As a Socialist, should I oppose immigration or not?
- This topic has 58 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
next questions:Unemployment has increased over the last decade, so how has immigration helped here?I used to easily get work, building,plumbing,call centres etc.. now – no chance! How has that benefitted me or those in a similar situation?Zero hours – easy for the bosses to dicatate now as there are so many people available for work, so how does that help the worker?
LBird wrote: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…Not a troll at all, just wanting some answers, perhaps I need the 'right wing myths' debunking.Can you do that?
Since competition between workers causes wages to fall and that this competition is heightened during periods of slump – there are more unemployed workers looking for work. I propose the following solution:A periodic cull of the unemployed.This simple and effective remedy will help to raise the price of labour power since wage workers will now be in shorter supply and the competition between capitalists to hire these workers will result in them attempting to outbid each other on the labour market.Of course I jest but this is our friends argument taken to it's most extreme.What the socialist party proposes instead is the abolition of the social and economic conditions that make unemployment and low wages a problem in the first place.Our position is outside what may be encountered in banal day to day conversation and may appear somewhat bewildering at first to those who have not encountered it before.Here's a couple of pamphlets which are hopefully a good introduction to our position, as is the FAQ section of this website.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-livehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeThese can also be bought cheaply from our online store.If you really are serious about socialism you would do well to read them…
You have to always keep a historical perspective on capitalism. All those sections of the work-force i mentioned have been introduced to maintain low wages. The % of women who worked in the 50s and 60s has risen considerably, for instance and it was only after long battles have many received equal pay as men. Certain retailers seek out older retired workers as do some fast food companies younger workers since these people have less dependents and therefore will accept less remuneration. They are also more compliant and flexible Outsourcing may have been implemented years ago but it will still go on and vary in intensity. Already there is a drift to in-sourcing because wage levels in the US has dropped and some jobs are returning… Another tactic within the US is to move work from strongly unionised, high pay states to the so-called Right to Work states, most in the poor South. Use the threat of unemployment to scare workers into accepting low pay. Again nothing to do with immigration. De-skilling is when a job has a certain amount of qualification and training needed which makes pay rates high. Technology or simple division of labour turns these jobs into semi- or unskilled which means less pay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deskilling You mentioned zero hour contract and i will add part time and temporary casual work as other means of controlling wages, none of which was instigated by migrant workers. Do you accuse two part-timers of stealing your job? The solution is to defend full time jobs, not demand dismissals of part-timers. Many capitalists will support the long term import of labour for demographical reasons. With an aging population and less workers supporting retired workers, a fresh supply of younger workers benefit the future economy. The agricultural/food processing industry both in the UK and US depend on th influx of low pay workers. You seem to wish to blame the victim. Countries that are suffering from the effects of global capitalism provide what Marx calls the reserve army of the unemployed. They suffer the worse working conditions in the worse of jobs with the worse protection and despite the propaganda are denied many of the welfare benefits of native workers. There is no solution within capitalism for the tendency of it to cut pay, but one counter measure to lessen the effect is industrial organisation of the working class. Recruit the new arrivals, defend them and demand equal rights and benefits. It takes time but again to look back at history, it was the only successful way of countering capitalism divide and rule tactics. It's an old story, constantly used, only difference is those it happens to be aimed at…the Chinese and Japanese "coolies"of the 19th C , the Irish and the Eastern European Jew, the South Asians of India and Pakistan, the Mexicans…the Poles…same old story, same old lies re-told. Keep us at one another's throats and the rich are laughing all the way to their bailed-out bank.
wiscalatus wrote:LBird wrote: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…Not a troll at all, just wanting some answers, perhaps I need the 'right wing myths' debunking.Can you do that?
No, only you can 'do that'.The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.As a concrete suggestion, I'd go back to page 1 and engage with what posters have already said to you. If you disagree, fine: make your point with reasoned argument, and posters will develop and deepen their explanations for you.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Certain retailers seek out older retired workers as do some fast food companies younger workers since these people have less dependents and therefore will accept less remuneration. They are also more compliant and flexibleFirst off, older workers and youth are protected by min wage laws – so where do you get the 'less renumeration' idea?'More compliant and flexible' does hit the nail on the head though, and that is exactly the benefit that the new immigrant gives to the boss.Far easier to control and fire an immigrant because he has a far weaker support base, is likely to be more desperate for funds, and is ultimately way more exploitable.This clearly puts the local worker at a disadvantage and he must accept the race to the bottom or end up jobless and homeless.Hardly a great situation for the native worker or immigtant, yet a day in the sun for the capitalist!
alanjjohnstone wrote:You mentioned zero hour contract and i will add part time and temporary casual work as other means of controlling wages, none of which was instigated by migrant workers. Do you accuse two part-timers of stealing your job? The solution is to defend full time jobs, not demand dismissals of part-timers. You seem to wish to blame the victim. Countries that are suffering from the effects of global capitalism provide what Marx calls the reserve army of the unemployed. They suffer the worse working conditions in the worse of jobs with the worse protection and despite the propaganda are denied many of the welfare benefits of native workers.I'm not blaming the immigrant at all, and agree with you here that it is the fault of the system.But the system which allows unchecked mass immigration causes detriment to the native worker, without a doubt.No one has yet answered my other questions: namely – why is there so much more unemployment now, and why should I now be out of work because someone else is prepared to do it for one third of the wage? 2 part time jobs is the same as one full time job, so no, I would not demand the dismissal of those PT workers.But adding and extra 2 workers to the equation is not the same, and this is what is happening with mass immigration of unskilled workers.
alanjjohnstone wrote:There is no solution within capitalism for the tendency of it to cut pay, but one counter measure to lessen the effect is industrial organisation of the working class. Recruit the new arrivals, defend them and demand equal rights and benefits. It takes time but again to look back at history, it was the only successful way of countering capitalism divide and rule tactics. It's an old story, constantly used, only difference is those it happens to be aimed at…the Chinese and Japanese "coolies"of the 19th C , the Irish and the Eastern European Jew, the South Asians of India and Pakistan, the Mexicans…the Poles…same old story, same old lies re-told. Keep us at one another's throats and the rich are laughing all the way to their bailed-out bank.Sounds like the 'Diversity Illusion' to me.New arrivals generally do not come for purposes of solidarity, rather, they come to earn money for their families etc.Now, why would UK taxpayers be so willing to support these people if they are out of work, and why would a native working class local be so prepared to fight for the newcomer's rights, when they do not share a common history or culture?This just leads to an 'everyone for themselves, or at least 'everyone for their own in-group' mentality' – a system perfect for dividing the working class (as you have already mentioned), and the breeding of conservatism.This is playing straight into the hands of the capitalist bosses!
LBird wrote:The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.1. Done that already2. That is what I am doing, but getting few answers!3. Doing that if you hadn't noticed.
wiscalatus wrote:LBird wrote:The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.1. Done that already2. That is what I am doing, but getting few answers!3. Doing that if you hadn't noticed.
No, I hadn't noticed. I'll leave you now to your 'activities', which will be defined by other posters.
wiscalatus wrote:So that is your way of having a 'political discussion'?? Head in the sand more-like!Yes, I'm a 'head-in-the-sand-ist'.I still find it a position, though, which is an advance on the 'head-up-the-own-arse-ist'.
wiscalatus wrote:No one has yet answered my other questions: namely – why is there so much more unemployment now, and why should I now be out of work because someone else is prepared to do it for one third of the wage?Why are people employed in the first place? Only because someone can make a profit can be made from employing them. When there is a lack of profitable avenues, as is the situation now, workers are laid off since there is no money to be made from employing them.You would do better to look at systemic causes rather than blaming those who have been made desperate enough to work for low wages…
Quote:Now, why would UK taxpayers be so willing to support these people if they are out of work, and why would a native working class local be so prepared to fight for the newcomer's rights, when they do not share a common history or culture?Because, they are human beings: that is the common heritage. I have as much in common with a worker in Peru as I do with a worker from Liverpool. That is, the worker in Liverpool is someone I have not met, will never meet, is not related to me, is not related to anyone I know. I have more in common with a Peruvian worker than I ever will with a British capitalist: they are a worker, someone who has nothing but their ability to work in order to live.Unemployment is caused by employers. Put another way, levelsof employment are a dependent variable, based on the amount of capital invested, and nothing to do with the numbers of workers available.We can see this clearly. Imagine if people were willing to work for zero wages, would all available labour be employed? The answer is no: all employments require at least some consumable capital invested. The owners of capital will not invest unless they are going to make a profit from their investment. So, even working for free, people would go unhired.Immigration is a non-issue, capitalists cause unemployment.
I may have lost track of this topic, but assuming a steady level of migration (hasn't immigration gone down since the recession?) and outsourcing, how is it when an economic recession hits, that unemployment goes up by orders of magnitude greater than immigration and outsourcing, almost as much as labour discipline gets imposed on workers by an eager ruling class who sees an opportunity to bolster the myth we need to 'tighten our belts' because we're 'all in this together'. Well yes, workers globally are affected adversely by the recession in a way newish to the 21st Century.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.