As a Socialist, should I oppose immigration or not?
- This topic has 58 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi, new here, and I'm not 100% clear on the immigration issue.
first off I'm sure I am a socialist, yet I believe that immigration, unchecked, must surely lower wages and decrease quality of working conditions?
Is that right, because that seems to be at odds with current socialist thinking.
what is the stance here, especially that of the Socialist Party UK.??
thanks
Well, it's not immigrants or immigation that lowers wages: it's employers. As socialists we stand in solidarity with our fellow workers, without distinction of nation, race or sex, and see the successful resolution of the class struggle as the only way to address the poverty our class suffers. We can't let the employers divide us and play us off one against the other. If we organise in unions, and politically, we can fight back.
I'm not even sure "immigrants" is a meaningful term given the spurious basis on which "nations" are defined.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, it's not immigrants or immigation that lowers wages: it's employers. As socialists we stand in solidarity with our fellow workers, without distinction of nation, race or sex, and see the successful resolution of the class struggle as the only way to address the poverty our class suffers. We can't let the employers divide us and play us off one against the other. If we organise in unions, and politically, we can fight back.Well, isn't this just the same thing though?Employers set low wages and poor conditions BECAUSE the mass immigration allows them to do so.Restrict immigration to reasonable levels and wages will be forced up, due to the under-supply of workers.Surely that would be a good thing?
See these blog posts. http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration So do you suggest that women , young single people, senior citizens, rural to urban migration, city to city migration, be ended for all these have also been means of cutting wages. If unable to lower wages , the capitalist will out-source work, or if wages still remain high, introduce labour-saving technology. He will also de-skill whereever he can. The times that workers have the advantage and upper-hand are seldom and always temporary. That's why the system has to go!
wiscalatus wrote:Employers set low wages and poor conditions BECAUSE the mass immigration allows them to do so.No, 'immigration' does not allow this.What 'allows' it is two things:1. the market;2. if we accept the 'market' as a given, then our failure to compel employers to pay immigrants the same wages and conditions.
wiscalatus wrote:first off I'm sure I am a socialist, yet I believe that immigration, unchecked, must surely lower wages and decrease quality of working conditions?Is that right, because that seems to be at odds with current socialist thinking.By 'socialist', do you mean someone who wants to remove the market and replace it with free access communism? That's the 'current socialist thinking', here.If not, you need to clarify your meaning of 'socialist', comrade.
wiscalatus wrote:Well, isn't this just the same thing though?Employers set low wages and poor conditions BECAUSE the mass immigration allows them to do so.Restrict immigration to reasonable levels and wages will be forced up, due to the under-supply of workers.Surely that would be a good thing?Well, if you use immigration controls to raise wages in one area, the number of available workers doesn't change, so you'll just be condemning workers in 'the other country' to poverty. the point is that solidarity against the employers is in the inetrest of workers as workers, and the fault lies with the employers fair and square so we should have no truck with punishing or excluding our fellows.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If unable to lower wages , the capitalist will out-source work, or if wages still remain high, introduce labour-saving technology. He will also de-skill whereever he can.Work was already being outsourced way before the new immigrants arrived (from EU).Labour saving tech already introduced eons back.How do you mean the employer will 'de-skill'?
LBird wrote:What 'allows' it is two things:1. the market;2. if we accept the 'market' as a given, then our failure to compel employers to pay immigrants the same wages and conditions.By 'socialist', do you mean someone who wants to remove the market and replace it with free access communism? That's the 'current socialist thinking', here.If not, you need to clarify your meaning of 'socialist', comrade.What the heck is 'free access' communism?But as to your point number 2, why should we accept the market as a given?The supposedly 'free market' is what needs to be smashed as this is what gives employers their unequal power.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, if you use immigration controls to raise wages in one area, the number of available workers doesn't change, so yopu'll just be condemning workers in 'the oterh country' to poverty. the point is that solidarity against the employers is in the inetrest of workers as workers, and the fault lies with the employers fair and square so we should have no truck with punishing or excluding our fellows.Can't we just have the workers moving freely from one socialist state to another, but keep the outsiders out, so as to disempower the bosses? Agreed, the fault lies with the employers, but why play into their hands.The machinery of the state, infrastructure etc must all be nationalised.That's my view anyhow – so where does this fit in, what kind of political animal am I? cheers
wiscalatus wrote:What the heck is 'free access' communism?The simplest explanation is 'no money'. Thus, 'no market'.
wiscalatus wrote:The supposedly 'free market' is what needs to be smashed as this is what gives employers their unequal power.This 'smashing' still leaves the possibility of a 'controlled market' which requires money.It's not the 'free market', but the smashing of any market, that is required.
wiscalatus wrote:The machinery of the state, infrastructure etc must all be nationalised.No, communism is internationalist. It means the smashing of all nation-states.Communism is democratic, so there can't be a 'state', which is a body controlled by minorities.No state, no nationalisation. World democracy, control of the planet's productive resources by everybody. No private productive property.
Perhaps one day, that may be possible, but for now we must deal with the immigration issue.Let's say we open the borders to the whole world, then what will stop millions of people from the developing world coming to the EU/UK?Most of these people will just come here for the jobs and money, and probably haven't the first clue about socialism.So how will that remotely benefit the working class here?
How can 1 million, unskilled, and penniless immigrants benefit the host nation?And for those that do earn wages, much of that money is sent back to their own countries.How does that benefit the host nation?
alanjjohnstone wrote:So do you suggest that women , young single people, senior citizens, rural to urban migration, city to city migration, be ended for all these have also been means of cutting wages.If they are from the UK originally then they are not adding an additional supply of workers.
wiscalatus, I think that you're a troll.You've stopped discussing with us, and developing your argument from the new information that you've been given, and are now merely repeating right-wing myths.You're still mentioning 'money', when you've already been put straight on that. No money. No nations, host or otherwise.As for 'immigrants' not having a clue about socialism, those who live in glass houses…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.