Arguing With A Labourite ;)

I have been having a discussion with a really good friend of mine on Facebook and our posts were getting slightly too long for comments on a status update so I’m replying on here.

“****, if all the Anarchists in the country voted, they may have a say but right now you are taken about as seriously as Goths or any other teen sub-culture.”

For starters anarchism isn’t a “teen sub-culture” any more than socialism, communism or any other social system or ideology is. Is capitalism a teen sub-culture? By saying that you shit all over the memory of the thousands upon thousands who have fought tooth and nail for their class. Is it for a teen-subculture that workers all over the world celebrate May Day? Was it that same teen sub-culture that won the 8 hour day? That liberated Paris from the Nazi’s? (The first tanks into Paris were manned by Spanish anarchists) That crushed the Poll Tax and brought down Thatcher? (The anti-Poll Tax campaign was started by the Edinburgh Anarchist Group) Was it these teen sub-culturalists who gave their lives in their thousands to resist fascism in Spain?

When you say that anarchists don’t have a say as they don’t vote I put it to you that the act of voting in a representative democracy is the antithesis of ‘having a say’. It is the epitome of political apathy, The abdication of political authority to another party shows a lack of both political engagement and intellectual laziness. Not bothering with doing the hard work those who vote simply allow others to do so giving them carte blanche to do as they see fit.

As I said on FaceSpace; anarchists are taken seriously by the people we struggle alongside and that’s what matters.

“You don’t vote so you don’t matter. Chavs are more highly respected because at least SOME of them bother to vote. I realise it’s a choice between John Jackson and Jack Johnson but your revolution is NEVER going to happen. Talk to anyone born in the 1960s and earlier. They will tell you people once had to decide between feeding their children and paying a doctor. That shit was stopped by Labour. People used to gather coal in the streets to heat their houses and social mobility was about zero. We’ve come a long way. Revolution is impossible unless the masses feel under threat and there really is no reason to feel so bad about our world. It’s not that bad. If you think we have oppression, live somewhere else. Anywhere is worse than here… except Holland.”

By your logic most of the people in Britain don’t matter as they have voted with their feet by not voting, are disenfranchised due to either housing or immigration status, by age or through being incarcerated. I on the other hand think that all of my class deserves a say in how their communities are and how their workplace operates. This is not achieved through abdicating responsibility to someone who has no connection to your community. This is done through real politics on a community level.

You say a revolution is NEVER going to happen. Where did you get your crystal ball? I suppose the Tsar though the revolution was never going to happen.

Social mobility has been increasing in this country aye, but that’s downward social mobility! Social mobility has never been zero in the UK over the last century but it has changed over time. (see image below) Hardly a sign of an advancing society. People today work more hours for less money and enjoy a lower standard of life than they did 50 years ago. Britain also ranks as one of the countries with the lowest quality of life in Europe.


“Immigration does need to be monitored and controlled. You can’t maintain a single culture with unchecked migration. What is Britain and British would be destroyed. Controlled migration with generous asylum laws are the best you could hope for without being swamped by several Billion people who would prefer to live here. If you don’t want to protect any part of our culture I have to ask why? Do you not like yourself? Your family and friends? What is so awful about society?”

First off, I think you need to take a step back and reread what you have written here. The argument you are posing is exactly the same as the argument used by the BNP and by UKIP. I’ll take a bit of time here to address your points one at a time. Sorry if this gets lengthy but the misapprehensions you are working with are frighteningly prevalent throughout society. I’ll look at the specifics of immigration and then at culture, community and the sense of self.

You say immigration needs to be controlled otherwise Britain would be swamped by “several billion people who would prefer to live here”. You say I have a penchant for the dramatic. O_o You do realise that there are only 6 billion people on the planet aye and that a migration of several, which I take to mean three or more, billion people would be an event on a scale that this world has never seen. Surely just to witness this fantastic migration is a reason enough to drop immigration controls!

You have to ask yourself a number of things. Firstly why would these people want to leave their friends, families and communities to move to the other side of the world to a country where they will be despised by racists and used as a political football by politicians? I have to wonder if you have met many immigrants or refugees. I think if you had you would find that most people don’t want to be here at all but are driven here by circumstance, either economic of fleeing persecution. Economic migrants tend to move to a country for only a limited time to either save cash or send cash home for a while. They don’t want to live here.

You have to ask yourself what would drive you to move to the other side of the world, to somewhere you may have, at best, a rudimentary grasp of the language. Were your situation to be such that seemed the only option to you how would you like your host country to treat you?

Immigration controls don’t serve to protect culture, something I’ll come to in a moment, but to manage the flow of labour. Immigrant labour is used by the ruling class to keep wages low and as a means of keeping workers struggling amongst themselves rather than realising that they have more in common with the migrant labour than the people they work for. A great way of ensuring the working class does not become conscious of its economic power.

Right now onto culture. *takes deep breath*

Culture as defined in national terms doesn’t exist. Culture and cultures do exist but they can and do traverse national and geographic boundaries. Differences between cultures do not change abruptly because of a border set down in 1945 nor even because of geographical boundaries. Despite all attempts over the last century to stop them people move around the world, whether from town to town, island to island or region to region. They take their culture with them and then adopt some of the cultures they move into/through. They also impart their culture to the places they move.

Just to use Britain as an example. A staple of the British diet is now the curry. A dish introduced in the 60’s/70’s and now more popular than fish and chips or a roast dinner. Curry and chips is an example of how cultures feed into one another. Or hummous, an exotic side that you would be hard pressed to not find in a supermarket. The word ‘mush’ is another fine example. It’s a Romani word meaning ‘man’ that is now commonly used as a greeting in parts of Britain. So to describe British culture you also have to describe the culture of every person who has ever come to this island and every person that has left and then returned. It is this evolutionary nature of cultures that give them their vibrancy.

Migration controls are probably the worst thing that can happen to human cultures. By stimmying the flow of people we defy our cultures of new influences that lead to them developing. Without new influences the cultural gene pool will dry up and we will be left with nothing but a parody of a culture that never existed in the first place.

I’ll just say something on the notion of ‘Britishness’. What would you say defines Britishness? Pragmatism? A sense of fair play? Liberalism? I’m sure that if you asked any person from anywhere what they thought defined their national characteristics you would get a very similar answer.

You ask “Do you not like yourself?” as if a realisation that cultures are not defined by national borders or presumed identities means I lack a sense of self. My self identity is developed, as is yours and everyone else’s, from experiences not from some mythical national culture. I do not identify as ‘British’. British, or Welsh, Scottish or Irish, is merely a geographical description and implies little about anything which necessarily defines a person. The existence of a shared culture does influence the way a persons sense of self develops true but it is a localised culture not a national culture that influences this development of self. Everything from neighbours, family, friends through mass media, school, forms a part of that culture and that varies across short distances due to the different people participating in this local culture. These localised cultures feed into one another but at no point do they form a homogeneous mass culture.

“You have a penchant for the dramatic. By “snatched from their beds by thugs” I take it you mean people who were breaking the law, living here illegally. And by thugs you mean the highly trained police who protect the weak and infirm from lazy, greedy, dangerous criminals. You claim society protects the privilege of the wealthy from the poor but it also protects the physically weak from the strong. Without society and police, the weak, sick or old but smart would be at the mercy of the brute. Just like they were before society was created.”

I’m not being dramatic here. Families, as in small children and babies – can they be criminals – who are snatched form their beds by thugs. They haven’t committed any crimes, nothing they have done is illegal. All that has happened is that their asylum claim has been refused. The home office refuses over 80% of cases regardless of the actualities of the case. It’s also not police who carry out the raids but Home office officials who are about as trained as a security guard at Sainsbury’s.

I say again. These are families that are being raided before dawn and being dragged screaming to camps for the ‘crime’ of being in Britain. I was recently at the court case of a woman accused of assaulting seven HO agents when they came to remove her and her small child. One woman, on her own who was also seven months pregnant.

What had actually happened was she was gang raped by soldiers in her country of origin, the result of which was her fist child. So when uniformed thugs kicked her door in she flashed back to the event and grabbed a knife. She didn’t wield it at the agents though. She put it to her belly to kill herself rather than go through the brutal ordeal she had been put through in her home country. She was also charged with breach of the peace for screaming and beating her head bloody against the wall of her cell. The jury of course found her not guilty. She was later granted refugee status on account of the merits of her case. She was however in the category of ‘living here illegally’ due to the way that the Home Office deals with asylum cases.

If you want I could give you a list of the people that have been driven to suicide, self harm and self immolation by the Home Office. The Home Office enacting policies brought in by the Labour party I may add.

You’re also conflating state with society here. The two things are not the same and society does not rely on the state, the state does however reply upon society. Society does not require the state. We had societies before we had states and society doesn’t cease to function in the absence of the state. We live most of our lives in absence of the state after all, well at the moment any way.

My argument against the state is, at its simplest, that any state is a system for ensuring a minority have control over society. In place of a state I would argue, again at its simplest for a federation of community and workplace councils operating with a system of instantly recallable mandated delegates for inter council work. I’m not against the state because I’m against society. I’m against the state as it stifles society and ensures that only the few get the benefits of communal labour.

You’re right that the state protects the weak from the (potentially)strong. It protects the parasitical ruling class from the working class.

“Why take 10 steps back in social evolution? We have never cared so much in history as we do today. There has never been so little starvation in this country as there is today. Admittedly the same is not true of other countries and that is often our doing. But it always has been. Governments look after their own people as parents look after their own children first. It’s perfectly normal and to be expected. But now for the first time in history, average people want to see compassion from our leaders.”

To do away with the state is not to take steps backwards but to surge forwards. Without both capitalism and the state human society, on a global scale, would advance rapidly. Science freed from the chains of competition and a capitalist economy would be able to focus on things that advance society and increase the quality of life for all people rather than the profit margins of corporations.

You say we have never cared so much. Have you forgotten the Ethiopian ‘famine’. People gave in their millions and that was under Thatcher. People are empathic, social creatures. If there is a way we can alleviate the suffering of others then we will, in general, do so.

On the matter of leaders being generous. Have a look into how much of the money governments pledged to the Tsunami relief fund back in 2004/5 actually materialised.. You’ll be surprised.


“We are not where we want to be, but we have been moving in the right direction for decades. Anarchy would take us back to the start. Or worse, leave us at the mercy of a worse empire like the Chinese or Russians. You think you have no freedom now, just wait until you find it illegal to have spiky long hair or listen to rock music. Then you’ll beg for the freedom allowed to you today. You have the freedom to decent, criticize the government and not get tortured for the privilege.”

In what way would anarchy take us back to the start? Anarchy is not chaos and disorder, to be honest capitalism does that on a grand scale, but a different system of social organisation that ensures all share in the wealth of our communal labour rather than only a parasitic minority. Anarchy is communism as well as a means of getting to communism without going down the road of dictatorship and gulags.

I’ve never said we have no freedom now. What I have said is that this freedom is severely curtailed in that we are forced into often meaningless, and so very often demeaning, labour simply to be able to survive and to provide for our families. Our freedom is curtailed in the way that the world is divided up by nation states working for the benefit of a tiny minority.

I could go on but I’ll wait for your reply.



Advertisements

Posted on April 17, 2010, in Culture. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. I would have put so much more work into this reply but I’m off work for a very short amount of time.

    What does May Day have to do with Anarchism? It predates that movement by hundreds of years! It’s a pagan festival celebrated all over the world long before the invention of your movement. I also have no idea what you mean about the 8 hour day and liberating Paris. Except to say that you are possibly attributing things accomplished by Communists and Socialists to Anarchists.

    The majority do vote. Apart from in the Welsh Assembly elections but devolution is a joke here anyway. And not voting isn’t ever seen as a vote for “none of the above, the system doesn’t work” all it says is “I don’t care.” That is why no-one in politics takes non-voters seriously.

    I say the revolution is not going to happen any time soon because the only reason people ever rebel is when life becomes unbearable. Without starvation, torture and depravation, people will play it safe and support the status quo.

    As for Britishness, I’ve lived abroad and there is a difference. It is true that working class Europeans probably do have more in common than a working class Brit and a toff Brit from Eton. I’ll give you that. What I was referring to is, in effect, our freedom to have this argument. Without immigration controls, we would be a minority very quickly. You’ve studied history, what do you notice happens to minorities?

    You say this wouldn’t happen or that it wouldn’t matter if it did? You, yourself give reasons why it would happen. People come here because they think it is better, safer, more tolerant. They come to avoid persecution and torture, to have freedom of speech. As soon as we let everyone come here who wants all those things, we won’t have them any longer. You think our government is harsh, try living in Saudi Arabia, China, Iran or even America. We enjoy hundreds of times more freedoms than the people of any of those countries.

    You tell some sad stories of the plight of individuals. The sad truth is, horrible things happen all over the world. I’m glad you care about what happened to these people and crusaders striving to bring the bad-guys in the HO down are heroes. But bring the individuals responsible to account, don’t just throw out the whole system. Baby and bathwater spring to mind.

    The most confusing statement you make is about science. Why on Earth would anyone spend their lives studying science, or indeed pay for it to be conducted, if not for money? You say scientists would be free to research the things that matter, but paid for by who, and without a state, who decides what they look into next? Small communities with worker councils aren’t going to be able to create enough wealth to provide for anything except subsistance living. Farming yields are exponentially higher, the more specialisation, machinery, chemical fertilizer and other modern methods are used. I read in the New Scientist that this world can only support around 1 billion human beings using primitive farming methods. Yet we can currently support about 9 billion people. (Assuming we spread it more evenly)

    You are totally right about one thing: We are forced into meaningless, often demeaning labour simply to support our families. I would like to see an end to the mindless consumerism that makes this possible. People need to stop spending what they earn on trinkets and toys. But I have no idea what you mean about social mobility. Everyone in this coutnry is entitled to free careers advice, can get an interest free loan for £15k like the one I took out, can get a degree and follow their dreams. If only I had chosen a useful degre like my father suggested (like engineering or studied plumbing or electrics) I would be earning twice as much money and would be really quite well off.

    Before you throw this in: My parents did have some money but none of the above would have required it. Anyone of reasonable inteligence can accomplish things in this country. With hard work and a little risk, you can do anything except become Queen. And what’s the point in that? She’s a bigger slave than the rest of us.

    I suspect most of what we disagree on is based on the “facts” each of us thinks they know and is therefore not something we can resolve. You beleive what some people say about the world and I beleive what others say about it. But one thing is self-evident to me in my personal observations of humanity: Capitalism isn’t an economic model. It’s survival of the fittest. We don’t make it happen, it occurs in nature without any input from us.

  2. May Day is international workers day and was called by the Second International to protest the execution of anarchists who were struggling to implement the 8 hour day. A struggle eventually won.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers'_Day
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Massacre
    No one in politics takes non voters seriously? No one takes politicians seriously, that’s why they don’t vote. Real politics happens in communities and workplaces, not in parliament. Parliament is a joke anyway. The whole notion of representative ‘democracy’ is undemocratic and disengages the majority of people from having any influence over things.
    So people will only rebel when life is unbearable? Do you watch the news much? Have you followed events in Greece, Argentina and elsewhere?
    Without immigration controls ‘we’, by whom I assume you mean white Anglo-Saxons, would be in the minority? So when are you joining UKIP or the BNP?
    Firstly that is bollocks. Immigration to Britain is fuck all compared to the rest of Europe and immigration to Europe is fuck all compared to general patterns of migration around the world. Go find some actual migration statistics and you will see that you have been quite thoroughly lied to. Secondly migration is the way humanity works, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this but we kinda occupy every single habitable place on the planet. Why do you think this is?
    People do flee persecution and seek sanctuary elsewhere, true. They don’t come to Britain though. Britain is shit compared to the majority of countries in Europe when it comes to quality of life, cost of living, wages, workplace rights. One of the main reasons people come to the UK, those that don’t get trafficked here or stuck at airports, is because they speak English. This is a result of colonialism and the mess that was left in many countries by English imperialism. If any people have a right to seek refuge here then surely they do?
    But again. I will say, from personal experience but I could find studies to confirm this, that people don’t want to come to Britain but are forced by circumstances. If the borders controls were dropped the amount of people coming to Britain would be exactly the same. People aren’t sat around the world with their bags packed waiting to hop on the first plane to good old blighty! People want to stay with their families and it takes a lot to get them to move. Have you met many refugees or migrants?
    Oh and “we have more freedom than people in Saudi Arabia” is like saying “but Stalin wasn’t as bad as Hitler”. In this country children are imprisoned for being of the wrong ‘race’, we have more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world, the government keeps a DNA database of all people ever arrested regardless of guilt, it is illegal to demonstrate without the permission of the people you are demonstrating against, shall I go on? Britain isn’t some land of tolerance and liberalism. It is moving closer and closer to being an Orwellian nightmare and the party that are facilitating this are the Labour Party.

    “You tell some sad stories of the plight of individuals. The sad truth is, horrible things happen all over the world. I’m glad you care about what happened to these people and crusaders striving to bring the bad-guys in the HO down are heroes. But bring the individuals responsible to account, don’t just throw out the whole system. Baby and bathwater spring to mind.”

    Al, it’s the system itself that not only allows but ensures that people are treated this way. It’s not enough to say “horrible things happen all over the world” as if that somehow excuses it. These things are happening here, now and not only do our taxes pay for it but by voting we condone it. We give our acquiescence for these things when we abdicate our responsibility for what happens in our communities and what happens to our neighbours.

    “The most confusing statement you make is about science. Why on Earth would anyone spend their lives studying science, or indeed pay for it to be conducted, if not for money? You say scientists would be free to research the things that matter, but paid for by who, and without a state, who decides what they look into next?”
    I actually did a facepalm Al. 🙂 Anarchists want to abolish the wage system and reorganise society along the lines of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, you know that old Marxist chestnut. You do realise that people don’t study things like biology or physics because of the money they will make don’t you? They study them because they are good at it and because they want to. In a world where onerous labour is shared and there is more leisure time for all more people would be able to pursue their studies and so we would advance farther and faster than we do with capitalism and the state. As the palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould said “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
    Plus the state doesn’t decide on what is studied ya big numpty. The corporations that fund the studies do and they are only interested in profit not in advancing the collective health and well being of the world.
    “Small communities with worker councils aren’t going to be able to create enough wealth to provide for anything except subsistance living.”
    You do realise that its workers that do all the work that produces the wealth don’t you? Why would workers running their own workplaces suddenly forget how to do things with no managers?
    “Farming yields are exponentially higher, the more specialisation, machinery, chemical fertilizer and other modern methods are used. I read in the New Scientist that this world can only support around 1 billion human beings using primitive farming methods. Yet we can currently support about 9 billion people. (Assuming we spread it more evenly)”
    Your point? Why would these things disappear with workers control? If anything these processes would become more efficient as they would be organised by those who know how they work rather than some business school graduate
    “You are totally right about one thing: We are forced into meaningless, often demeaning labour simply to support our families. I would like to see an end to the mindless consumerism that makes this possible. People need to stop spending what they earn on trinkets and toys.”
    I like wee trinkets and toys. I love playing x-box and dicking about with my laptop.
    “But I have no idea what you mean about social mobility. Everyone in this coutnry is entitled to free careers advice, can get an interest free loan for £15k like the one I took out, can get a degree and follow their dreams. If only I had chosen a useful degre like my father suggested (like engineering or studied plumbing or electrics) I would be earning twice as much money and would be really quite well off.”
    Lol, you just proved my point. You come from a middle class family and, had you studied like they advised, you would have remained middle class. As it is your social mobility has been downwards.
    “Before you throw this in: My parents did have some money but none of the above would have required it. Anyone of reasonable inteligence can accomplish things in this country.”
    No Al, no you can’t. The facts speak for themselves. You’re just reiterating the line fed you by politicians. Seriously man, just do a wee bit of research on it. Have a read of this: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/6/15.html
    “With hard work and a little risk, you can do anything except become Queen. And what’s the point in that? She’s a bigger slave than the rest of us.”
    Mince.
    “I suspect most of what we disagree on is based on the “facts” each of us thinks they know and is therefore not something we can resolve.”
    I can furnish you with studies from various universities and research bodies if you like. I’m not talking man in the pub facts. I can, and will if you want, provide you with evidence that verifies everything I have said. Hell I could even dig up some reports on production from factories that were collectivised during the Spanish revolution if you like to show how production increased when freed from managers and placed under workers control.
    “You beleive what some people say about the world and I beleive what others say about it. But one thing is self-evident to me in my personal observations of humanity: Capitalism isn’t an economic model. It’s survival of the fittest. We don’t make it happen, it occurs in nature without any input from us.”
    Capitalism IS an economic model. It’s not survival of the fittest. When did you stop reading man?
    Right. Survival of the fittest is a misnomer based on a misunderstanding of what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species. Survival of the fittest in an evolutionary sense is something that occurs at the genetic level, the micro not the macro. Natural life is not one of brutal competition, that idea has been blown out of the water decades ago. Ironically the first person to challenge that notion was an anarchist in the 1800’s Piotr Kropotkin in his book Mutual Aid as a Factor of Evolution. His theories have been expanded on and are now scientifically accepted orthodoxy. Having a read of some Richard Dawkins, who is probably the most accessible author on evolutionary biology about today, should put you straight. The Selfish Gene would be a good start.
    This response is already 1600 words though so I won’t go into more depth here.

  3. I have answers to a lot of the above points but I’m in work with an ancient PC so I’ll be brief.

    “If the borders controls were dropped the amount of people coming to Britain would be exactly the same.” This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard and that is no mean feat. If border controls make no difference to the number of immigrants entering the UK, the number of people they turn away would be exactly zero. If they turn away even one person, your sentence is proven wrong. Unless for every one person we turn away, exactly one other person decides to come here.

    And don’t try to explain Dawkins to me, I studied him in my 3rd year. Just pointing out that genetic success occurs on the microscopic level does not also preclude it happening on the macro level. Not one iota. My genes don’t care about my survival, I am a vehicle for their reproduction. But if I place my survival and reproduction above that of others and successfully compete with them for this prize… I will have more children who will themselves have more children. Fit in this case doesn’t mean physically fit I agree. But it can mean ruthless or cunning.

    The thing that always confused me about Richard Dawkins is how much he hates the idea of God but loves the idea of Good. Without God, morality is something we feel and act upon without any idea of why. I feel bad if I cause someone upset, I also feel good when I help someone out. So I act on those instincts. Ignoring them makes me sad, so why bother. But I don’t claim to be moral. There’s no such thing. People are walking, reproducing bags of water and protiens with no intrinsic value at all.

    I would love to hear more about the economics of your future society. People do the work they want and are capable of doing for the benefit of all. Are there any wages? Can people choose to do more or less as they want? Choose their job entirely based on their desire to do that job or based on the needs of the group? What about sickness and old age? Who pays for this? Who decides what education is taught and how? Is anything owned? Is there a police force? Who in the name of creation would work as a miner or bin man? In this coutnry we have a literal tonne of no talent drama students and social studies types who would chose to do something there is no need for.

    Gotta go, baby is in hospital again!

  4. I said the amount of people coming to Britain wouldn’t change, not the amount getting in. You seem to be under the impression that half the worlds population want to move to Britain. Something that is patently untrue and that can’t be substantiated in any way shape or form. A tiny fraction of the worlds migrants try to get to Britain and a fraction of those get as far as Calais, a smaller fraction still make it here. If we dropped our border controls there would be no increase in the amount of people wanting to come here. What there would be an increase in would be the general health of society. Our culture would become more diverse, there would be more labour to do jobs that need doing and we would all have the cosy warm feeling inside knowing that we weren’t adding to the sum total of human misery with our racist immigration and border control policies.
    If you have studied Dawkins then you will know that he is quite explicit that the notion of survival of the fittest does not transpose to the macro level. At all.
    Evolutionary biology shows us that their is equal benefit to cooperation as a means of ensuring genetic survival on the individual as well as group level. So whether you favour the theory of group or individual selection then competition is not the driving factor. It may play a role but that’s all it does. With your take on ‘survival of the fittest’ there would be no evolutionary role for homosexuality. Evolutionary orthodoxy however shows a clear role in that the homosexual serves as an extra parent figure for the offspring of their siblings ensuring genetic survival of genes through their siblings. Another example of cooperation as a factor of the evolutionary process.
    The social Darwinian theory you appear to be subscribing to has been debunked by nearly a century of study and experimentation in the social sciences. It is not evidenced aside from in one or two anecdotal cases.

  5. This is a bit too long for anyone else to chip in, but I want to add that Labour leadership candidates’ theme of “we have to listen to communities on migration” is worrying.

    Labour has abandoned its core constituency because its ideology won’t let it admit that The Market is always going to fuck those people over. The rising tide doesn’t lift all boats, it drowns them.

    Instead of re-evaluating its commitment to neoliberal ideology, Labour’s moving towards saying that “immigrants cause problems in communities”. It’s not landlords, property speculation, business owners that cause the problems, it’s immigration. The privileged fuckwits are triangulating their politics to the BNP.

    We won’t fix your house, we’ll tighten borders instead. Advocating border controls plays into that narrative. The problem is not “striving to bring the bad-guys in the HO down”, the problem is the whole system.

    The baby’s bathwater is acid.

  6. I suppose I should back up my statement about Labour’s anti-immigration move. Here’s 2 articles from 1 source (one of the few bloggers in England who gets how shitty the UKBA is):
    http://www.chickyog.net/2010/05/24/andy-burnham-not-a-progessive-candidate/
    http://www.chickyog.net/2010/05/20/how-soft-your-fields-so-green-can-whisper-tales-of-gore/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: