Debate with Elizabeth Jones of UKIP – March 26th
- This topic has 39 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Surely we didn't do that!You say it's only a part, and maybe the part is more fully explained by the wider context of the debate.However, it strikes me as ill-conceived.Firstly, borders and nations are not the real problem, but are consequences of the real problem, which is private class ownership and control of the means of life under capitalism.Secondly, expletives are ineffectual for removing national borders. On the other hand, expletives are effectual in conveying to supporters of national borders just how ineffectual the opposition to them is.Thirdly, national borders will survive so long as national capital finds them indispensable to the needs of capital.Fourthly, capital is becoming increasingly globalized. It is conceivable that national capital could be consumed by global capital, which is far less concerned for the traditional niceties of borders and nations.Fifthly, capitalism could ultimately operate at a level that dispenses with current nations and borders, and so thereby solve for itself, by itself, in its own interests, without resorting to expletives, the problem of archaic local borders, by removing nations as antiquated baggage impeding capital. Global capital would then give us something bigger to swear at.Sixthly, legality is a capitalist category, and not a socialist one. In rational capitalist terms, foreign humans are illegal when a capitalist nation legislates and proclaims them to be illegal.If a capitalist nation considers that it must protect its national borders against entry by those it deems may threaten the interests of national capital, how else can national capital be expected to operate? By closing borders and controlling entry, national capital acts perfectly legally, since national capital ultimately decides what's nationally legal.In a nation, legality can only be changed by legislation, i.e. by reform.Surely we are not implying that national capital can afford to act humanely against its interest? If so, our socialist case is sunk. We have always argued that capital is inhuman by nature.Out of context, this banner reeks of indignation and reformism — We demand "Open our borders, legally", which is surely not the intention — indistinguishable from Left reformism.[By the way, "illegal" is spelt like this.]
Hmm?? Everything you say may be technically correct, TWC, but i'm beginning to think as Steve Colburn said on the other thread that you risk alienating your audience with your use of language and theoretical arguments. [who cares if its ilegal or illegal – the meaning is clear and it is demeaning to someone whose first language is probably not English and has also most likely been deprived of an education.]What's the use of being right if no-one can be bothered to listen?We do often demand legal reforms…democratic rights to assemble and protest, to have free speech, to write and publish what we wish, the legal right to organise in unions and to strike. Without these pre-requisites our capacity to struggle against capital or campaign for socialism is severely curtailed.Passports, visas, work permits, all relative recent inventions of capitalism, give the bosses greater powers over migrant workers than they have over native workers. Curbing mobility of workers is a means of social control. Borders trap workers. I would argue that the demand for no borders exposes the centrality of this control to capitalist social relations that are dependnt on exploitation and expropriation. The right of private property is to exclude others free access – to entry – while the anti nationalism of no borders re-shapes how we look upon the world that is not compatible with capitalism. We show that it "their" county, and not part of "our world". Part of our case is that borders territorialise us, make us subjects and economic assets to a specific capitalist class and set of employers.No Borders is our case against the nationalist view is that we are "rooted" to a particular part of the land, destined to be there, even.
I only said that this was part of our case against UKIP — the part which says that in a socialist world there will be no borders or "national" states.As a matter of fact one socialist in the audience did say, almost textually, that "we do not choose our colour, race or place of birth". Nobody said "fuck". We're a respectable lot.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What's the use of being right [i.e. correct] if no-one can be bothered to listen?So it’s better to be wrong [i.e. incorrect] and appeal to moral outrage.Moral outrage, for, is the twin of moral outrage, against. They both operate at the same emotional level.Have you ever met a bigot who wasn't morally outraged?Capitalism settles moral outrage by legislation, in the interests of capital, and not in any perceived interests of morality.The issue of capitalism’s self-inflicted “humanitarian” crises, and this is being perceived as such through the lens of moral indignation, conclusively proves that the socialist case is not a moral one, in the outraged sense appealed to.Moralizing over capitalism’s self-inflicted “humanitarian” problems leads to an impossible political morass under capitalism; intellectually theorizing against them descends into moral idiocy. We all finish up more tightly bound to what we fail to defeat.There is only one solution, which ALB says was the essence of the meeting.It is a pity the banner (which I confess is only a token) weakens the issue inside the hall.[Spelling was only a side issue.]
Capitalism “distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, they destroy the actual content of his labour by turning it into a torment; they alienate from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they deform the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital” Marx, Capital (my emphasis) He had one conversation where a man asked him who would clean the shoes under this new communist system, and Marx angrily snapped, “You should!” Nothing wrong with moral outrage at the system. So fuck capitalism and fuck the capitalist class. Fuck borders and frontiers. Fuck passports, visas and work permits. Fuck immigration laws. No striker is a criminal despite what the law may declare as illegal so fuck the bosses and fuck the employers. fuck the courts and fuck the judges.
twc wrote:It is a pity the banner (which I confess is only a token) weakens the issue inside the hall.[Spelling was only a side issue.]I hope you are not under the impression that it was our banner. Spelling is in fact the clue as "color" shows that it was done in North America (probably Canada) or even Australia (but I'm not sure how you spell "colour" down there, only that you've got a Labor Party).
More likely it is in the USA where there is a campaign going on to legalise those undocumented workers who the State deem to be illegal and who Obama wishes to also legitimise with n amnesty with plenty of caveats, of course, since he himself has deported more people than the last several Republican presidents as well as excluding those undocumented workers from his healthcare scheme.
ALB (1) wrote:Part of the case we put against UKIP yesterday evening:twc wrote:Surely we didn't do that!ALB (2) wrote:I hope you are not under the impression that it was our banner.Oh, that’s exactly how I did [mis]read quote ALB (1). Quote ALB (2) now makes complete SPGB sense.Sorry, I hadn’t appreciated that the SPGB debate had attracted such a crowd.
ALB,Please don't knock the spelling of our nation. We set high national standards in everything.Our nation re-introduced the imperial honour of knighthoods. Damnit, I knew Dame Edna wasn't a real one. [Last week]Our nation legislated expressly for the right to be a bigot. This overturns a politically inconvenient application of race vilification law. [Last week]Our nation's navy "turns back the boats" of refugees, pops the illegal immigrants into sealed orange life-craft, and sends those "unwanted" national invaders back to some-one-else's nation. [This year]I warn you, our Queen's representative, the new Governor General, is a military man! [Yesterday]And, surely, "U" realize that there's no YOU in "LABOR".
A poor quality short video of the UKIP debate has appeared on the UKIP participant’s youtube channel. The audio is awful, and there is an overlong introduction. The filming stops before the end of her 2nd contribution.However, a shorter, edited version can be watched/downloaded here -https://www.dropbox.com/s/tgb6ygu1s80qpw3/Elizabeth%20Jones%20UKIP%20v%20Bill%20Martin%20SPGB.aviThis is approx. 25 mins long and has a reduced intro; improved audio, (although it’s by no means perfect!); and it ends after both speakers have made their initial openings.The on-screen video is limited to 15 mins, but see the blue ‘Download’ button at the top right of the page. This enables you to hear/download the ‘full’ 25 mins video.A full audio version should be available shortly.
pfbcarlisle wrote:The audio is awful.This appears to be accuring more often than it ought to. I can see no reson for this. Even with cheap equipment it is simple to produce clear audio. Where was the mic placed? What sort of mic was used. Was there a small mixing desk between mic and recording device. The solution is simple and it should never happen.
The audio referred to here is not from our recording but is taken from the smartphone video that Elizabeth Jones made.Our audio file from the Zoom H2 recorder has reached me today and I’ll see what that has turned out like You’re right, though, that our recordings are often not as good as they could or should be. Either we don’t have the number of people trained and available, or we don’t have the right equipment. Most of these meetings are in London and we rely on Head Office having the bodies, the nous and the right gear. As far as I know we have no separate mic or mixing desk.
I apologise if I am stating the obvious but the mic http://www.shure.co.uk/products/microphones/sm58 should be close to the person speaking and be attached to a mixing desk with an audio output to a laptop or other recorder. Very good audio should result The recording can then be filtered through audio software to achieve a profes sional finish
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.