Migrants are our fellow workers

[alanjjohnstone]

"All sounds boringly familiar."Gnome, more likely it is Hrothgar under a new assumed name from this old threadhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaignThey both appear to be reading from the same script and possess the same high opinion of themselves. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"All sounds boringly familiar."Gnome, more likely it is Hrothgar under a new assumed name from this old thread

Yes, I think you're right but wasn't it suspected at the time that Hrothgar was yet another 'avatar' used by Rogers?

[Anonymous]

What is our legal position if the views expressed by this racist are illegal?

[alanjjohnstone]

Vin, you may find his views distasteful and be offended, but there is still the legal right to express such opinions. A recent court decion upholds an individual to similar opinions.  “The courts need to be very careful not to criticise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive…"I think we would all defend that principle, otherwise it could be so easily turned against ourselves. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/atheist-banned-criticising-islamic-faith?page=2 

[Bijou Drains]

The IQ intelligence argument comes up time and again. The IQ test itself is culturally biased in as much as those who devise the tests are generally based in one culture that measures intelligence within the cultural norms of that society. therefore, for example being able to correctly tessellate may be consider part of intelligence, as defined by the IQ test, the ability to relate to ones colleagues, empathise, or even the creative ability to make an object such as a pot. is not measurable on an IQ test. Our friend Ike who has an interesting blend of nationalism and socialism (can't help but think I've heard of that combination somewhere before), whilst dismissing IQ appears to want to base his argument on IQ. However even in this, he is looking in the wrong direction when trying to find the main factor in the development of intelligence, personality, language use, vocabulary, cognition, etc. Time and again studies have shown that the major factor in the development of not race or culture, but attachment.Studies of children with poor attachment styles have repeatedly shown that, in comparison with those with secure attachment , they have smaller and less well developed brains, that they have smaller vocabularies, they have less complex cognitions, etc. etc. This has also been shown to continue into adult life. (Dimitrijevik, Dimitirjevik and Marjanavic)Social class, race and culture have also repeatedly been shown to be a very minor factor in the development of secure relationships. can I suggest our noble correspondent Ike would be better off reading "the making and breaking of affectional bonds" by John Bowlby than his current booklist.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 I think we would all defend that principle, otherwise it could be so easily turned against ourselves.  

Of course.I was only concerned with the possibility of prosecution

[jondwhite]

So common ownership but only as far as Dover right? Does that include the Isle of Man or the Channel islands or Islas Malvinas? Or maybe include Europe, but then is it just Western Europe or all of Europe as far as the Urals? Do migrants depress wages or do capitalists? Am I more pleasantly exploited by a capitalist from one culture over another?

[Bijou Drains]

British Culture -Fish and Chips – JewishSt George – TurkishThe Royal family – GermanRock and Roll – African AmericanBeer – EgyptianTea drinking – ChineseNumerals – Hindu ArabicScript – LatinLanguage – Saxon, Celtic, French, Germanic, Greek, Latin, etc. etc. etc.Looking back on the history of the British Isles is looking back on a history of population movement, integration and cross fertilization of ideas. The idea of a single culture, held in aspic, whether that is white working class culture or any other culture is ridiculous. As a white working class Geordie, I have seen my culture change profoundly in the last 50 years; that in an area without high levels of immigration. Poss tubs, leek clubs, coop dividend, nit nurses, drinking Fed Special, proggy mats, whippets, etc. etc.Society is constantly changing, constantly adapting, constantly integrating, constantly innovating and a big part of that process has been due to multi cultural cross fertilization. No doubt the same would be the case in a Socialist Society.

[Anonymous]

Ike said: “It is 'leftist', not because of your 'facts' (which may or may not be true, right now I don't care), but because of the slant you put on it, that somehow history is this morality tale of injustice and oppression, and that I and other whites are to feel a deep sense of guilt and shame for our misappropriations and ill-gotten gains.  It's stupid.  History isn't like that.  If, as you claim, whites plundered wealth, that means whites were stronger and prevailed.  If whites capitalised and built on the innovations of others, while those other civilisations remained stagnant and regressed, that is not the fault of whites.”No, I am not saying you or I should feel “a deep sense of guilt and shame” or that what happened was the fault of “whites” (however you define this category).  You and I weren’t around at the time.  I am just saying this is what happened – that’s how Europeans all of a sudden got the wealth to be able to drive their inventions.  We both know that Europeans weren't the only ones in history who committed murder and plunder on a large scale.  Stop trying to allocate opinions to me that I do not have.Can I go back to one question you asked in one of your posts – that I should name at least one African civilization?  The Nubian/Egyptian civilizations spring to mind.  I already know that you won’t accept this.  Perhaps they were “whites” and our history books are all wrong?I am intrigued as to how you categorise your “races”.  Middle Easterners are “mixed”, so I assume in your view not quite as capable     as “whites”.  Karl Marx, being Jewish, was presumably “mixed” then – maybe a thoroughly “white” friend wrote “das Kapital” for him.The Human Genome Project came up with a number of somewhat above 20,000 genes for our species.  This could change, as they are still figuring out what much of the “junk” genome is for (much of it is turning out to be anything but "junk").  Anyway, exactly which of these 20,000 odd genes are you using for your categorisation of “races”?  If you are just using a very narrow band of visible traits, such as skin and eye colour, and possible hair texture and facial features, that still leaves several thousand genes that are not included in your categorisation.Take the gene for lactose tolerance/intolerance.  Humans who kept cattle and drank milk developed lactose tolerance.  It is high in Northern Europe, decreases somewhat towards Southern Europe.  Some African tribes, cattle herders, also developed lactose tolerance.  This tolerance is low in China and Japan; countries without a strong tradition of cattle herding.So, if you were going to use this particular gene to “group” various peoples together, you would have to lump North Europeans, the Masai tribespeople and others together…..  Do you see what I am getting at?  Go through the whole genome and you would get some very – for you, who, I assume, judge mainly on external traits (put me right if I'm wrong) –unexpected groupings.  How about grouping on alcohol tolerance?  Or blood groups?  Or the shape of the liver?

[SocialistPunk]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi Ike,Good to see a new face willing to get involved with discussion.I'm curious as to the quote by you I highlight in bold below. Are you referring to "racial" groups as a whole, or pockets of "racial" groups within specific environmental, economic, cultural situations?

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

the cultural differences that exist between human societies are down to the fact that different people have evolved in different places and have become identifiable as discrete and distinct racial groups, with some groups more intellectually capable than others.

I'm referring to both.  My starting point is that intelligence is too complex, subjective and multi-faceted to measure with fine precision and is in any case largely the result of genes interacting with environment.I can't take IQ fully seriously.  For me, the only serious measure of human group intelligence differences is what we see with our own eyes.  It's apparent that many non-white societies are not technical cultures and are essentialy stuck in the Bronze Age.  Others have bolted-on European systems and institutions (in effect, capitalism) to their societies, but are dysfunctional.  Lots of other comparative observations can be made.  So I do think it is possible to compare whole racial groups, yes.However, I think the most useful comparisons are smaller and I would suggest two models as a starting point:(i). Comparing different racial groups under the same environmental conditions.  A good example of this is European Americans and African-Americans.(ii). Comparing sub-groups of the same racial group in different environments.  A good example of this is African-Americans and black British. I hope I have answered your question.  I was very tired when I typed this.

Regarding (i) and (ii), what methods for comparison would you suggest?[edit] Thanks for getting back to me.

[alanjjohnstone]

Meel, there is a great ignorance of pre-colonial Africa. Many well organised societies existed. Our African themed blog Socialist Banner has occasionally drawn attention to them.

Quote:

The Mali Empire was a great African medieval kingdom that lasted over 400 years with its own schools of Mathematics,Astronomy and Philosophy. Sub-Sahara African empires had written languages just like any other. The Mali Empire was known for its high quality manuscripts, and the city of Timbuktu was a major learning center. Even as south as the Kongo and its Kingdom that rose had establish relations with Europe. Not to mention the Christian Ethiopia.

 http://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2014/02/african-history-2.htmlIt is often over-looked that the British simply used the existing administrative structures to impose and maintain their power. As always Wiki presents a good over-view of various empires in Africa and their accomplishmentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empireshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:States_of_precolonial_Africa

[robbo203]

Just a few random points on this threadIn response to Alan’s point Ike says:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

“Are you saying that British workers should not be allowed to defend their living standards?” Are you saying the English are not entitled to defend their standards from in-coming Welsh and Scots? That those in the Home Counties should not defend themselves from those Northerners new-comers. Should east-enders in London should now stop those from south London from re-locating.If we're talking about what happens in reality, then we're talking about 'British workers'.  You hypothesise a labour conflict between various sub-nationalities, but that is not a current issue, and I also made it clear why the issue of imported labour might be raised by trade unions when we discussed the Lithuanian workers, your example.  It's not a dislike of other nationalities, or any sort of racial bigotry, it is rather a reflection of the right of workers to defend their livelihood, living standards, families and way of life.  It seems to me that you sneer at all this from a metropolitan standpoint, and that would explain the irrelevancy of your Party, notwithstanding that you are theoretically correct about capitalism. 

 I find this riposte weak and unconvincing. It doesn’t really address the argument Alan raises at all which is why, if you are going to stop outsiders from entry ,do you stop at the boundaries of the nation state. What is it about boundaries of the nation state that makes it significant as a socio spatial entity? Why not oppose workers from the north of England or Scotland from relocating to southern England or vice versa. Or people from Devon relocating to Cornwall  (I lived in Cornwall for a while and knew a bunch of Cornish nationalists  whilst there).  Or West Londoners from taking jobs from East Londoners. Ike does not really answer this point  at all.Presumably the “theoretical correctness” of the Socialist Party includes its analysis of the nation state as a capitalist construct.  Yet here Ike is seeking to validate and reinforce the nation state as the organising principle of social life and by extension the capitalist ideology that underpins the nation state and its stratagem of divide and rule.  By identifying with the nation state in this way this can only have consequence of cutting across and undermining our class identification with fellow workers right across the world.  However you look at it, that is necessarily to work directly against the struggle to realise a world socialist society. Another point.  Ike says he is a socialist in sympathy with the goal of world socialism.  Let’s look at this.He talks in highly melodramatic terms of the negative impact of immigration on workers living standards. Actually the statistics refute his claims and I see Alan has beaten me to it in listing some sources which show Ike’s claims to be based on a gross exaggeration.  The impact is negligible and moreover he fails to take into account emigrationBut let’s look at this question from the perspective of world socialism. Imagine for a moment that we have just brought into being a global socialist society.  This society will have inherited to a great extent the spatial inequalities of capitalism. How would such a society deal with thus?I recall an article by the late comrade Hardy that was printed in the Socialist Standard many years ago  (I think it was a part of a series on the subject of Marx’s conception of socialism). Now I seem to remember Hardy suggesting somewhat controversially that , come the revolution, a substantial chunk of the working class in the West may well have to endure a short term fall in living standards to enable the rest of the world to catch up.  That idea stuck with me and I think there is something in it.  It’s part of the reason why I don’t agree with Vin wen he says the case for socialism is not based on morality but on material interests  I think it is necessarily both and the above illustrates neatly illustrates this very point.There is, in any case, lot there more to life than one’s “standard of living” – quality of life, for instance – and I for one would happily reduce my standard of living if it ensured a better quality of life.  This obsessive preoccupation with living standards is bound up to a large extent in my view with ethos if crass consumerism which I earnestly hope will disappear come socialism The point of my mentioning Hardy’s argument is that it hones in on what Ike is saying in a very direct way.  Ike is suggesting that workers should organise to protect their living standards by opposing immigration.  Quite apart from deflecting attention from what is the overwhelming and primary threat to their living standards  which is the constant downward pressure exerted by capital (which is amplified at times of capitalist crises), has Ike considered the implications of what he is saying here from the standpoint of a world socialist society? I think the persistence of such a nationalist perspective on the interest of workers which he seems to be calling for, would not only obstruct the realisation of a world socialist society but, were such a society to be realised, would fatally undermine it. It would set the stage for intolerable competitive tensions over the spatial distribution of resources. You cannot separate the end and the means to achieve that end.  The ethos of a socialist society has to be prefigured in the movement to bring about that society. Ike’s approach to this subject will not bring about socialism; it will entrench capitalism 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

I recall an article by the late comrade Hardy that was printed in the Socialist Standard many years ago  (I think it was a part of a series on the subject of Marx’s conception of socialism). Now I seem to remember Hardy suggesting somewhat controversially that , come the revolution, a substantial chunk of the working class in the West may well have to endure a short term fall in living standards to enable the rest of the world to catch up.  That idea stuck with me and I think there is something in it.  It’s part of the reason why I don’t agree with Vin wen he says the case for socialism is not based on morality but on material interests  I think it is necessarily both and the above illustrates neatly illustrates this very point.

It is possible that Hardy was correct then but not now. There will be no need for any cut in living standards. Workers suffering extreme poverty only need to be free from capitalism to rapidly increase their living standards.But even if we in the 'west' did have to lower our living standards briefly, how does that invalidate the Party's (and indeed that of Marx and Engels) claim that the case for socialism is based on the material interests of the working class? People all over the world and in poverty have material interests in common with mine.My interests are inextricably tied to all workers. If we wait for 'Morality' to bring about socialism, we will wait a very long time

[alanjjohnstone]

Oh, I could have provided many more facts and figures Robbo, but I got weary googling. After all, just like the history of Africa, the information is freely available on the internet for anyone who genuinely wishes to learn. A 2014 OECD report "Policy Challenges for the Next 50 Years" envisages an average annual growth rate up to 2060 of 3%. Paul Mason the ex-Channel 4 News economics editor and now Corbyn’s communications adviser comments in his book on post-capitalism:“To make the OECD's central growth scenario work, Europe and the USA have to absorb 50 million migrants each between now and 2060.” That's a million a year on average or 5 "millions" over 5 years. True, the OECD doesn't think that will happen but then neither will growth which, of course, depends on using more and more labour. On the other hand, if the capitalist economy does grow at that rate then millions of migrants will be pulled in, regardless of what the anti-immigration lobby might want.Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit explained that something like a quarter of a million Poles entered the UK. However, recorded unemployment rates went down between 2003 and 2005, and recorded vacancy rates actually went up slightly. The data would suggest that they weren’t taking the jobs of Brit. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small.As I said Europe’s population is ageing and, in many countries, shrinking If it weren’t for migration, the EU’s working-age population would already be shrinking. Last year, deaths exceeded births in both Greece and Italy – where the vast majority of the migrants arrived – and in Germany, where the largest number end up. Like that of the UK, Germany’s economy is creating jobs faster than the natives can fill them. And it’s not just about the number of people or workers – migrants can bring new ideas and new dynamism to an economy, something many European countries sorely need. I saw a report where someone was complaining that refugees that were being rescued were all professional occupations  but of course they will be banned from taking up employment and contributing until they get their residency approved. Yet countries are about to demand refugees hand over their valuables to pay for the expense of housing them, just as many of the people-smugglers also do. Next, I am sure these governments will be starting to extract asylum-seekers gold teeth from their mouths.  There are more than six million foreign-born workers in Britain, accounting for one in seven of all in employment, according to Oxford University’s Migration Observatory. They make up more than a third of workers in food and clothing manufacturing, and more than a quarter of warehouse workers. And 31 per cent of cleaners and people working in food preparation and hospitality – ranging from butchers to cooks and bar managers – are migrant workers. Around 30 per cent of NHS doctors, and 40 per cent of nurses, are from overseas. One in five of carers are foreign workers, and tens of thousands of migrants work as fruit and vegetable pickers. Is there really a rational case for sending such numbers home?I have no doubt those statistics will be ignored or challenged Robbo. People with prejudiced ideas will prefer their own figures. In November Cameron claimed that 43 per cent of EU migrants claimed benefits in the UK within four years of arrival – but provided no source or visible working for his claim. The UK Statistics Authority castigated the Government over Cameron’s citation of questionable figures purporting to show how many European Union migrants claim benefits in the UK. The UK Statistics Authority accused the Government of avoiding scrutiny by withholding key sources and calculations that could have led to the figures being debunked before yesterday’s headlines were written. It said the way in which the figures were disclosed was 'unsatisfactory' and prevented effective scrutiny. When Cameron make such claims out of context, it is understandable that people will misinterpret that "work-shy scroungers". But actually the benefit they are receiving most is tax credits because most are working and doing so in low-paid jobs. Incidentally, there is nothing stopping Cameron barring non-EU migrants receiving tax credits, eg Filipino nurses, so why doesn't he do it?Of course we have those who say we are full-up and we should house our own homeless…charity begins at home, eh? But nothing is done about the 600,000 empty houses in the UK and the number of holiday homes. There were no refugees competing for accommodation when the Welsh nationalists drew attention to homeless Welsh by giving those who bought second homes in Wales a warm welcome. Of course the other option if we are to assume a population growth and to create employment for everybody is what happened in the 50s and 60s …start building new towns. There is no denying that there is pressure on infrastructure like local schools and local hospitals. Rather than the earlier policy of closing them down, let’s build new ones. All those extra willing workers should make it accomplishable.Another fact overlooked in the half-hearted response to people drowning at sea and being exploited by people-traffickers is simply remove the airline regulation that forbids them flying people without the proper papers and have well-organised social services to greet them on arrival at the airports. Also nobody would pay in excess of 1.000 euros per head for a life-endangering boat journey across the Mediterranean if they could apply for their papers and permits abroad and pay 200 euros for a commercial flight to their destination of choice.There is no immigration problem. There is a problem of poverty and inequality, wars and civil wars, but most of all, a problem of an economic system that render the lives of many people in the world unsustainable, sentencing many to misery and suffering. Anybody can become a refugee. Rich or poor, black or white, male or female, adult or a child. There can never be absolute safety in this capitalist world. By the Grace of God, go I, according to the saying. Only a few decades ago, the Irish Republic were preparing to set up refugee camps for displaced British citizens, the Northern Irish Catholics, who were being burned out of their homes in a civil war. Lastly, another thing often overlooked is that immigrants support the families in the countries they have come from, lessening the need for foreign aid. Migrants living in Europe Of the total remittances sent by migrants living in Europe, about one-third (36.5 billion dollars) remained within 19 countries in Europe, while two-thirds (72.9 billion dollars) were received by poor families in over 50 developing countries outside Europe.Today, some 250 million migrants live and work around the world, and in the coming months and years many more will certainly join them. It is time to accept that the ebb and flow of human movement cannot be stopped. Destination countries – whether in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia, or Oceania – should not turn their back on the desperate and wretched. It is important that we accept the fact that efforts to block migration are bound to fail, with disastrous consequences for human lives – whether they are lost on sinking boats in the Mediterranean and the Andaman Sea or threatened by xenophobic violence in South Africa, India, or elsewhere. Those migrating today are doing so for the same reasons that once spurred millions of Europeans to leave their countries. They are fleeing poverty, war, or oppression, or are searching for a better life in a new land. All too often, migrants are used as scapegoats but to be sure, immigrants must accept to adapt to the cultures and customs of the countries in which they settle.The Socialist Party is the only party based on the common interests of the world working class. It is aimed at forging a united movement of workers of every country.

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

It is possible that Hardy was correct then but not now. There will be no need for any cut in living standards. Workers suffering extreme poverty only need to be free from capitalism to rapidly increase their living standards.But even if we in the 'west' did have to lower our living standards briefly, how does that invalidate the Party's (and indeed that of Marx and Engels) claim that the case for socialism is based on the material interests of the working class? People all over the world and in poverty have material interests in common with mine.My interests are inextricably tied to all workers. If we wait for 'Morality' to bring about socialism, we will wait a very long time

Hi VinIm not too sure that Hardy's view would be incorrect now.  Could you substantiate this claim? I think in the early days of socialism there will indeed be a need to redirect resources to areas of the world where current living conditions of most people is pretty appaling and that this will necessitate some self restraint and reduced consumption levels on the part of workers living in areas that are much more favourably endowed.  I honestly cant see any way round this but nor do I see it as presenting a problem.  I believe people would be willing to assist  in this way as part of the caring ethos of socialism and, as I said before, there is a lot more to life than one's standard of livingAlso I am not suggesting the argument that socialism is based on material interests is invalid.  Of course material interests are involved  But the case for socialism is also based on morality – necessarily.  Indeed , I would argue that  the very concept of class consciousness is itself an implicitly moral concept. That is to say, you consider the wellbeing of others (fellow workers in this instance) as having value in itself.  That is a moral position, by definition.  If on the other you take what is called an "instrumentalist" view of others, seeing them as merely a means to your own end then I would suggest this would  seriously subvert the very reason for wanting to work for socialism.  It would be more profitable for you to redirect your efforts into becoming a rich capitalist (which would certainly be in your in your material interests as an individual!)So no, socialism is about both "morality" in this broad sense and "material interests" and I think these thing would nicely complement each other in the way a socialist world would tackle the enormous structural problem of spatial inequalities inherited from capitalism.  Over time this will diminish but it aint gonna happen overnight

[Author]

Posts