even think of asking around or questioning it.)

And don't you think the battles running for several years by the migrant cleaners to bring their wages UP to the London living wage is kind of important? Potentially raising wages across the sector and taking a lot of personal risks to do so?

Of course an increase in the supply of labour has a downward effect on wages and working conditions and creates more competition for employment. This is the case however that increase is brought about, whether through migration, or through breaking down systems of apprenticeship that reduce the number of available workers by excluding others from the trade. Individual workers and different groups of workers are always in competition with each other.

On the other hand it is clearly the case that anti-migrant attitudes are shaped by racism, nationalistic/chauvinistic attitudes (much of which seems much more innocuous than blatant racism), urban legends, the right-wing press etc... Moreover there is the context of decades of defeat of the working-class movement.

There is a choice between unite-with-migrants or close-the-borders. Given the cultural/political context, as outlined above, it may seem more reasonable and realistic to go for close-the-borders. However, it could be argued that anti-migrant measures leave migrants in a more vulnerable and precarious position and hence more likely to put up with worse wages and conditions. It is unrealistic to expect migration to just stop. Consequently the best response to the extra-competition and downward pressure on wages and conditions posed by migration is unite-with-migrants. For sure in the current climate this will seem unrealistic to many people but other posters have pointed to examples of migrant-led struggles. Hence within capitalism and just in terms of day-to-day economic interests of indigenous workers there is a case for opposing anti-migrant stances and supporting migrants in opposition to either their employers or the government, media, etc...

Steven.

Benzo89

Isn't tower hamlets a stronghold of the BNP? Seems all the breeding grounds of racist groups is in heavily mixed areas where tensions are constantly high.

lol a stronghold? They didn't even field a candidate in any of this year's elections. Five years ago they got 0.5% of the vote. (This is where I live BTW, which is why I think you thinking that is particularly laughable and a show that maybe you have a bit of a skewed view of the situation.)

No offence meant, but it seems you don't live in London? London is by far the most mixed part of the UK, but it's also just about the least racist. Why do you think that is?

Ed has done a good job of demonstrating what a load of nonsense your claim that migrant workers can't organise is. Personally I've been involved in several campaigns which have won big pay increases for either predominantly migrant very mixed migrant/native workers' struggles.

Nope I am a stark, it is cold where I live and everything is miserable. And Tower Hamlets wasn't a part of my points on immigration, i was just under the impression Bradford and Tower Hamlet were where a lot of the grass roots support for the BNP was. For example weren't many of the Combat18 people from bradford and Hamlets?

fingers malone

And don't you think the battles running for several years by the migrant cleaners to bring their wages UP to the London living wage is kind of important? Potentially raising wages across the sector and taking a lot of personal risks to do so?

As a cleaner myself I support all workers and of course other people doing the same shitty job as me. And just to say it again to make sure this is clear, I don't hate immigrants or not want them to organise, I simply think not acknowledging the affects they have on local workers is real.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but the working class does not, as a rule , have an interest in seeing immigrants trampled. Not even in the short term because as you rightly point out, it undercuts their salaries. Even short-term interests for "native workers" (wages) require uniting with immigrants, which has happened a ton in the labor history of about any country (weighed against jingoism for sure).

But we must determine what the "interests" of workers are, and why. Interests are shaped by the structure of society, as many have pointed out, and are not arbitrary but have to do with the material preservation/reproduction of workers individually and as a class.

Immigrants, who take jobs paid at or above the legal wage are in job competition with the rest of workers. A subset of desperate immigrants take jobs BELOW the minimum age. The only way to certifiably stop this , short of revolution, is to have the workers in an area ORGANIZED along class lines to actively enforce the wage standards they want.

It says a lot about the ideology of "leftists" who cannot even imagine this happening. It is not "natural" for workers to be "conservative" that is, nationalistic and petit bourgeois but is a result of spontaneous experience coinciding with clever-propaganda.

So I think you're right that, yes, more immigrants means more job competition. We should no deny that. We should attack the heart of the problem, and the people responsible however. You say "immigrants come here to take jobs." Do you ever imagine that they are fleeing something? Your statement is not "untrue" but if it ignores a known factor, then it is misleading. Might they be fleeing war? Might they be leaving busted unions and automated jobs in their own country? Might they have been pushed off their land?

You'e right communists ought to present the communist argument, which addresses short and long-term problems, as well as giving an account of what's going on that correspondds with reality, is accurate.

Pennoid

I agree with a lot of what you say, but the working class does not, as a rule , have an interest in seeing immigrants trampled. Not even in the short term because as you rightly point out, it undercuts their salaries. Even short-term interests for "native workers" (wages) require uniting with immigrants, which has happened a ton in the labor history of about any country (weighed against jingoism for sure).

But we must determine what the "interests" of workers are, and why. Interests are shaped by the structure of society, as many have pointed out, and are not arbitrary but have to do with the material preservation/reproduction of workers individually and as a class.

Immigrants, who take jobs paid at or above the legal wage are in job competition with the rest of workers. A subset of desperate immigrants take jobs BELOW the minimum age. The only way to certifiably stop this , short of revolution, is to have the workers in an area ORGANIZED along class lines to actively enforce the wage standards they want.

It says a lot about the ideology of "leftists" who cannot even imagine this happening. It is not "natural" for workers to be "conservative" that is, nationalistic and petit bourgeois but is a result of spontaneous experience coinciding with clever-propaganda.

So I think you're right that, yes, more immigrants means more job competition. We should no deny that. We should attack the heart of the problem, and the people responsible however. You say "immigrants come here to take jobs." Do you ever imagine that they are fleeing something? Your statement is not "untrue" but if it ignores a known factor, then it is misleading. Might they be fleeing war? Might they be leaving busted unions and automated jobs in their own country? Might they have been pushed off their land?

You'e right communists ought to present the communist argument, which addresses short and long-term problems, as well as giving an account of what's going on that correspondds with reality, is accurate.

I completely agree with your post, however it seems you are not reading my above responses.

I said:

1. I support and open boder policy
2. I support immigrants
3. I am against anti - immigration rhetoric
4. I say they have valid reasons for coming, escaping poverty, escaping war, if I was in their shoes i would do the exact same thing
5. I don't support attacking immigrants in any way

My only issue was that on the far left, there is a tactic of denying the affect of immigration for political expediency, telling a lie for the greater good. This does not work and just angers workers, especially those affected by immigration.

I have worked with some immigrants, most of them Asians. They had the same slacker shitty job attitude as me, so they are good in my book :) I do wish though you would read my posts because I did state there was legitimate reasons for them to come etc, which you just asked me as if I hadn't thought of that.

Ok, I'm being straight up, I think immigration has been a really good thing for me. I lived on a mainly white estate for a few years as a kid and I just got beat up all the time.

fingers malone

Ok, I'm being straight up, I think immigration has been a really good thing for me. I lived on a mainly white estate for a few years as a kid and I just got beat up all the time.

Bullying is a phenomena in every community, white kids get beat up when they live in majority black areas etc. It sucks. I was a mouthy ginger, everyone kicked fuck out of my goofy ass as a kid. I guess Scottish migration might of helped me but I doubt it. They would just kick my ass for being an English poofta.

Welcome back BJJ. You've been missed.

Yes, but at numerous points you said it was not in the short-term interests of workers to stand with immigrants. I am disputing this.

I understand a lot of people had sort of knee-jerk reactions to the way a lot of what you said was worded, and disputed some of your facts (how many jobs are "taken" by immigrants. Technically, every job an immigrant has is taken by an immigrant, so when people deploy that, it doesn't much make sense). But I understand what is meant by it, which is that there is an INCREASE in the supply of labor power and that this can work against the wages of workers.

Again, the short term solution, is basic working class solidarity, which has plenty of historical precedent, even in times of extreme jingoism. It takes work, but that's what communists ought to be pressing.

Some also, like S. Artesian poked further holes in your suggestion that immigrants are a "drain" on the total social wage of "native workers" This is false, for reasons he pointed out, but I'm not sure if I can track down the source for that right now, maybe S. Artesian has it on hand?

I agree as well that often liberals/leftists will pretend that problems do not exist, for example that but Exiting the Eurozone Greece could just solve all of it's problems, or that Venezuela or Finland or socialist countries. And you're right that it causes confusion and is misleading.

Terry

Of course an increase in the supply of labour has a downward effect on wages and working conditions and creates more competition for employment. This is the case however that increase is brought about, whether through migration, or through breaking down systems of apprenticeship that reduce the number of available workers by excluding others from the trade. Individual workers and different groups of workers are always in competition with each other.

On the other hand it is clearly the case that anti-migrant attitudes are shaped by racism, nationalistic/chauvinistic attitudes (much of which seems much more innocuous than blatant racism), urban legends, the right-wing press etc... Moreover there is the context of decades of defeat of the working-class movement.

There is a choice between unite-with-migrants or close-the-borders. Given the cultural/political context, as outlined above, it may seem more reasonable and realistic to go for close-the-borders. However, it could be argued that anti-migrant measures leave migrants in a more vulnerable and precarious position and hence more likely to put up with worse wages and conditions. It is unrealistic to expect migration to just stop. Consequently the best response to the extra-competition and downward pressure on wages and conditions posed by migration is unite-with-migrants. For sure in the current climate this will seem unrealistic to many people but other posters have pointed to examples of migrant-led struggles. Hence within capitalism and just in terms of day-to-day economic interests of indigenous workers there is a case for opposing anti-migrant stances and supporting migrants in opposition to either their employers or the government, media, etc...

If it wasn't for immigrants England would still be eating fat turkey legs and pork pies exclusively, so there are other benefits to immigration too. Also he foreign ladies are irresistible to a freckle fucked pale guy. One of my first serious love interests was a Jamaican immigrant. Overall immigration has had far more positives than negatives for me.

Most people enjoy aspects of immigration, even the anti-immigration crowd.

Steven.

Benzo89

white kids get beat up when they live in majority black areas etc.

What is your evidence for this, and also what area of the UK do you reckon is "majority black"?

Also do you acknowledge your claim that migrant workers can't organise was wrong?

I never said immigrants can't organise, I said getting the working class to show solidarity with and unite with immigrants wasn't going to happen. Seeing as most working class people are against immigration, I am right.

And my evidence? What that black people and Asian also pick on minorities within their areas and that this happens everywhere in every society?

You have never known a white kid who grew up in a predominantly black or other ethnic majority neighbourhood? Are you seriously suggesting only white kids fuck with minorities within their area?

A boy of nine who was found hanged is believed to have killed himself after he was ‘bullied for being white’ by an Asian gang at school.
Aaron Dugmore – thought to be one of the youngest children in the UK to commit suicide – was discovered in his bedroom after being tormented for months, his parents said.
They said Aaron was threatened with a plastic knife by one Asian pupil, who warned him: ‘Next time it will be a real one.’
He was also allegedly told by another pupil that ‘all the white people should be dead’ and he was forced to hide from the bullies in the playground at lunchtime.
Aaron’s mother, Kelly-Marie Dugmore, 30, and stepfather Paul Jones, 43, said that despite complaints to the school, nothing was done to stop the bullying.
Aaron had recently started in Year Five at Erdington Hall Primary School in Birmingham, a school where 75 per cent of pupils come from ethnic minority backgrounds.
According to staff at the school he had already ‘settled in quickly’ with his classmates after he joined the school last September when his family moved nearby.
The school, which caters for 450 pupils aged three to 11, received an ‘inadequate’ rating by Ofsted inspectors last year.

‘Eventually he told us that he was being bullied by a group of Asian children at school and had to hide from them in the playground at lunchtime.’
His mother claimed she went to see the head teacher of the school several times only to be told: ‘You didn’t have to come to this school, you chose to come here.’
A neighbour of the boy’s grandmother earlier told how ‘he had been targeted by a gang of older bullies at the school’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283777/Boy-9-hanged-bullied-white.html

What a shock, it does happen, by every group, against every other group.

It seems odd you have to be defensive about the realities of all races bullying other races when they are in the minority in an area or school, as if to acknowledge that fact is to somehow take attention away from white on POC bullying. Odd also you asked me for evidence of something obvious within all societies but didn't ask the poster who claimed to of been bullied for evidence. As if one deserves more evidence than the other. Here is another example though, along with the experiences of many people who were the only white kid in a majority POC area or school. Just like those who are non white who get bullied in majority white areas and schools.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/shocking-online-bullying-video-goes-2232656

Where are people getting this idea that working class people don't want low paying jobs, for millions of us that is all we can get. It is a fantasy that everyone in the west has a degree and thus won't do cleaning work, or kitchen work, or manual labour. These jobs are the ones we are losing access to, because employers can easily find Polish or Middle eastern immigrants to take less pay than we will. That does not mean we don't want those jobs, it means we expect minimum wage, which workers of this country fought hard for

From the jobs sectors in which the migrants are concentrated: "entry level" low wage jobs in service industries; or in agricultural seasonal labor; or in food processing where unions have been busted (with the connivance and participation of the top union leadership). Georgia, which passed a highly restrictive piece of legislation, and Alabama, equally hostile to migrants, found themselves without the necessary labor power for agriculture during the harvest seasons. You think those agricultural enterprises simply refused to hire white displaced workers?

I'll give you some facts and figures in a bit. And I said those were the conditions in the US, but you can look at the jobs the migrant labor took in Spain, for example-- agricultural production, "grey economy" service jobs, and sweatshop type employment. Exactly why do you think pre-2008, these Spanish enterprises were more than willing to hire migrant laborers?

deleted

fingers malone

Benzo89

Odd also you asked me for evidence of something obvious within all societies but didn't ask the poster who claimed to of been bullied for evidence.

Oh Jesus here we are again with the 'prove it.'

Well, you know what, I can't prove it. Short of asking my mum to log on to an anarchist-communist website to tell a load of strangers about her kid being bullied by racists, which, you know, I think she was quite upset about at the time, no, I can't prove anything I'm saying.

Which was my point, I would simply take your word for it. As I said I was beaten up in school and I would hope Steven would accept my word for it.

Steven though didn't demand evidence from you, but did from me. As if I could simply go around and compile those numbers. Instead I provided links to evidence of whites in majority POC schools and neighbourhoods who are bullied because of their skin colour.

deleted

See, just for starters, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

And this: http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2013/foreign-born/home.htm

And this: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/job-characteristics-among-working-parents.htm particularly Table 2 which shows the declining percentage of immigrant workers as the size of the workforce at the place of employment increases. Analysis has shown that wages are usually higher at workplaces employing larger numbers of workers.

And then there's the [much] greater workplace fatality rate for immigrant workers:http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/occupational-fatalities-among-the-immigrant-population.pdf

And this from the US Congressional Budget Office: http://www.slideshare.net/cbo/the-role-of-immigrants-in-the-us-labor-market-an-update

And there's this:https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/49868-Immigration4.pdf which makes it abundantly clear that immigrant laborers, particularly the undocumented pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

Bottom line: immigrant Hispanic workers represent the most exploited sector of the working class. Anyone who thinks that the poorest, most exploited fraction of the working class undermines "solidarity" or class consciousness is either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately distorting the reality to accommodate his or her own [racial] prejudice.

S. Artesian

See, just for starters, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

And this: http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2013/foreign-born/home.htm

And this: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/job-characteristics-among-working-parents.htm particularly Table 2 which shows the declining percentage of immigrant workers as the size of the workforce at the place of employment increases. Analysis has shown that wages are usually higher at workplaces employing larger numbers of workers.

And then there's the [much] greater workplace fatality rate for immigrant workers:http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/occupational-fatalities-among-the-immigrant-population.pdf

And this from the US Congressional Budget Office: http://www.slideshare.net/cbo/the-role-of-immigrants-in-the-us-labor-market-an-update

Bottom line: immigrant Hispanic workers represent the most exploited sector of the working class. Anyone who thinks that the poorest, most exploited fraction of the working class undermines "solidarity" or class consciousness is either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately distorting the reality to accommodate his or her own [racial] prejudice.

Right, and those facts are true within the U.S context. However they don't adress my point, that those job sectors are now the domain of immigrants because of the cheaper labour force they provide.

I am a cleaner and many of my friends were. When I started many years ago many of the places I worked I was earning around £8.50 an hour. Since leaving another job and returning to cleaning for the places I used to work are now filled with immigrants and thus the wages being offered have dropped, due to immigrants settling for lower wages. Many of my friends who worked as cleaners have also since stopped getting cleaning work because the wages are lower and the jobs have become shitty low hour contract jobs.

They now don't want that work because it no longer provides us decent wages. So yeah now most british workers might not want those jobs, because immigrant labour has subverted the standards we previously enjoyed. You are fitting the facts to suit your already established political view.

I don't blame the immigrants for this, I blame the people making money off both of us. However pretending immigration does not have a negative affect on native workers in the poorest sectors is not realistic, to anyone who has experienced it and can tell you it is.

No, the jobs weren't reduced in wages because immigrants became available; the reduced wages in the US followed the assault on US living and working standards initiated after the strike wave of 1974 exhausted itself. That's what happened in industry after industry in the US. It was only after that assault, and defeat of the workers, that immigrant labor was brought in to resume production in the "new" corporate entities.

Meanwhile your earlier claim was

Where are people getting this idea that working class people don't want low paying jobs, for millions of us that is all we can get. It is a fantasy that everyone in the west has a degree and thus won't do cleaning work, or kitchen work, or manual labour. These jobs are the ones we are losing access to, because employers can easily find Polish or Middle eastern immigrants to take less pay than we will. That does not mean we don't want those jobs, it means we expect minimum wage, which workers of this country fought hard for

Now you back off and state

They now don't want that work because it no longer provides us decent wages

.

Wages didn't decline because of immigration. Not in the US, and I'll bet not in the UK. Wages declined because Thatcher and Reagan's assault on workers was so successful. Look when immigration really picks up.

You've got it ass backwards.

[quote=S. Artesian]No, the jobs weren't reduced in wages because immigrants became available; the reduced wages in the US followed the assault on US living and working standards initiated after the strike wave of 1974 exhausted itself. That's what happened in industry after industry in the US. It was only after that assault, and defeat of the workers, that immigrant labor was brought in to resume production in the "new" corporate entities.

Meanwhile your earlier claim was

Where are people getting this idea that working class people don't want low paying jobs, for millions of us that is all we can get. It is a fantasy that everyone in the west has a degree and thus won't do cleaning work, or kitchen work, or manual labour. These jobs are the ones we are losing access to, because employers can easily find Polish or Middle eastern immigrants to take less pay than we will. That does not mean we don't want those jobs, it means we expect minimum wage, which workers of this country fought hard for

Now you back off and state

They now don't want that work because it no longer provides us decent wages

.

Well they did lower because of immigrant labour as we were being paid £8.50 when it was mostly indigenous workers and the wages and contract types went down after more and more immigrants started working there.

Unless you can somehow come up with some other way to desperately try and deny it so you can still maintain it has no affect on native workers, despite this being incredibly dishonest, as thousands of workers who have experienced the same thing as me will point out to you.

You can admit it while still supporting immigrants. Or you can deny it and leave the only people admitting it being the right, who are using it to recruit those poor, working class people who are feeling the brunt of it.

And the two points I made which you tried to show as being at odds with one another are not. They are one and the same, migrants drive down wages and then natives indeed don't want them, because the immigrant labour drives the wages down so low they are not worth having compared to what they were paying before immigrant undercutting wages made them so undesirable.

So you SUPPORT the communist position, but you think that it is pointless?????

And you never really replied to my contention that given the issue, and the structure of society, the nature of wage-slavery, both the short-term and long term interests of workers is served by organizing internationally/ without national prejudice. It makes me think you're more interested in a ax. One that you would like to grind.

Pennoid

So you SUPPORT the communist position, but you think that it is pointless?????

And you never really replied to my contention that given the issue, and the structure of society, the nature of wage-slavery, both the short-term and long term interests of workers is served by organizing internationally/ without national prejudice. It makes me think you're more interested in a ax. One that you would like to grind.

I simply stated, you can either support capitalism and statism or anarchism and class struggle. Immigrant labour does negatively affect native workers, so based on your political beliefs you deal with it in one of three ways:

Anarchist position: Immigrant labour does drive down wages and affect native workers under capitalism, you accept this but argue that all workers need to unite and overthrow capitalism. Until it is overthrown however immigrant labour will affect native workers

Statist Capitalist position: Immigrant labour drives down native workers wages and takes jobs from the native population. Reduce or stop immigration to deal with the issue. Value british workers over foreign workers

Libertarian/free market fundamentalist position: If capital can cross borders so can labour, nationalism and borders artificially inflate wages in the west, opening the borders leads to wages evening out.

Trying to argue based on Anarchist beliefs, within the context of a capitalist system is disingenuous, as your intention is not what is truly best for native workers under capitalism, but the abolishment of capitalism, nations and borders.

Trying to argue based on Anarchist beliefs, within the context of a capitalist system is disingenuous, as your intention is not what is truly best for native workers under capitalism, but the abolishment of capitalism, nations and borders.

Ergh that's not what you simply stated.

What is "truly best for native workers under capitalism" IS THE ABOLITION OF CLASSES. There is no "out" to this problem short of that. Who do you think is arguing otherwise? Again, some people dispute your characterization of the problem (That immigrants "take" jobs, again this is a meaningless phrase). But I don't think anyone here would hide that opinion from a co-worker or dispute it.

And these are not just "anarchist beliefs." You seem to think that anarchism is just a set of random principles that people pick out and favor (never mind communism). It's not, it's a theoretical approach, which implies some analytic framework by which to make sense of phenomenon in the world and take action.

Indeed if I wanted to get a co-worker on board with my line of reasoning, I would start from a point of shared understanding (say, like the fact that wages are just the price of our labor-power or ability work; or that the profit that the company makes is value that we create) and then move from there toward the more complex problems.

How does sitting at home descending into alcoholism and listening to Limbaugh "serve the interests" of workers, even narrowly? It rather seems to me that Limbaugh and others appeal to certain perceptions, and stereotypes, as a means to generating/getting an income/advertising base and supporting their show, and in the mean time peddling garbage.

How does lacing up your boots and crushing the neck of some poor Haitian immigrant make your life any better, or solve the problems of unemployment, job competition? They don't.

You seem to be obsessed with this idea that "No Leftist will admit job-competition!" No one has disputed that. Certainly I have repeatedly suggested that I agree that it happens, and that it sucks. What people have disputed is:

a) the extrapolation of anecdotal evidence (which you offer) to the level of statistical evidence (which disputes you)
b) the solution to the problems (a line of discussion you have dropped completely).

Trying to argue based on Anarchist beliefs, within the context of a capitalist system is disingenuous, as your intention is not what is truly best for native workers under capitalism, but the abolishment of capitalism, nations and borders.

Fuck you, plain and simple. You are the class enemy. Fucking "nativist." The defeat of the working class organizations, with the cooperation and cowardice of those very organizations [remember the miners' strike you git?, or the meat-packing strikes in the US?] preceded the influx of immigrant laborers driven for their homes by civil war, or economic deprivation by the same "free market" assaults that were used against workers in the "advanced countries."

This is no such thing as "native workers." That's the fundamental truth you seek to obscure.

My bet is you didn't get beat up for being "white" or whatever, but for being a white dickhead.

Benzo, it's not at all clear to me what you've written here that couldn't just as easily be applied as an argument for the harm that women entering into the workplace has had on the pre-existing working class and so we shouldn't be so dismissive of men who want women barred from employment.

Or maybe you should take up the fight against young people entering the workforce. After all, since they are less likely to have families to support, they're probably willing to work for less and so they undercut the wages of the working class and take the jobs of older workers. And leftists certainly don't spend much time focusing on the harm that young people have on the working class. And certainly I've known plenty of workers who complain about "millenials" and I can't imagine the threat of having their job taken by someone younger, cheaper, and perhaps more pliable helps. Why aren't you taking up this cause?

S. Artesian

Trying to argue based on Anarchist beliefs, within the context of a capitalist system is disingenuous, as your intention is not what is truly best for native workers under capitalism, but the abolishment of capitalism, nations and borders.

Fuck you, plain and simple. You are the class enemy. Fucking "nativist." The defeat of the working class organizations, with the cooperation and cowardice of those very organizations [remember the miners' strike you git?, or the meat-packing strikes in the US?] preceded the influx of immigrant laborers driven for their homes by civil war, or economic deprivation by the same "free market" assaults that were used against workers in the "advanced countries."

This is no such thing as "native workers." That's the fundamental truth you seek to obscure.

My bet is you didn't get beat up for being "white" or whatever, but for being a white dickhead.

Yes, my acceptance of the fact immigration affects native workers somehow blows your mind. The fact I have saidnumerous times I support immigration simply won't do because for you, only denial of the fact is good enough.

Ah here come the personal attacks, a sure sign someone can't prove their position so resorts to bullying, how tolerant of you. Well done.

Tyrion

Benzo, it's not at all clear to me what you've written here that couldn't just as easily be applied as an argument for the harm that women entering into the workplace has had on the pre-existing working class and so we shouldn't be so dismissive of men who want women barred from employment.

Or maybe you should take up the fight against young people entering the workforce. After all, since they are less likely to have families to support, they're probably willing to work for less and so they undercut the wages of the working class and take the jobs of older workers. And leftists certainly don't spend much time focusing on the harm that young people have on the working class. And certainly I've known plenty of workers who complain about "millenials" and I can't imagine the threat of having their job taken by someone younger, cheaper, and perhaps more pliable helps. Why aren't you taking up this cause?

I don't take up the cause of anti immigration, I merely state that it harms native workers under capitalism.I can support immigration and not lie about its affect on workers.

I don’t think anyone should be accused of lying.
There is a fundamental contradiction, for a communist, in supporting immigration if you consider it detrimental to the real interests of the working class. My view is that the issue of immigration exposes a limitation in the consciousness of some sections of the working class. This must be confronted and argued against not given any patronising sympathy. The last major bust up in my family was over this very issue.

Auld-bod

I don’t think anyone should be accused of lying.
There is a fundamental contradiction, for a communist, in supporting immigration if you consider it detrimental to the real interests of the working class. My view is that the issue of immigration exposes a limitation in the consciousness of some sections of the working class. This must be confronted and argued against not given any patronising sympathy. The last major bust up in my family was over this very issue.

Detrimental to the working class within a capitalist economy. If you support the abolition of capitalism then why is it harmful to accept immigration is harmful for native workers under capitalism, your logical extension would be, end capitalism, not end immigration.

Your argument therefore rests on the notion that the workers have a country. My job - my country.
A recipe for national socialism.

Would people on here not admit gentrification is harmful to working class people in a capitalist system? That does not mean we are against free movement by people. It is accepting the economic impact of a phenomena, within the capitalist system.

You can admit immigration hurts local workers jobs and take the stance that immigration is a human right and that it is the economic system, which takes advantage of immigrants, at the expense of native workers, that needs to go. Not immigration.

Benzo89

First, the system puts profits before people. Capitalism hurts workers where ever they live. When jobs are exported from the West is this the fault of the workers in Korea, China, etc.? When seeking a better/safer life in Europe, the USA, etc., are migrants responsible for the impact on the indigenous working class? Under capitalism there are no ‘human rights’ only the economic imperatives which drive the system. The ruling class will try and divide us worker against worker by any means, crude nationalism, or liberal notions of human rights, and equal opportunities; all to one end - to keep us in our place, shovelling sh*t.

Auld-bod

Benzo89

First, the system puts profits before people. Capitalism hurts workers where ever they live. When jobs are exported from the West is this the fault of the workers in Korea, China, etc.? When seeking a better/safer life in Europe, the USA, etc., are migrants responsible for the impact on the indigenous working class? Under capitalism there are no ‘human rights’ only the economic imperatives which drive the system. The ruling class will try and divide us worker against worker by any means, crude nationalism, or liberal notions of human rights, and equal opportunities; all to one end - to keep us in our place, shovelling sh*t.

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.

Most people don't support communism, not the native workers, not the immigrants coming over as cheap labour.

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration. Now as a communist you have no wish to uphold capitalism, so you don't care what impact immigration has on native workers under capitalism, because you are looking to abolish the capitalist system.

I am talking about immigration within a capitalist economy. That was my point, so bringing up how bad capitalism is and needs abolishing isn't addressing my point, which is under capitalism immigration affects native workers.

If people don't even want to address issues within capitalism fine, but just keeping on arguing immigration is fine because everyone should be a communist and overthrow capitalism then immigration could not be used by capitalists to drive down wages is a totally different discussion.

Benzo89

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.
...

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration.

you've been asked to produce evidence of this and you have completely failed to do so instead just saying the same thing again and again as if the truth of something was determined by how often it is said, and accused everyone who doesn't simply accept right wing propaganda of being lies.

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.
...

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration.

you've been asked to produce evidence of this and you have completely failed to do so instead just saying the same thing again and again as if the truth of something was determined by how often it is said, and accused everyone who doesn't simply accept right wing propaganda of being lies.

Take a look at any of the long term studies on immigration to the UK. Even ones that show positive enhancements to the capitalist economy (which would be ironic for you to uphold as a reason to support immigration) shows that since the 90's it has cost the state (read the tax payer) around 95 billion.

As for providing evidence immigrants drive down wages, well if you really don't believe this I don't know what to tell you, you simply won't ever change your opinion because of your dearly held political beliefs. At least a few people in this thread have acknowledged this.

UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

The story is slightly different for immigrants who came to the UK from outside the EEA in that period. They also put more into the public purse than they took out, but by a smaller margin of 2%.
However, studying the numbers in the UCL report more closely, another finding emerges.
And that is, that if you look at the figures for the whole of the period under study, 1995-2011, immigration has been a drain on the public purse.
To the tune of about £95bn.

Do you think the government workers losing their jobs might of kept them had it not been for 95 billion being spent on immigrants? How about contract workers who were working for the government in cleaning services? Could their pay and job security of been affected? Nope no correlation whatsoever.

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.
...

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration.

you've been asked to produce evidence of this and you have completely failed to do so instead just saying the same thing again and again as if the truth of something was determined by how often it is said, and accused everyone who doesn't simply accept right wing propaganda of being lies.

Take a look at any of the long term studies on immigration to the UK. Even ones that show positive enhancements to the capitalist economy (which would be ironic for you to uphold as a reason to support immigration) shows that since the 90's it has cost the state (read the tax payer) around 95 billion.

As for providing evidence immigrants drive down wages, well if you really don't believe this I don't know what to tell you, you simply won't ever change your opinion because of your dearly held political beliefs. At least a few people in this thread have acknowledged this.

UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

sauce

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.
...

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration.

you've been asked to produce evidence of this and you have completely failed to do so instead just saying the same thing again and again as if the truth of something was determined by how often it is said, and accused everyone who doesn't simply accept right wing propaganda of being lies.

Take a look at any of the long term studies on immigration to the UK. Even ones that show positive enhancements to the capitalist economy (which would be ironic for you to uphold as a reason to support immigration) shows that since the 90's it has cost the state (read the tax payer) around 95 billion.

As for providing evidence immigrants drive down wages, well if you really don't believe this I don't know what to tell you, you simply won't ever change your opinion because of your dearly held political beliefs. At least a few people in this thread have acknowledged this.

UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

sauce

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Labour%20Market%20Effects%20of%20Immigration_0.pdf

When you read that then ask me for the 95 billion one, which not only affects the working class but everyone in Britain, their access to healthcare, funding for community projects etc. But of course you don't really care if immigration hurts workers under capitalism, because you want to abolish capitalism. In the meanwhile the lowest paid workers will be the ones most affected by immigration. And as the abolition of capitalism isn't round the corner, I guess they just have to deal with it.

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

No, it is the bourgeoisie who want immigration, they are the fuckers who benefit from it by undercutting local workers and exploiting immigrant labour. In what fantasy world are the capitalists anti-immigration. The only reason politicians have even started to address immigration in the UK is because of working class mass anger over it.

Benzo89

Tyrion

Benzo, it's not at all clear to me what you've written here that couldn't just as easily be applied as an argument for the harm that women entering into the workplace has had on the pre-existing working class and so we shouldn't be so dismissive of men who want women barred from employment.

Or maybe you should take up the fight against young people entering the workforce. After all, since they are less likely to have families to support, they're probably willing to work for less and so they undercut the wages of the working class and take the jobs of older workers. And leftists certainly don't spend much time focusing on the harm that young people have on the working class. And certainly I've known plenty of workers who complain about "millenials" and I can't imagine the threat of having their job taken by someone younger, cheaper, and perhaps more pliable helps. Why aren't you taking up this cause?

I don't take up the cause of anti immigration, I merely state that it harms native workers under capitalism.I can support immigration and not lie about its affect on workers.

So do you admit the negative impact that young people entering the workforce has on workers? Don't lie here.

Tyrion

Benzo89

Tyrion

Benzo, it's not at all clear to me what you've written here that couldn't just as easily be applied as an argument for the harm that women entering into the workplace has had on the pre-existing working class and so we shouldn't be so dismissive of men who want women barred from employment.

Or maybe you should take up the fight against young people entering the workforce. After all, since they are less likely to have families to support, they're probably willing to work for less and so they undercut the wages of the working class and take the jobs of older workers. And leftists certainly don't spend much time focusing on the harm that young people have on the working class. And certainly I've known plenty of workers who complain about "millenials" and I can't imagine the threat of having their job taken by someone younger, cheaper, and perhaps more pliable helps. Why aren't you taking up this cause?

I don't take up the cause of anti immigration, I merely state that it harms native workers under capitalism.I can support immigration and not lie about its affect on workers.

So do you admit the negative impact that young people entering the workforce has on workers? Don't lie here.

The comparison does not make sense, it is designed to create a gotcha moment but the false equivalency between young people joining the workforce, to immigration, is redundant. Young people, under capitalism have to eventually enter the workforce, as they become working age and as older generations retire.There is no way not to have young people become workers, there is a mechanism to stop immigration.

Your whole premise does not make sense.

You can't stop young people becoming workers, you can stop immigration. In fact it is the young poor workers looking to get entry level jobs who are amongst the hardest hit by immigration.

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.
...

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration.

you've been asked to produce evidence of this and you have completely failed to do so instead just saying the same thing again and again as if the truth of something was determined by how often it is said, and accused everyone who doesn't simply accept right wing propaganda of being lies.

Take a look at any of the long term studies on immigration to the UK. Even ones that show positive enhancements to the capitalist economy (which would be ironic for you to uphold as a reason to support immigration) shows that since the 90's it has cost the state (read the tax payer) around 95 billion.

As for providing evidence immigrants drive down wages, well if you really don't believe this I don't know what to tell you, you simply won't ever change your opinion because of your dearly held political beliefs. At least a few people in this thread have acknowledged this.

UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

sauce

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Labour%20Market%20Effects%20of%20Immigration_0.pdf

Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).

thats quite a small reduction, not that any reduction in wages is good for workers, but if workers organizer as in the example cite by others in this thread then it should be possible to counteract this

although since the main workers affected by mitigation are the migrants then maybe you wouldn't care

The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.

The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).

The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.

so there is a short effect or no effect on employment, of unspecified quantity, depending on what study you look at. this is not exactly stunning vindication of the migrants take our jobs theory now is it?

When you read that then ask me for the 95 billion one, which not only affects the working class but everyone in Britain, their access to healthcare, funding for community projects etc.

i already explained why i thought you are wrong about this

But of course you don't really care if immigration hurts workers under capitalism, because you want to abolish capitalism. In the meanwhile the lowest paid workers will be the ones most affected by immigration. And as the abolition of capitalism isn't round the corner, I guess they just have to deal with it.

except communism is about workers improving there lives now and how that process conflicts with capitalism, not simple a new society at some unspecified time in the future.
or maybe you dont like those rights you where going on about in the other thread which where in many cases fought for by communists.

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

No, it is the bourgeoisie who want immigration, they are the fuckers who benefit from it by undercutting local workers and exploiting immigrant labour. In what fantasy world are the capitalists anti-immigration. The only reason politicians have even started to address immigration in the UK is because of working class mass anger over it.

this is straight up capitalist propaganda, the media have being promoting hate against immigrants for as long as i can remember. capitalists may want to employ immigrants but it doesn't mean they don't want the "native" to hate them it severs there interests if there is division between immigrant an non immigrant , makes that organizing that you claim is impossible harder

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

Which is why I said within a capitalist system immigration hurts native workers and is agains there interests. You are arguing that immigration within capitalism isn't harmful, because we should overthrow capitalism. That is again avoiding the issue.
...

If we are to continue living in a capitalist society, in that context, it is in the native workers material interests, to be against immigration.

you've been asked to produce evidence of this and you have completely failed to do so instead just saying the same thing again and again as if the truth of something was determined by how often it is said, and accused everyone who doesn't simply accept right wing propaganda of being lies.

Take a look at any of the long term studies on immigration to the UK. Even ones that show positive enhancements to the capitalist economy (which would be ironic for you to uphold as a reason to support immigration) shows that since the 90's it has cost the state (read the tax payer) around 95 billion.

As for providing evidence immigrants drive down wages, well if you really don't believe this I don't know what to tell you, you simply won't ever change your opinion because of your dearly held political beliefs. At least a few people in this thread have acknowledged this.

UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

sauce

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Labour%20Market%20Effects%20of%20Immigration_0.pdf

Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).

thats quite a small reduction, not that any reduction in wages is good for workers, but if workers organizer as in the example cite by others in this thread then it should be possible to counteract this

although since the main workers affected by mitigation are the migrants then maybe you wouldn't care

The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.

The study found little evidence of an adverse effect. There is some evidence to suggest that, just like the impact on wages, the effects of immigration on unemployment differ between the short and long run. An OECD study of the impact of immigration on the unemployment of domestic workers in OECD countries (including the UK) during 1984-2003 found that an increase in the share of migrants in the labour force increases unemployment in the short to medium term (over a period of 5-10 years) but has no significant impact in the long run (Jean and Jimenez 2007).

The results suggest that there is no impact of immigration on the claimant count rate. This result holds even during periods of low economic growth or recession.

so there is a short effect or no effect on employment, of unspecified quantity, depending on what study you look at. this is not exactly stunning vindication of the migrants take our jobs theory now is it?

When you read that then ask me for the 95 billion one, which not only affects the working class but everyone in Britain, their access to healthcare, funding for community projects etc.

i already explained why i thought you are wrong about this

But of course you don't really care if immigration hurts workers under capitalism, because you want to abolish capitalism. In the meanwhile the lowest paid workers will be the ones most affected by immigration. And as the abolition of capitalism isn't round the corner, I guess they just have to deal with it.

except communism is about workers improving there lives now and how that process conflicts with capitalism, not simple a new society at some unspecified time in the future.
or maybe you dont like those rights you where going on about in the other thread which where in many cases fought for by communists.

note these studies also don't have any way of addressing cash in hand work, for labour and other jobs that immigrants have taken. Which makes up a massive amount of jobs formerly held by native workers in communities.

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

radicalgraffiti

It isn't white working class men making up stories in order to generate hate against foreigners,

no its middle class men who work for national publications making up stories, and members of the bougeose paying them to do it.

No, it is the bourgeoisie who want immigration, they are the fuckers who benefit from it by undercutting local workers and exploiting immigrant labour. In what fantasy world are the capitalists anti-immigration. The only reason politicians have even started to address immigration in the UK is because of working class mass anger over it.

this is straight up capitalist propaganda, the media have being promoting hate against immigrants for as long as i can remember. capitalists may want to employ immigrants but it doesn't mean they don't want the "native" to hate them it severs there interests if there is division between immigrant an non immigrant , makes that organizing that you claim is impossible harder

Who squashed the investigations into corporations using exclusively foreign illegal labour in the US .... Business interests. Not fucking workers.

Same arguments were used during the Great Migration of African-Americans from the US South-- taking jobs away from "native"= white European origin workers; lowering wages, blah, blah.

And of course then the same "logic" was used to oppose allowing African-Americans to move into "white" neighborhoods-- lowering the property values and all that rot.

It's just bullshit, spun in the service of nostalgia for a status quo that's based on exploitation and the expanded misery of others.

Fuck this guy. He says in another thread that he thinks he's become a "classic liberal." Indeed.

Get rid of him, send him to libclassic.com, not libcom.

Benzo89

Tyrion

Benzo89

Tyrion

Benzo, it's not at all clear to me what you've written here that couldn't just as easily be applied as an argument for the harm that women entering into the workplace has had on the pre-existing working class and so we shouldn't be so dismissive of men who want women barred from employment.

Or maybe you should take up the fight against young people entering the workforce. After all, since they are less likely to have families to support, they're probably willing to work for less and so they undercut the wages of the working class and take the jobs of older workers. And leftists certainly don't spend much time focusing on the harm that young people have on the working class. And certainly I've known plenty of workers who complain about "millenials" and I can't imagine the threat of having their job taken by someone younger, cheaper, and perhaps more pliable helps. Why aren't you taking up this cause?

I don't take up the cause of anti immigration, I merely state that it harms native workers under capitalism.I can support immigration and not lie about its affect on workers.

So do you admit the negative impact that young people entering the workforce has on workers? Don't lie here.

The comparison does not make sense, it is designed to create a gotcha moment but the false equivalency between young people joining the workforce, to immigration, is redundant. Young people, under capitalism have to eventually enter the workforce, as they become working age and as older generations retire.There is no way not to have young people become workers, there is a mechanism to stop immigration.

Your whole premise does not make sense.

You can't stop young people becoming workers, you can stop immigration. In fact it is the young poor workers looking to get entry level jobs who are amongst the hardest hit by immigration.

So because you view it as inevitable, you're refusing to admit the negative impact that young people entering the workforce has on workers? Stop lying to the many workers on this site. If immigration couldn't be stopped by the government, would you abandon this talk of how it harms workers?

Tyrion

Benzo89

Tyrion

Benzo89

Tyrion

Benzo, it's not at all clear to me what you've written here that couldn't just as easily be applied as an argument for the harm that women entering into the workplace has had on the pre-existing working class and so we shouldn't be so dismissive of men who want women barred from employment.

Or maybe you should take up the fight against young people entering the workforce. After all, since they are less likely to have families to support, they're probably willing to work for less and so they undercut the wages of the working class and take the jobs of older workers. And leftists certainly don't spend much time focusing on the harm that young people have on the working class. And certainly I've known plenty of workers who complain about "millenials" and I can't imagine the threat of having their job taken by someone younger, cheaper, and perhaps more pliable helps. Why aren't you taking up this cause?

I don't take up the cause of anti immigration, I merely state that it harms native workers under capitalism.I can support immigration and not lie about its affect on workers.

So do you admit the negative impact that young people entering the workforce has on workers? Don't lie here.

The comparison does not make sense, it is designed to create a gotcha moment but the false equivalency between young people joining the workforce, to immigration, is redundant. Young people, under capitalism have to eventually enter the workforce, as they become working age and as older generations retire.There is no way not to have young people become workers, there is a mechanism to stop immigration.

Your whole premise does not make sense.

You can't stop young people becoming workers, you can stop immigration. In fact it is the young poor workers looking to get entry level jobs who are amongst the hardest hit by immigration.

So because you view it as inevitable, you're refusing to admit the negative impact that young people entering the workforce has on workers? Stop lying to the many workers on this site. If immigration couldn't be stopped by the government, would you abandon this talk of how it harms workers?

What are you talking about? the comparison is asinine. Capitalism requires, civilisation and the running of society means when you are of working age you work. Capitalism, nor communism could work if at some cut off point younger generations did not work or do labour. In fact the older generations who could no longer work would starve and die if no young people become farmers, doctors, transport workers etc. Your comparison is illogical in the extreme. If immigration stopped it would not inhibit workers from filling those roles.

Immigration can be stopped. This is simply you trolling because you don't like me pointing out immigration does harm native workers and stopping immigration would lead to better material conditions for local workers.

S. Artesian

Same arguments were used during the Great Migration of African-Americans from the US South-- taking jobs away from "native"= white European origin workers; lowering wages, blah, blah.

And of course then the same "logic" was used to oppose allowing African-Americans to move into "white" neighborhoods-- lowering the property values and all that rot.

It's just bullshit, spun in the service of nostalgia for a status quo that's based on exploitation and the expanded misery of others.

Fuck this guy. He says in another thread that he thinks he's become a "classic liberal." Indeed.

Get rid of him, send him to libclassic.com, not libcom.

You sound like a monty python sketch. He disagrees with me and i can't refute his points, get rid of him so I don't have to be exposed to contrary points that are at odds with my own.

There is no way not to have young people become workers, there is a mechanism to stop immigration.

This is the kicker right here. You're completely wrong. There are imagined ways to stop immigration. But at no point in the history of capitalism has immigration from any country to any country been completely eliminated.

Let's take some examples:

Build a wall- Wouldn't work for immigrants, wouldn't work for young people
More community policing and ESOL Programs and Job-worthyness Programs: Doesn't stop immigration/youth entering workforce, takes it as given and focuses on controlling it's effects.

The reality is that you have no conception of material interests of workers as compelled by the class structure of capitalism. Instead, you see what workers often might say or repeat, and therefore what they might think and determine that workers always have a correct appraisal of their situation. Frankly, they don't.

Further, capitalism must regulate the reproduction of the labor force in general, and this plays out over a number of ideological disputes. For example, sectors of the bourgeoisie are most certainly "anti-immigrant" in the activist/liberal sense of degrading and harming immigrants. But you're correct that they are not ACTUALLY anti-immigrant. They recognize immigration is useful to them. On the other hand, "pro-immigrant" people want to help immigrants become "integrated" and "assimilated." Either side takes the category of immigrant as a given, takes capitalism, and all it's categories has givens, and not historically determined imperatives connected to the class structure of society, and it's runaway dream of accumulation. Even the last pro-assimilation group is split between people who want immigrants to "assert their subaltern culture" and refuse "cultural assimilation" and those that don't really think about that and would just see them get jobs etc.

You see, THESE are examples of leftists, and left positions that DO NOT take the interests of workers AS workers into account, and tend to fail to address the problems of immigration regarding the working class.

What you're saying is "Sometimes, an immigrant will take a job where a lot of white guys work, and they'll say racist things about him, because Chuck was gonna have his nephew apply for the job but now they gave it to this black guy because they can pay him less." And that because this might happen, even somewhat frequently, it necessarily means that immigration has a total negative effect on the lives of workers. It CERTAINLY can be made to SEEM that immigrants working is bad for workers. But then, in order to avoid the COMPOSITION FALLACY, we would have to apply different methods in order to see if on a MACRO level, immigrants are dragging down wages or pulling a significant amount more than they put into the tax system. I think both have been disputed here, with figures.

In reference to S. Artesian: Thomas Sugrue has an interesting book on the decline of Detroit in the 50's after WWII. In one section he discusses the nature of perception, ideology, and different forms of employment. Many black workers were de-facto excluded from union jobs in the plants, or limited because of lack of skill. So a lot of black workers did unskilled construction work I think. The nature of that work was sort of like a shape-up, where workers would wait on a corner for a foreman/boss to pick them up, and pick which laborers he wanted. While they waited, they would throw dice, tell jokes; just hang out, you know like you do.

It was not uncommon for white workers, driving to the plant to see these men and reflect "Look at these lazy black guys just goofing off on this corner! Why don't they get a job!"

Combined with a vague conception of how jobs, markets, immigration, work and the mis-guided notion that what you SEE is universal fact, you're in for a wild ride of chauvinism and misguided "frankness."

Whats that they say about a little bit of knowledge?

"Look its raining, look at these rain drops making us wet!"
"Uhm, I think it's the rain in general, and our exposure. Why don't we build or find a roof?"
"What? You can't deny that raindrops make you wet."
"Yeah, but if you have a roof..."
"Name one person with a roof, who hasn't gotten wet by raindrops before!"
"What?"
"You're using the logic of someone who doesn't want to get wet to explain why raindrops don't make you wet!"
"Huh? All I said was that if we find a pavillion somewhere we could get dry?"
"All I said was that raindrops make you wet, and you won't admit that I'm right. The only thing we can do is invest in weather-control technology and research and pray for the day!"
"Uhm, why don't we just work together to protect ourselves."
"Sicne when has that ever worked?!"
"With you? I'm not so sure...."

How do you account for falling birth rates and the fact that people are living longer in many European and some Asian countries that I know of,e.g. S.Korea and Japan? Does this not point to the neccessity of immigration?

[quote=Pennoid]

There is no way not to have young people become workers, there is a mechanism to stop immigration.

This is the kicker right here. You're completely wrong. There are imagined ways to stop immigration. But at no point in the history of capitalism has immigration from any country to any country been completely eliminated.

Let's take some examples:

Build a wall- Wouldn't work for immigrants, wouldn't work for young people
More community policing and ESOL Programs and Job-worthyness Programs: Doesn't stop immigration/youth entering workforce, takes it as given and focuses on controlling it's effects.

The reality is that you have no conception of material interests of workers as compelled by the class structure of capitalism. Instead, you see what workers often might say or repeat, and therefore what they might think and determine that workers always have a correct appraisal of their situation. Frankly, they don't.

Further, capitalism must regulate the reproduction of the labor force in general, and this plays out over a number of ideological disputes. For example, sectors of the bourgeoisie are most certainly "anti-immigrant" in the activist/liberal sense of degrading and harming immigrants. But you're correct that they are not ACTUALLY anti-immigrant. They recognize immigration is useful to them. On the other hand, "pro-immigrant" people want to help immigrants become "integrated" and "assimilated." Either side takes the category of immigrant as a given, takes capitalism, and all it's categories has givens, and not historically determined imperatives connected to the class structure of society, and it's runaway dream of accumulation. Even the last pro-assimilation group is split between people who want immigrants to "assert their subaltern culture" and refuse "cultural assimilation" and those that don't really think about that and would just see them get jobs etc.

You see, THESE are examples of leftists, and left positions that DO NOT take the interests of workers AS workers into account, and tend to fail to address the problems of immigration regarding the working class.

What you're saying is "Sometimes, an immigrant will take a job where a lot of white guys work, and they'll say racist things about him, because Chuck was gonna have his nephew apply for the job but now they gave it to this black guy because they can pay him less." And that because this might happen, even somewhat frequently, it necessarily means that immigration has a total negative effect on the lives of workers. It CERTAINLY can be made to SEEM that immigrants working is bad for workers. But then, in order to avoid the COMPOSITION FALLACY, we would have to apply different methods

in order to see if on a MACRO level, immigrants are dragging down wages or pulling a significant amount more than they put into the tax system. I think both have been disputed here, with figures.

the study I Posted earlier showed that immigrants do drag down wages, for the poorest sections of the working class. And you could stop immigration, you could pass strict legislation and have enforcement of labour laws. You could stop the legal influx of legal immigration, you could refuse to give immigrants any access to benefits and healthcare which is funded by taxpayers. This is in the immediate interests of the working class.

I don't support that, as I don't support anti-immigration policy. I am for immigration even though it affects people like me. However if strict anti-immigration policy was introduced it would positively benefit native workers, within the capitalist system.

Just because it is in my interests does not mean I find it morally acceptable. I am for immigration, especially for allowing refugees to settle here. I just won't ignore all the studies that say it does affect native workers. Just like I support women having the right and access to work, just like I have liberal moral stances on all these things.

I am happy to live in a multicultural society and I am happy that immigrants can come here and find a better life. You keep implying the mere acceptance of studies showing immigration negatively affect poor native workers means I then have to hate immigrants and oppose immigration.

wojtek

How do you account for falling birth rates and the fact that people are living longer in many European and some Asian countries that I know of,e.g. S.Korea and Japan? Does this not point to the neccessity of immigration?

No, a falling birthrate simply means a smaller population, a smaller population needs less workers to maintain production and running of society. Also falling birthrate is tied into people not having access to jobs thus not having kids. Me and my girlfriend are in that boat. We are responsible and don't think it is morally acceptable to have kids we can not afford, we certainly don't think it is the taxpayers responsibility to pay to help raise and support our kids, rather we should exercise responsibility.

A lowering birthrate will men less strain on public services too. Lowering birthrates don't require a flood of immigrant labour, it isn't inherently bad. However I wouldn't be opposed to more immigration.

And you could stop immigration, you could pass strict legislation and have enforcement of labour laws. You could stop the legal influx of legal immigration, you could refuse to give immigrants any access to benefits and healthcare which is funded by taxpayers. This is in the immediate interests of the working class.

Wait, how is this

1) Ever been on the agenda for a capitalist country
2) Serve workers?

I think its been admitted by you that immigration is something capitalists are ok with, even if they shit on the people.
Who will pass the strict legislation? The people who've been in office the last 60 years that have given us the immigration legislation we have? The ones who flout and enforce it when it suits them and the petty tyrants it erects in detention centers, sheriff's offices, and borders across the country?

How does not giving immigrants benefits paid out of the taxes paid partly by workers help workers? Is there an "immigrant tax" that I see on my pay stub? No? There's just the same taxes they'd take out whether or not a portion went to helping immigrant workers. Further, why wouldn't workers want immigrants to have a similar standard of living as them? It would expand the base of consumer demand, and it would help bolster their standard of living. If immigrants, desperate for even a little money, can be made to STAY IN THAT POSITION OF DESPERATION, it would only FURTHER undercut workers bargaining position regarding wages?

In fact, the attempts at this happened in the past. And they failed, miserably. The AFLCIO had xenophobic campaigns of "Buy American" and anti-immigrant policies, and still does. And you know what? It doesn't do a damn thing but pit worker against worker. It doesn't even solve the "problems" even as it (mis)characterizes them.

No, it is the bourgeoisie who want immigration, they are the fuckers who benefit from it by undercutting local workers and exploiting immigrant labour. In what fantasy world are the capitalists anti-immigration. The only reason politicians have even started to address immigration in the UK is because of working class mass anger over it.

First here, the capitalist class as a whole obviously has some grasp of their shared interests, but individual capitalists - and certainly politicians - may very well allow their own prejudices to override their immediate interests (as, indeed do many members of the working class), Besides, even in America, the debate is about "illegal" immigration - those some racist politicians make sure they leave back door options open for a steady supply of immigrant labor.

And, has someone has already pointed out, there is an immediate value in stoking up anti-immigrant feeling: namely, fostering division and disunity within the workforce.

You sound like a monty python sketch. He disagrees with me and i can't refute his points, get rid of him so I don't have to be exposed to contrary points that are at odds with my own.

\

Except I have refuted all your so-called points.

You're a poseur; sure you're happy to live in a multicultural area; sure you welcome immigrants; sure this and sure that. Bullshit. You are feeding racist, xenophobic attacks on the weak, the vulnerable, the most exploited sectors of the working class.

You don't even qualify as a national-bolshevik, red on the outside, brown on the inside. You're a nativist; Your "whiteness," your "native working class" are categories constructed at their beginning through the impoverishment and exploitation of those outside your geographic boundaries.

Notice how you don't come here and propose actions of class solidarity-- against racial attacks, official, and unofficial, against sweatshop exploitation of immigrants-- because exploitation in any and all of its manifestations is never your target. Your target is exactly the same as that of the UKIP-- the distressed, marginalized, once-secure "native Briton."

Fuck off. Yeah this is monty python, and you're shopkeeper selling the dead parrot.

Shit Benzo, you sound just like my dad. Soft right Tory.

Quotes from the pet shop owner selling dead parrots:

I can and do, as I can separate the awesomeness of the system in which I live

Anybody else remember the opening scene and the great lines from The Way of the Gun?

As a lover of pizza I must remember to become a member of Anti Pizza League of a Great Britain. I can then write endless posts about the wonders of pizza and feel terribly hard done by when they disagree with me. This is a sensible thing to do with my time, yes?

S. Artesian

You sound like a monty python sketch. He disagrees with me and i can't refute his points, get rid of him so I don't have to be exposed to contrary points that are at odds with my own.

\

Except I have refuted all your so-called points.

You're a poseur; sure you're happy to live in a multicultural area; sure you welcome immigrants; sure this and sure that. Bullshit. You are feeding racist, xenophobic attacks on the weak, the vulnerable, the most exploited sectors of the working class.

You don't even qualify as a national-bolshevik, red on the outside, brown on the inside. You're a nativist; Your "whiteness," your "native working class" are categories constructed at their beginning through the impoverishment and exploitation of those outside your geographic boundaries.

Notice how you don't come here and propose actions of class solidarity-- against racial attacks, official, and unofficial, against sweatshop exploitation of immigrants-- because exploitation in any and all of its manifestations is never your target. Your target is exactly the same as that of the UKIP-- the distressed, marginalized, once-secure "native Briton."

Fuck off. Yeah this monty python, and you're the dead parrot.

I am within the most exploited segments of the working class. I earn minimum wage and combined me and my partner earn less than 12 grand a year. I think I might have a pretty good grasp of what it is like to be poor and working class.

Yes I am against sweatshops, yes I am against non white people being exploited, yes I am against anyone treating anyone like shit.

Yes I support immigration, yes I support immigrants getting benefits and healthcare, yes i support immigrants organising and demand better ages.

I however don't deny the immediate impact of immigration is negative for native workers. Ask someone in Lebanon right now. You see what workers there are getting angry about?

‘see what workers are getting angry about’

Well I do see what you mean, it is so much easier to turn on members of your own class than think things through. You wrote earlier that communists do not care about the problems of the workers in a capitalist society. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just that the ‘common sense’ of blame the one below you on the economic ladder belies any analysis of what is going on. The working class volunteer to kill each other in wars does this make it right? You short circuit any analysis and revert to the manta: ‘outsiders’ attack the living standards of the indigenous workers. The same pathetic bollocks I got more than thirty years ago when a fellow worker in London accused me of taking an Englishman’s job. When will the penny drop - we don’t have a f***ing country

Auld-bod

‘see what workers are getting angry about’

Well I do see what you mean, it is so much easier to turn on members of your own class than think things through. You wrote earlier that communists do not care about the problems of the workers in a capitalist society. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just that the ‘common sense’ of blame the one below you on the economic ladder belies any analysis of what is going on. The working class volunteer to kill each other in wars does this make it right? You short circuit any analysis and revert to the manta: ‘outsiders’ attack the living standards of the indigenous workers. The same pathetic bollocks I got more than thirty years ago when a fellow worker in London accused me of taking an Englishman’s job. When will the penny drop - we don’t have a f***ing country

You can accept immigration hurts native workers but then have the solution being class unity and overthrowing capitalism, what someone said to you is irrelevant to what I am saying.

And yes you can say the solution to the problem of immigration is to unite, but workers don't want to unite most of the time, most immigrants are not communists and are not looking to unite and overthrow capitalism, so communist organising as an immediate solution isn't realistic, a revolution isn't round the corner. So if Anarchists do support immigration, despite the fact it does affect local workers, you are saying, it does harm workers, but the solution is eventually to overthrow capitalism and end wage slavery.

That is a fine consistent stance to have. But I am talking about within capitalism. For people who support capitalism and the state, as most working people do, then that isn't an option to them and their beliefs. So if a worker who isn't communist (99.9% of them are not) and who supports capitalism, and statism, the logical stance to take, in line with their interests within the system, is to reduce or stop immigration.

I've just been involved in a right old ding dong about allowing people with an alternative view some respect and space to put forward that view, but you seem to have turned up with an agenda that is fundamentally at odds with the principles promoted by this site that this freedom you not be extended to you. Why not find other people with similar views to work with? It ain't gonna happen here. You are actually closer to a national 'socialist' position to that of a communist.
I'm no smart theorition or someone with a extensive knowledge of politics but it's pretty clear that you're so set on this idea of immigrants being the problem that you're missing the point of practical Libcom politics. Just one basic example; workplace organising doesn't require everyone or even anyone to be a dyed in the wool communist. You just need to know that you are being exploited and that there are things you can do about it.

Oh yeah, seriously man, get to fuck with your talk of wasting tax payers money by having children. Just how much money is that in the scheme of things? Capitalism fucks everything up and we have to take responsibility for that by not carrying out one of our most natural biological desires? Just fuck off with that, we need to take NO responsibility for the problems capital created. We just need to take responsibility for trying to improve the conditions of our class. OUR CLASS, right? And our class exists all over the world and when members of it come to the geographical area of the world that we live in, WE STAND BEHIND THEM. We don't bang on with thinly veiled, prejudiced finger pointing.

Benzo89

I however don't deny the immediate impact of immigration is negative for native workers. Ask someone in Lebanon right now. You see what workers there are getting angry about?

how the government hasn't picked up the rubbish even though it said it would? sorry what does this have to do with immigration? did immigrants stop the government from organizing rubbish collection properly?

And yet racial prejudice among whites is lower in more mixed areas, where any competition for jobs from immigrants is presumably highest. So despite your best efforts to make the rational economic case for the nationalism and racism of the imagined Ordinary Man on the Street^TM, people don't seem to behave that way.

In any case, the source you were quoting said there appears to be a neutral or overall increase in wages associated with immigration. Any downward pressure is at the very bottom, mostly among previous migrant workers. The numbers in either direction are dwarfed by e.g. changes in the cost of living, unpaid overtime, or cuts to pensions. So it's not at all clear why the impossible task of stopping immigration is more logical than just hiking the minimum wage, for example. The latter is at least possible. And as others have pointed out, criminalisation of migration doesn't stop immigration, it creates a layer of rightless, exploitable low wage ('illegal') workers - which is supposedly the 'problem' criminalising migrants is meant to 'fix'.

Of course from an economic point of view - which is supposedly what you're arguing here - if supply of labour exceeds demand (all other things held equal), there could be downward pressure on wages. That's the case whether the cause is an increased birth rate, a recession decreasing the demand for labour, or if people move around internally within the country following the jobs too.* But nobody's arguing for internal borders to stop other poor white people 'taking our jobs'. Funny that.

* The opposite also holds; the Black Death was a boon to post-plague peasant living standards, but we don't get hard-headed bubonic pragmatists making the working man on the street's case for the Black Death while decrying dogmatic communist idealists for advocating the 'never going to happen' task of eliminating infectious diseases.

Webby

I've just been involved in a right old ding dong about allowing people with an alternative view some respect and space to put forward that view, but you seem to have turned up with an agenda that is fundamentally at odds with the principles promoted by this site that this freedom you not be extended to you. Why not find other people with similar views to work with? It ain't gonna happen here. You are actually closer to a national 'socialist' position to that of a communist.
I'm no smart theorition or someone with a extensive knowledge of politics but it's pretty clear that you're so set on this idea of immigrants being the problem that you're missing the point of practical Libcom politics. Just one basic example; workplace organising doesn't require everyone or even anyone to be a dyed in the wool communist. You just need to know that you are being exploited and that there are things you can do about it.

Oh yeah, seriously man, get to fuck with your talk of wasting tax payers money by having children. Just how much money is that in the scheme of things? Capitalism fucks everything up and we have to take responsibility for that by not carrying out one of our most natural biological desires? Just fuck off with that, we need to take NO responsibility for the problems capital created. We just need to take responsibility for trying to improve the conditions of our class. OUR CLASS, right? And our class exists all over the world and when members of it come to the geographical area of the world that we live in, WE STAND BEHIND THEM. We don't bang on with thinly veiled, prejudiced finger pointing.

I said I support immigration, how is that thinly veiled prejudice ? I can think immigration has negative affects within capitalism on local workers without wanting to ban immigration. If simply citing how many studies point out immigration WITHIN CAPITALISM affects local workers, then yeah anyone who cites these studies is simply an immigrant hating bigot. My stance on immigration is to the far left of any one I know in real life. Most want immigration reduced or restricted, I don't.

So can everyone stop implying i am against immigration despite pointing out how I am not for 100 posts?

And if people don't want to engage they simply don't post. It is a great system.

[quote=Auld-bod]‘see what workers are getting angry about’

Well I do see what you mean, it is so much easier to turn on members of your own class than think things through. You wrote earlier that communists do not care about the problems of the workers in a capitalist society. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just that the ‘common sense’ of blame the one below you on the economic ladder belies any analysis of what is going on. The working class volunteer to kill each other in wars does this make it right? You short circuit any analysis and revert to the manta: ‘outsiders’ attack the living standards of the indigenous workers. The same pathetic bollocks I got more than thirty years ago when a fellow worker in London accused me of taking an Englishman’s job. When will the penny drop - we don’t have a f***ing country [/quote]

By your worldview. As i have said 1000 times if you are an Anarchist supporting immigration and looking to abolish the state and capitalism that is the logical conclusion. Most workers and immigrants are not communists. So as that isn't how the vast majority of people view the world, the unite and smash capitalism isn't an option, within capitalism, for the majority of workers who want capitalism and representative government. So if immigration is affecting workers, who don't want to abolish capitalism and the state, the only practical solution to the negative benefits of immigration is to reduce or stop immigration.

Webby

I've just been involved in a right old ding dong about allowing people with an alternative view some respect and space to put forward that view, but you seem to have turned up with an agenda that is fundamentally at odds with the principles promoted by this site that this freedom you not be extended to you. Why not find other people with similar views to work with? It ain't gonna happen here. You are actually closer to a national 'socialist' position to that of a communist.
I'm no smart theorition or someone with a extensive knowledge of politics but it's pretty clear that you're so set on this idea of immigrants being the problem that you're missing the point of practical Libcom politics. Just one basic example; workplace organising doesn't require everyone or even anyone to be a dyed in the wool communist. You just need to know that you are being exploited and that there are things you can do about it.

Oh yeah, seriously man, get to fuck with your talk of wasting tax payers money by having children. Just how much money is that in the scheme of things? Capitalism fucks everything up and we have to take responsibility for that by not carrying out one of our most natural biological desires? Just fuck off with that, we need to take NO responsibility for the problems capital created. We just need to take responsibility for trying to improve the conditions of our class. OUR CLASS, right? And our class exists all over the world and when members of it come to the geographical area of the world that we live in, WE STAND BEHIND THEM. We don't bang on with thinly veiled, prejudiced finger pointing.

Also DUDE YOU EARN £30,000. It isn't your jobs affected by immigration, so you can chortle at blue collar workers who know the reality of the situation, however it isn't very enlightening.

Calling for communism as the solution is fine. Pretending acknowledgement of the reality of the situation is a front to peddle some right wing agenda is nonsense.

Benzo89

I'm not racist, but...

It's this simple;

Capitalism has no borders.
Class has no borders.
Solidarity has no borders.

So just fucking can it, will ya?

radicalgraffiti

Benzo89

I'm not racist, but...

Considering a large percentage of immigrants are white this is a bit odd. Add into that Nationalism is moronic and I don't identify with any british culture I deem worthy of defending or preserving, why would you assume I don't want people of colour living here?

Trying to smear someone and attach ideas to them they don't have is the laziest form of bullying. Kinda like how the nationalist forums seem to like accusing me of zionism because I don't think jews control the economy.

Webby

It's this simple;

Capitalism has no borders.
Class has no borders.
Solidarity has no borders.

So just fucking can it, will ya?

If another opinion bothers you you know it is possible to just not reply? Or can't you just not help but do so out of fury that someone does not have the same politics, or no established political side?

In my job we have permanent workers and zero hours workers doing the same job but the zero hours workers get about half the pay. We put up with it not because we are scabs who don't care that we are participating in worsening the conditions, but because all new posts created in the department for the last several years have been zero hours. You either suck it up or you don't work there.

There are large numbers of migrant workers in both the permanent and the zero hours sections. Many of whom have been actively involved in organising protests and strikes there.

A whole load of people got laid off last Friday. It's because of the government cutting our funding, we are not being replaced by migrants or by anyone else, the posts are just being cut. If we have a strike or a demo about it, most of the people coming to support us will be migrants.

fingers malone

In my job we have permanent workers and zero hours workers doing the same job but the zero hours workers get about half the pay. We put up with it not because we are scabs who don't care that we are participating in worsening the conditions, but because all new posts created in the department for the last several years have been zero hours. You either suck it up or you don't work there.

There are large numbers of migrant workers in both the permanent and the zero hours sections. Many of whom have been actively involved in organising protests and strikes there.

A whole load of people got laid off last Friday. It's because of the government cutting our funding, we are not being replaced by migrants or by anyone else, the posts are just being cut. If we have a strike or a demo about it, most of the people coming to support us will be migrants.

Sorry to hear about your co-workers. That is another aspect of immigration. £95 billion government resources allocated to immigrants since the 90's. If that money was not spent and the government wasn't now cutting everything workers rely on, including government jobs, those jobs wouldn't have needed to disappear. There isn't an endless pool of money the government has.

Fucking hell. This has got to be a wind up.

Of course it's a fucking wind up. He's a repeat, serial troll who comes here, starts a conversation which he knows is going to wind people up and then people lose their shit at him.

Webby

Fucking hell. This has got to be a wind up.

Are you saying the studies and reports by various governmental and non-governmental agencies are not true? If you do indeed concede that this is true, would 95 billion cover the amount of government workers being laid off?

I get on OK with a guy and we can have some reasonable discussions until his response starts reducing virtually any subject to a monotonous, “But how do you know it’s not a conspiracy?” As I cannot know, he ‘wins’ because he knows what he knows.

Similarly Benzo89 believes what he believes as he has first-hand experience through his friends and family. Though how this irrefutable knowledge relates to his professed political beliefs is a mystery. Perhaps a creative dissonance?

Losing my job is bad enough, someone trying to make anti migrant political points out of it is really adding insult to injury.

The government is attacking the living conditions of the working class across the board, cutting jobs, cutting pay, cutting benefits, people are getting thrown out on the streets everyday, and you see that as caused by immigrants? It's a generalised ruling class counter attack. Also I claimed a lot of benefits back in the day, am I not to blame as well?

So, accepting the 95 billion 'cost' of benefits paid to immigrants and for the sake of this argument that this has led to the cutting of government jobs, why aren't you arguing for cuts in other areas, like the military (which dwarfs immigration in cost)?

In the US, undocumented immigrants pay many taxes while not being able to partake in any benefits (tax rebates, 'welfare', etc.)

Auld-bod

I get on OK with a guy and we can have some reasonable discussions until his response starts reducing virtually any subject to a monotonous, “But how do you know it’s not a conspiracy?” As I cannot know, he ‘wins’ because he knows what he knows.

Similarly Benzo89 believes what he believes as he has first-hand experience through his friends and family. Though how this irrefutable knowledge relates to his professed political beliefs is a mystery. Perhaps a creative dissonance?

No, I believe reputable studies and papers from both the government and non government agencies that claim that immigration negatively affects the poorest sections of the working class and has cost taxpayers 95 billion pounds since the 90's.

I am also fine with the Anarchist answer, which is to organise and abolish capitalism and then capitalism won't be able to exploit any workers and immigrants and workers can take control of the means of production and transform society.

I just don't find it necessary to deny evidence that within the capitalist system immigration drives down the poorest workers wages and costs the taxpayer billions, which affects workers in the form of access to housing, NHS costs, inflating the budget meaning job losses and cuts.

I can still support immigration without pretending it has no negative affects within the current system for the poorest of us.

Benzo89

Webby

Fucking hell. This has got to be a wind up.

Are you saying the studies and reports by various governmental and non-governmental agencies are not true? If you do indeed concede that this is true, would 95 billion cover the amount of government workers being laid off?

What I'm saying is that you are taking the piss or that you are a straight up racist fucking twat. And shut the fuck up about you're not anti immigration because you told us you're not - it wouldn't matter how many times I told you I'm hung like an Arabian cart horse, it wouldn't alter the fact that I've got a dick like a Marks and Spencer's cocktail sausage!

Webby

Benzo89

Webby

Fucking hell. This has got to be a wind up.

Are you saying the studies and reports by various governmental and non-governmental agencies are not true? If you do indeed concede that this is true, would 95 billion cover the amount of government workers being laid off?

What I'm saying is that you are taking the piss or that you are a straight up racist fucking twat. And shut the fuck up about you're no anti immigration because you told us you're not - it wouldn't matter how many times I told you I'm hung like an Arabian cart horse, it would alter the fact that I've got a dick like a Marks and Spencer's cocktail sausage!

How am I racist, base don what, accepting evidence, actual evidence of the phenomena I am talking about? Are you claiming immigration does not undercut wages? Are you claiming immigration has not cost the taxpayer tens of billions?

You sound like a £30,000 a year lefty spitting his dummy out because someone reference actual studies that show the affects of immigration on the working poor. Not being poor yourself and being incredibly politically biased, the mere acknowledgement these studies exist makes you unable to type without exploding and yelling racism.

Which is quite funny considering many of the immigrants coming to the UK are whiter than me.

fingers malone

Losing my job is bad enough, someone trying to make anti migrant political points out of it is really adding insult to injury.

The government is attacking the living conditions of the working class across the board, cutting jobs, cutting pay, cutting benefits, people are getting thrown out on the streets everyday, and you see that as caused by immigrants? It's a generalised ruling class counter attack. Also I claimed a lot of benefits back in the day, am I not to blame as well?

Well I don't blame immigrants for coming for opportunity, I would do the same, it is basic human compulsion to try and improve your conditions. However yes obviously the people responsible for immigration caused wage undercutting and migrant spending are immigrants.

It is in the immigrants material interests to come to the UK. It is in the poorest sections of the working classes interests to either not have capitalism, or not have immigration within a capitalist system. That would mean their wages were not driven down and the 95 billion in spent tax money wouldn't have been, which could be used by the government for government jobs (which you just said are being cut) and other resources that benefit them.By the way £95 billion is 21 times what the Iraq war cost (4.5 billion)

Just because something is in our interests though, does not mean we have to pursue those interests if it goes against our morality or political views. It however would still benefit us within capitalism.

I am just curious do the people refusing to acknowledge the impact of immigration on the working poor within capitalism also pretend the gentrification of black communities isn't happening?

Also, my union represents workers in industries that are filled with both documented and undocumented immigrants, and that hasn't stopped them from organizing together and securing better wages - such as the ~$60000 that a housekeeper makes in NYC, immigrant or not.

(not meant to be a defense of unions or this union)

gram negative

So, accepting the 95 billion 'cost' of benefits paid to immigrants and for the sake of this argument that this has led to the cutting of government jobs, why aren't you arguing for cuts in other areas, like the military (which dwarfs immigration in cost)?

In the US, undocumented immigrants pay many taxes while not being able to partake in any benefits (tax rebates, 'welfare', etc.)

I am in favour of cutting the military budget. Are you? Are you for cutting the resources given to immigrants? However as I said, most workers, immigrants, everyone is not a communist. If you support capitalism and the state having a military is a necessity. Immigration isn't. For workers under capitalism who support capitalism stopping immigration is preferable to having no standing military.

immigratiion was heavily reduced to the US in 1921 and 1924. it did not lead to growth of wages (but organizing did)

gram negative

immigratiion was heavily reduced to the US in 1921 and 1924. it did not lead to growth of wages (but organizing did)

Well yes, after wages are driven down you still need to organise to build them up. Without foreign cheap labour undercutting you this is what is done.

Benzo89

gram negative

immigratiion was heavily reduced to the US in 1921 and 1924. it did not lead to growth of wages (but organizing did)

Well yes, after wages are driven down you still need to organise to build them up. Without foreign cheap labour undercutting you this is what is done.

actually, wages had increased during the period of mass immigration to the US preceding the immigration restrictions, it's just your theory doesn't hold water.

also, you make it appear as if it is all or nothing for the military budget, which appears to be more than half of the money spent on immigrants in that whole time period every year.

gram negative

Benzo89

gram negative

immigratiion was heavily reduced to the US in 1921 and 1924. it did not lead to growth of wages (but organizing did)

Well yes, after wages are driven down you still need to organise to build them up. Without foreign cheap labour undercutting you this is what is done.

actually, wages had increased during the period of mass immigration to the US preceding the immigration restrictions, it's just your theory doesn't hold water.

also, you make it appear as if it is all or nothing for the military budget, which appears to be more than half of the money spent on immigrants in that whole time period every year.

Which within capitalism is how the majority of the people think that money should be spent. Economic power and military power is something that people want their country to have.

However as an Anarchist it is slightly disingenuous to be talking about government military spending and talking about how that affects workers but ignoring how immigration, something a majority of workers don't support, affects workers.

If you support cutting military budgets based on making things better for workers within capitalism, do you support cutting spending on immigrants? Is immigrant an all or nothing thing, would you advocate cutting spending on immigration?

No because on that you take the big picture, on military spending however you deem that something to support cutting within capitalism. That isn't consistent.

And of course America is a unique situation because of its history, immigration was needed for economic growth and at the time it was growing of course immigration was not hurting native workers. You can't apply the history of an Immigrant nation that is a new nation and needed population expansion to the UK. You can try but it isn't an honest comparison.

"..Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class..."

-Karl Marx

Now Marx like myself, could acknowledge the reality of immigration within capitalism, he could be against anti-immigration rhetoric, he could be for workers uniting and abolishing capitalism as the way to end all oppression. Just because he recognised immigration hurt poor workers within capitalism, he argued workers should abolish capitalism and that the antagonistic relationship between local workers and foreign labour could be ended, as we see with this:

"..And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland..."

But of course, that's how capitalism exists, that's what accumulation is based upon. It has nothing to do with nationality, it has everything to do with accessing, dispossessing, aggrandizing fresh sources of labor power, inflating the reserve army of labor.

You on the other hand make it an issue of immigration rather than capitalist exploitation. You argue that the material interests of the working class are jeopardized by the waves of immigrants. This is exactly the jingoism that has paralyzed workers for years. It was the AFL's jingoism against Asian workers in California in the 19th century. It was the jingoism against the Irish in the US in the mid-19th century; the Italians in the latter 19th century; against the great waves of African-Americans moving out of the South and into Northern cities between 1910 and 1970: "they're taking 'our'-- meaning white-- jobs; they're lowering our wages.

In each case, no such thing occurred-- there is no such thing as "white" or "native" jobs. The great migrations of African-Americans during and post WW2 into industrial centers did not take "white jobs;" and corresponds to overall increases in employment, investment, and wages.

So maybe Marx can be excused for not looking deeply enough into this, given the lack of statistical data at the time as to what was really going on-- but you can't, because the data shows that immigrants have not caused wages to be lowered; do not take "native jobs;" are "super"-exploited. The attack on wages far precedes immigration.

But still your persist with your bullshit abstractionism: "That parrot's not dead. He's just unusually calm." It's a dead fucking parrot. You're a fucking dick.

This:

No, it is the bourgeoisie who want immigration, they are the fuckers who benefit from it by undercutting local workers and exploiting immigrant labour. In what fantasy world are the capitalists anti-immigration. The only reason politicians have even started to address immigration in the UK is because of working class mass anger over it

from a person who explicitly states he "supports" immigration.

In what fantasy world are the capitalists anti-immigration? In the fantasy world of Arizona, Alabama, Georgia. In the fantasy world of Donald Trump. Is he capitalist enough for you?

you have a disingenous style. are you sure you aren't obsessing over this like you mentioned you have other subjects?

regardless, you still haven't answered how the workers in my union (which is filled with immigrants, both documented and not, as well as 'native' workers) have been able to organize together and increase their wages?

It says that European migrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011. Those from the 15 countries which made up the EU before 2004, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, contributed 64% – £15bn more in taxes than they received in welfare – while east European migrants contributed 12%, equivalent to £5bn more.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study

At this point, this is really on par with someone claiming they're not opposed to racial desegregation while insisting that it harms white people and that libcommers should stop lying that it doesn't.

^^Word.

Benzo89

fingers malone

In my job we have permanent workers and zero hours workers doing the same job but the zero hours workers get about half the pay. We put up with it not because we are scabs who don't care that we are participating in worsening the conditions, but because all new posts created in the department for the last several years have been zero hours. You either suck it up or you don't work there.

There are large numbers of migrant workers in both the permanent and the zero hours sections. Many of whom have been actively involved in organising protests and strikes there.

A whole load of people got laid off last Friday. It's because of the government cutting our funding, we are not being replaced by migrants or by anyone else, the posts are just being cut. If we have a strike or a demo about it, most of the people coming to support us will be migrants.

Sorry to hear about your co-workers. That is another aspect of immigration. £95 billion government resources allocated to immigrants since the 90's. If that money was not spent and the government wasn't now cutting everything workers rely on, including government jobs, those jobs wouldn't have needed to disappear. There isn't an endless pool of money the government has.

So, up to this point Benzo, I actually thought people were being a bit rough with you.

But, seriously, after this little tirade, FUCK OFF.

‘I just don't find it necessary to deny evidence that within the capitalist system immigration drives down the poorest workers wages and costs the taxpayer billions, which affects workers in the form of access to housing, NHS costs, inflating the budget meaning job losses and cuts.

I can still support immigration without pretending it has no negative affects within the current system for the poorest of us.’

I don’t agree with your framing immigration as a problem for the indigenous working class, and if you find certain government statistics convincing, well that’s your problem.

I do take issue with your belief that the government will willingly redistribute funds to the benefit of the working class. Taxes are raised to maintain the system and this sometimes takes the form of a bribe to buy off opposition.

Though you claim sympathy with the aims of libcom, you always slip into a terminology of them - the alien workers, and us - the poorest home grown workers. You are basically a nationalist though you cannot see it.