Statement fron Antifa UK

[Holden Caulfield]

During this time of economic downturn - the credit crunch - it is important that we don't let fascist ideas take hold amongst our class. It is precisely in times like these, times of mass unemployment and hardship, that fascist organisations can spread their hatred and lies amongst the working class. In Germany in the 1930s Hitler used the recession to divide society. Today Nick Griffin and the BNP are trying to do the same.

The BNP will use any tricks they can to blame 'foreigners' and 'immigrants' for Britain's problems, whether they are drugs, crime or unemployment. The real blame for the economic and social problems we are facing lies squarely at the door of the bankers and bosses. Take the example of 'Sir' Fred Goodwin’s massive £700,000 a YEAR pension paid for out of taxpayers' money for FUCKING UP as the head of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) and compare that to the 1000s of workers who have been thrown on the dole and told they are lucky to get £60 a week in benefits.

How can you blame 'foreigners' and 'immigrants' for injustice like that?

The bosses are sticking the boot into workers regardless of what colour or nationality they are... Just look at the recent discovery of the bosses' 'blacklists' of union activists in the construction industry. They didn't mention where the workers happened to be born did they? Just whether they would stand up for decent pay and conditions. The rich must be thanking the BNP for trying to divide us, and laughing all the way to the bank when we fight among ourselves.

It's time to stand together and fight back.

FUCK THE BNP! FUCK THE RICH!

CLASS WAR NOT RACE WAR. ANTIFA.

www.antifa.org.uk (http://www.antifa.org.uk)

------------------------------------------------------

on a personal note: its good to be back, i missed you all.

[Pogue]

During this time of economic downturn - the credit crunch - it is important that we don't let fascist ideas take hold amongst our class. It is precisely in times like these, times of mass unemployment and hardship, that fascist organisations can spread their hatred and lies amongst the working class. In Germany in the 1930s Hitler used the recession to divide society. Today Nick Griffin and the BNP are trying to do the same.

The BNP will use any tricks they can to blame 'foreigners' and 'immigrants' for Britain's problems, whether they are drugs, crime or unemployment. The real blame for the economic and social problems we are facing lies squarely at the door of the bankers and bosses. Take the example of 'Sir' Fred Goodwin’s massive £700,000 a YEAR pension paid for out of taxpayers' money for FUCKING UP as the head of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) and compare that to the 1000s of workers who have been thrown on the dole and told they are lucky to get £60 a week in benefits.

How can you blame 'foreigners' and 'immigrants' for injustice like that?

The bosses are sticking the boot into workers regardless of what colour or nationality they are... Just look at the recent discovery of the bosses' 'blacklists' of union activists in the construction industry. They didn't mention where the workers happened to be born did they? Just whether they would stand up for decent pay and conditions. The rich must be thanking the BNP for trying to divide us, and laughing all the way to the bank when we fight among ourselves.

It's time to stand together and fight back.

FUCK THE BNP! FUCK THE RICH!

CLASS WAR NOT RACE WAR. ANTIFA.

www.antifa.org.uk (http://www.antifa.org.uk)

------------------------------------------------------

on a personal note: its good to be back, i missed you all.

true dat

[Dr Mindbender]

. In Germany in the 1930s Hitler used the recession to divide society..


It was for making statements like these that people were giving me a load of shite before i was elected local mod.

just sayin'.

[Holden Caulfield]

It was for making statements like these that people were giving me a load of shite before i was elected local mod.

because you were wrong, you clearly stated "the third reich started with one man" this is a poorly worded over simplified point, but the intended meaning can be easily taken from the fact it says "Today Nick Griffin and the BNP are trying to do the same" in the next sentence.
not that i need to defend it, as anarchos are hardly arch-materialists like myself.

if you want this debate we can have it, but i really, really don't think you do want to start it.

[Melbourne Lefty]

The BNP will use any tricks they can to blame 'foreigners' and 'immigrants' for Britain's problems, whether they are drugs, crime or unemployment. The real blame for the economic and social problems we are facing lies squarely at the door of the bankers and bosses.


Too simplistic.

Check the BNPs propaganda, they are smarter than they used to be.

They dont go around blaming immigrants for the problems, they blame the "polititians who got us into this mess" and piously tell people not to attack ethnic minorities as they are just "innocent pawns" [a more condecending view would be hard to find].

They also attack the bankers about the "GFC" far more than they attack immigration, they know people expect them to attack immigrants so they dont even bother. They know that people who are against immigration will already vote BNP, so concentrating on attacking the bankers reaches more people and makes them look like more than a single issue party.

The nazis and fascists in Italy attacked capitalism in their propaganda far more than anything else [aside from communism of course], they knew that such a message sold, and the nazis knew that anti-semites would vote for them anyway so they were free to expand their image to the greater public.

The BNP are pulling the same trick today.

[welshboy]

In Germany in the 1930s Hitler used the recession to divide society. Today Nick Griffin and the BNP are trying to do the same.
I'm pretty sure Germany had been in a period of economic boom prior to the NSDP gaining power. Well it was on the up after the period of hyper-inflation following WWII.

[Q]

Sounds like AFA in the UK has a decent amount of socialist influences. A good statement.

[Omi]

You almost make it sound like this could not have been written by an anarchist...:rolleyes:

[POUM]

Too simplistic.

Check the BNPs propaganda, they are smarter than they used to be.

They dont go around blaming immigrants for the problems, they blame the "polititians who got us into this mess" and piously tell people not to attack ethnic minorities as they are just "innocent pawns" [a more condecending view would be hard to find].

They also attack the bankers about the "GFC" far more than they attack immigration, they know people expect them to attack immigrants so they dont even bother. They know that people who are against immigration will already vote BNP, so concentrating on attacking the bankers reaches more people and makes them look like more than a single issue party.

The nazis and fascists in Italy attacked capitalism in their propaganda far more than anything else [aside from communism of course], they knew that such a message sold, and the nazis knew that anti-semites would vote for them anyway so they were free to expand their image to the greater public.

The BNP are pulling the same trick today.


Excellent point!
The left must counteract! How? Attract those reluctant of immigration? How? Link the anticapitalist leftwing rethoric with immigration issues. Why does mass immigration even exist?
1. Capitalism needs cheap labor
2. Third world from which the cheap labor comes from is ruined by colonialism and post-colonial capitalism
Ergo socialism would nullify the need for our countries to get immigrants, and the need for people from the third world to even emigrate.

This point should be made more often in leftwing rethorics.

[Omi]

And therefore speaking to the hearts of racist xenophobes? Become socialist, then you will never have got that paki bastard in your neighbourhood anyway!:thumbup:

...

:confused:

[Tjis]

Excellent point!
The left must counteract! How? Attract those reluctant of immigration? How? Link the anticapitalist leftwing rethoric with immigration issues. Why does mass immigration even exist?
1. Capitalism needs cheap labor
2. Third world from which the cheap labor comes from is ruined by colonialism and post-colonial capitalism
Ergo socialism would nullify the need for our countries to get immigrants, and the need for people from the third world to even emigrate.

This point should be made more often in leftwing rethorics.
No it shouldn't, what the hell.
We are one oppressed working class, no matter what nationality we have or where we live. Our movement against capitalism needs to reflect this. Your kind of rethoric only divides the working class by telling people that some fellow workers shouldn't really be here. Saying that, for whatever reason you might have is just plain wrong. Would you deny them the right to stay in or move into a socialist or communist society after the revolution? I sure hope you don't cause if you do you have no business being here.

A large part of the working class is immigrant, or descendant of an immigrant. Of all the working class they're usually the most exploited. They too should be part of a revolutionary workers movement. Yet you seem to rather want to win over xenophobic people, even appeal to their xenophobicness to do so. You think that's going to create an united movement?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Sounds like AFA in the UK has a decent amount of socialist influences. A good statement.

Well antifa in the UK was set up by class war and afed.

Not wanting to brag or anything ...................

[Pogue]

Yeh they're basically anarchist.

[POUM]

No it shouldn't, what the hell.
We are one oppressed working class, no matter what nationality we have or where we live. Our movement against capitalism needs to reflect this. Your kind of rethoric only divides the working class by telling people that some fellow workers shouldn't really be here. Saying that, for whatever reason you might have is just plain wrong. Would you deny them the right to stay in or move into a socialist or communist society after the revolution? I sure hope you don't cause if you do you have no business being here.

A large part of the working class is immigrant, or descendant of an immigrant. Of all the working class they're usually the most exploited. They too should be part of a revolutionary workers movement. Yet you seem to rather want to win over xenophobic people, even appeal to their xenophobicness to do so. You think that's going to create an united movement?


This is in no way xenophobic. The issue of immigration,and an issue DOES exist, is here because of capitalist globalisation. i would not deny anyone the right to move across the planet not now not ever. but there is a sociological reason why mass movement does happen. It happens because of exploatation,and if we go away with exploatation the percentage of migrants will decrease in great numbers because several causes will be eliminated.
And why should people be forced to go from their country just to survive?

Not all anti-immigration supporters are essentially xenophobe. Xenophobia is a "good" and easy justification and a oversimplified explination of the economic problems that uncontroled and mass immigration causes.


And in the long run. Would you rather use unconventional rethorics and take away voters from the far right , or would you rather play hollier than thou socialist and watch while the far right growns exponentially - if they ever gain power you'll be seeing 0% of free border movement.

We keep saying that the left doesnt know how to counteract to the rise of far right. Well here's a way, destroy their biggest asset - immigration policy.
Sure, it doesn't sound all that politically correct, but it essentially it is the truth. Immigration is an issue,and the left shouldnt ignore it. The cause is economical and we have to make it known.

[Pogue]

This is in no way xenophobic. The issue of immigration,and an issue DOES exist, is here because of capitalist globalisation. i would not deny anyone the right to move across the planet not now not ever. but there is a sociological reason why mass movement does happen. It happens because of exploatation,and if we go away with exploatation the percentage of migrants will decrease in great numbers because several causes will be eliminated.
And why should people be forced to go from their country just to survive?

Not all anti-immigration supporters are essentially xenophobe. Xenophobia is a "good" and easy justification and a oversimplified explination of the economic problems that uncontroled and mass immigration causes.


And in the long run. Would you rather use unconventional rethorics and take away voters from the far right , or would you rather play hollier than thou socialist and watch while the far right growns exponentially - if they ever gain power you'll be seeing 0% of free border movement.

I see no reason why being anti-immigration restrictions is either holier than thou socialist nor something that would lead to people not listening to you. Are you suggesting we water down our principles to make them more appealing? If a leftist speaks of immigration they should do it in the logical, rational and correct style, i.e. that issues of immigration are manipulated by racists and capitalists to divide the working class, and any concepts of 'over-population' or any of the other bollocks xenophobes use is always the result of capitalism. If we didn't have such an appalling economic system, we could comfortably house millions more people in this nation, and give everyone a brilliant standard of living. Just look at the amount of wasted land and moeny spent in the wrong places. Immigrants are not the problem, capitalism is, and I for one prefer to cut to the root cause of problems rather than take the moronic approach of going 'Z0mg but we can't cope'. If there was no more immigration, if it stopped completely today, even if you were barbaric enough as the BNP want to be and deported some people, you'd still have unemployment and crowding because capitalism is shit at looking after people. Immigrants are not the problem, capitalism is. Capitalism always is. In a socialist society, these supposed 'problems' would not exist, because we could give everyone a good life, so they could go anywhere they wanted.

[Holden Caulfield]

Yeh they're basically anarchist.
"basically"?

[Ravachol]

This is in no way xenophobic. The issue of immigration,and an issue DOES exist, is here because of capitalist globalisation. i would not deny anyone the right to move across the planet not now not ever. but there is a sociological reason why mass movement does happen.


Obviously there are reasons, but this does not justify in any way the denial of freedom of movement. The problem is the immigrants forced biopolitical 'flight from power', not immigration itself.



It happens because of exploatation,and if we go away with exploatation the percentage of migrants will decrease in great numbers because several causes will be eliminated.
And why should people be forced to go from their country just to survive?

Not all anti-immigration supporters are essentially xenophobe. Xenophobia is a "good" and easy justification and a oversimplified explination of the economic problems that uncontroled and mass immigration causes.


Actually, being anti-immigration is intrinsically xenophobic since it denies a given individual or group of individuals the right to free movement and mutually consensual association based on a non-negative characteristic such as nationality (for example). Hence, the claiming and 'bordering' of a geographical area and restricting it's usage based upon the supposed homogenity of the dominant group, will intrinsically result in exclusion.
Bordered areas based on the principle of homogenity and exclusion are by definition xenophobic and anathema to any progressive movement.

Obviously the forced 'flight from power' that forces immigrants from their 'homelands' is just as much exclusion as the denial of access to the west is, but that is not the point. The point is that they should be free to associate themselves with any collective/administrative area as they please. Denying this right either by virtually forced migration or the denial of access to a country is the denial of freedom of movement and association.



And in the long run. Would you rather use unconventional rethorics and take away voters from the far right , or would you rather play hollier than thou socialist and watch while the far right growns exponentially - if they ever gain power you'll be seeing 0% of free border movement.


And here we have the first sign of surrender. By adopting anti-immigration rethoric one implicitly condemns immigration and implicitly places the blame (partially) on the shoulders of the immigrant, hence shifting your stance to the fascist point of view. By adopting rethoric simply because it appeals to fascist sentiments in fear of 'losing voters' one shifts towards the position of the fascists and in the long run will adopt and internalize their point of view. Syntax is in some cases nearly as important as semantics.
Besides, voters are unimportant as is the entire parliamentary system.
It can help, but in the end the de facto power does not rest with the parliament, but with the powers controlling the economic reality which produces the cultural hegemony and hence the voters. These powers are not bound by parliament, the parliament is bound by them. Simply 'taking over government' (if you even succeed despite the overwelming cultural hegemony, the control of media, police and intelligence agencies and the slander) will only result in the de facto power, transnational capital, considering the country as an internal problem to it's mechanics and proceed to isolate you from the outside world.

The key to fighting both capitalism and fascism lies in taking control of the productive reality itself, disregarding nations, borders and parliament.



We keep saying that the left doesnt know how to counteract to the rise of far right. Well here's a way, destroy their biggest asset - immigration policy.
Sure, it doesn't sound all that politically correct, but it essentially it is the truth. Immigration is an issue,and the left shouldnt ignore it. The cause is economical and we have to make it known.

Immigration being 'an issue' doesn't say shit. In the '50s communism was 'an issue' in the '80s anarchism was 'an issue' does that mean we have to adopt that point of view? No, obviously not. Class solidarity is not to be divided. By 'taking out there asset' one simply takes over their point of view and rethoric eventually simply becoming the fascist thread ,or a weaker version of it, itself.

[POUM]

I see no reason why being anti-immigration restrictions is either holier than thou socialist nor something that would lead to people not listening to you. Are you suggesting we water down our principles to make them more appealing? If a leftist speaks of immigration they should do it in the logical, rational and correct style, i.e. that issues of immigration are manipulated by racists and capitalists to divide the working class, and any concepts of 'over-population' or any of the other bollocks xenophobes use is always the result of capitalism. If we didn't have such an appalling economic system, we could comfortably house millions more people in this nation, and give everyone a brilliant standard of living. Just look at the amount of wasted land and moeny spent in the wrong places. Immigrants are not the problem, capitalism is, and I for one prefer to cut to the root cause of problems rather than take the moronic approach of going 'Z0mg but we can't cope'. If there was no more immigration, if it stopped completely today, even if you were barbaric enough as the BNP want to be and deported some people, you'd still have unemployment and crowding because capitalism is shit at looking after people. Immigrants are not the problem, capitalism is. Capitalism always is. In a socialist society, these supposed 'problems' would not exist, because we could give everyone a good life, so they could go anywhere they wanted.

1. Im not pro immigrant restrictions im pro connecting the issue of immigration with the issue of capitalist economics. how is that anti-immigration? isn't it in fact true that immigration would decrease if we had socialism instead of capitalism?
2.i am well aware all workers are equal. i am well aware capitalism breeds inequality and xenophobia, i'm just suggesting a way to bring potential right wing voters to the left wing. i would rather use unconventional rethorics and keep the fascist at bay than be ultra politicaly correct and see the fascists gain power

[POUM]

Obviously there are reasons, but this does not justify in any way the denial of freedom of movement. The problem is the immigrants forced biopolitical 'flight from power', not immigration itself..
This rethorics would not include denial of freedom of movement, it would still be pro-freedom of movement, it would just point out the causes of overtweaked immigration.




Obviously the forced 'flight from power' that forces immigrants from their 'homelands' is just as much exclusion as the denial of access to the west is, but that is not the point. The point is that they should be free to associate themselves with any collective/administrative area as they please. Denying this right either by virtually forced migration or the denial of access to a country is the denial of freedom of movement and association..

Where in my proposition of new rethorics did you see denial of any rights?
How is convincing jobless working class kids there would be more jobs for them if they voted socialist because:
a) foreigners would not have the need to move at the first place and take low paid jobs
b) socialism would eventually lead to a society of abundance

in any way denying the immigrants to move as they wish in the meanwhile.

You have to see the difference between eliminating immigration (surpressing the symptoms) and eliminating the cause of immigration (curing the disease, by disease i mean capitalism just so you wouldnt call me anti-immigrant :D)





.
And here we have the first sign of surrender. By adopting anti-immigration rethoric one implicitly condemns immigration and implicitly places the blame (partially) on the shoulders of the immigrant, hence shifting your stance to the fascist point of view. By adopting rethoric simply because it appeals to fascist sentiments in fear of 'losing voters' one shifts towards the position of the fascists and in the long run will adopt and internalize their point of view. Syntax is in some cases nearly as important as semantics.
Besides, voters are unimportant as is the entire parliamentary system.
It can help, but in the end the de facto power does not rest with the parliament, but with the powers controlling the economic reality which produces the cultural hegemony and hence the voters. These powers are not bound by parliament, the parliament is bound by them. Simply 'taking over government' (if you even succeed despite the overwelming cultural hegemony, the control of media, police and intelligence agencies and the slander) will only result in the de facto power, transnational capital, considering the country as an internal problem to it's mechanics and proceed to isolate you from the outside world..

im not talking just about voters, im talkin about public opinion. im talking about getting more people to consider themselves leftwing and radical.





Immigration being 'an issue' doesn't say shit. In the '50s communism was 'an issue' in the '80s anarchism was 'an issue' does that mean we have to adopt that point of view? No, obviously not. Class solidarity is not to be divided. By 'taking out there asset' one simply takes over their point of view and rethoric eventually simply becoming the fascist thread ,or a weaker version of it, itself.

bad analogy, you are comparing an ideology with a socio-economic group of people. the fact is that demonized communism in the west did not cause shifts in class/ethnic structure. immigration does. And altought we as leftist all belive that ethnicity does not essentialy matter,meanwhile the most of the society thinks otherwise and thus makes their assumption a sad reality. so it is important that the lower class is made up of more and more immigrants whilst europeans are becoming jobless since they are not used to a less than minimum wage. these jobless folks will be right when they say that "they took their jobs". it is our job to convince them that "they" are not immigrants but capitalists who "provide" jobs. but you can't go quoting Marx to him. You have to speaking the tounge of the working class, and that tounge right now is far from being marxist.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Why does mass immigration even exist?


Because the capitalists want cheap labour.

While obviously this is not an issue we really want to campaign on, denying reality is not going to get anyone anywhere.

The capitalist state currently funds and encourages numerous "Anti-racism" campaigns in order to make mass immigration more palatable to the general public who have had their pay packets cut.

So the far right argument against capitalism would seem logical from their point of view, yet they still support capitalism, which makes a giant joke of the whole affair.

So what should the left do? Well not lie to people, mass immigration has many good sides, but it has its bad sides as well [overcrowding, infrastructure woes, cultural conflict, strain on state resources for the poor], and the capitalists did not allow these workers to immigrate because they had a sudden hankering for a curry, it was so they could make more money.

Dont let us tell fibs or deny whats in front of our faces if people ask us, but theres no reason to use it as an argument in favour of socialism, let the far right steal our ground rather than the other way around.

[Ravachol]

This rethorics would not include denial of freedom of movement, it would still be pro-freedom of movement, it would just point out the causes of overtweaked immigration.


You don't seem to understand what i'm saying. By explicitly condemming 'migration' or adapting rethoric to include 'the negative results of immigration' you implicitly condemn it, and by condemning immigration itself, you create the preconditions for the politics that deny freedom of movement.






You have to see the difference between eliminating immigration (surpressing the symptoms) and eliminating the cause of immigration (curing the disease, by disease i mean capitalism just so you wouldnt call me anti-immigrant :D)


But how does that mean we have to 'tweak our rethoric', especially by tweaking it to appeal to anti-immigration sentiments? I do not see a reasons to oppose immigration. Simply stating you want to remove forced emigration (from the immigrant's point of view) is nothing new, but that does not appeal to the 'oh vote for us, we'll ensure forced emigration does not occur anymore and you won't have to worry about them damn blacks', which is basically the kind of rethoric that would 'appeal' to the anti-immigrant part of the population. This rethoric however appeals to the anti-immigrant sentiments and as such, implicitly internalises them.




im not talking just about voters, im talkin about public opinion. im talking about getting more people to consider themselves leftwing and radical.


You won't get people to be 'leftwing and radical' by stressing 'the left can make sure less people immigrate here as well!', au contraire, it would simply mix 'left wing' politics with populist anti-immigrant sentiments, which is the last thing any sensible person would want.





bad analogy, you are comparing an ideology with a socio-economic group of people. the fact is that demonized communism in the west did not cause shifts in class/ethnic structure. immigration does. And altought we as leftist all belive that ethnicity does not essentialy matter,meanwhile the most of the society thinks otherwise and thus makes their assumption a sad reality. so it is important that the lower class is made up of more and more immigrants whilst europeans are becoming jobless since they are not used to a less than minimum wage. these jobless folks will be right when they say that "they took their jobs".


I do not see how a job is 'their job', a job does not belong to anyone but the person who provides labour with the mutual consent of the worker's collective. This can be a 'native' or someone from the moon for all I care. As long as the worker's collective/factory under worker's control and the new worker mutually consent about cooperating it's all ok.

Claiming that someone 'took your job' implies that you have the 'right to that job' simply because you are a member of a given supposedly homogeneous group that claims natural right and/or superiority over a geographical area where the job is located. This is plain and simple nationalist sentiment, something which is anathema to every leftwing and progressive school of thought.

[Ravachol]

Because the capitalists want cheap labour.


Such nonsense, instead of creating a wall of text here, I will refer to Michel Foucoult and Antionio Negri's concept of Biopower and the biopolitical 'flight from power', I suggest you look it up.

In short, immigration exists because the only more or less successfull form of 'resistance' against capitalist exploitation in their homelands is migrating towards the west. Cheap labour comes second. Capitalists don't 'import' immigrants. That's the fascist point of view. It's not like a 'conglomerate of capitalists' in the form of a council of shadowy old men in a dimly lit room (as is the childish conception of 'capitalism') decide to 'fetch me some cheap labour'.

The immigrants are forced from their homelands due to the conditions created by exploitation. As a result, they are forced to migrate to the west, where the exploitation is not as visible (or at least, not everywhere, since you obviously have the third world inside the first world through slums and the first world in the third wolrd) as in the third world (yet).
This ensures that the immigrants have a terrible 'bargaining position' on the labour market hence making them into 'cheap labour'. But this could be applied to the 'white' working class as well, the nature of capital is such that it divides society and condensates wealth and power into a exponentially smaller group. The group that does not have this wealth and power has the choice between starvation (or at least a miserable life) or wage-slavery. This creates a tarrible bargaining postion.
The only difference with immigration is that their bargaining position is EVEN WORSE.



While obviously this is not an issue we really want to campaign on, denying reality is not going to get anyone anywhere.

The capitalist state currently funds and encourages numerous "Anti-racism" campaigns in order to make mass immigration more palatable to the general public who have had their pay packets cut.


I sure hope this was a joke, since that's a downright fascist 'zionist occupation governement sponsoring antifa' argument.

The capitalist state does in now way sponsor 'anti-racism'. It either does not care (in social democracies) about racism as long as it does not threaten their hegemony, or it profits from it (in conservative capitalist society) by creating a justification for lower wages, cheap labour and exploitation.

Your assumption that the capitalist state and 'anti-racism' go hand in hand is utter nonsense and nothing more than a borderline fascist conspiracy theory.



So what should the left do? Well not lie to people, mass immigration has many good sides, but it has its bad sides as well [overcrowding, infrastructure woes, cultural conflict, strain on state resources for the poor]


Again, another load of bullshit. First of all overcrowding only occurs when geographical borders are fixed and migration is restricted.
'strain on state resources'? I beg your pardon. You just claimed immigrants 'stole jobs' and now they are all on welfare? My my, what a well founded thesis.:laugh:

Secondly, I do not see how one person has more 'right to state resources' than any other member of society that contributes to his capacity than any other simply based on his or her ethnicity. That simply a 'own people first' volksgemeinschaft statement.

[Sam_b]

You won't get people to be 'leftwing and radical' by stressing 'the left can make sure less people immigrate here as well!', au contraire, it would simply mix 'left wing' politics with populist anti-immigrant sentiments, which is the last thing any sensible person would want.

Word. The argument here boils down to a very simple concept, namely that No Capitalism = No Immigrants = No Problem. Of course this is a truly propostorous line to argue (even if, numerically speaking, is partly ture), as has already been pointed out by several posters that this inherantly encourages the distinguishment and separation of migrant workers from the rest of the working class. The only acceptable argument here is simple: we welcome migrant workers and asylum seekers with open arms as internationalists, and do not distinguish from political and economic migration - they are as much victims of the capitalist recession than any other worker. We don't subscribe to splitting arguments and the 'British jobs for British workers' schtik as this only exaserbates the problem.

But there is a wider point to all this, and fair play to Antifa for once ( ;) ) as they're right on this one. Let's look at how the BNP operate, and why they are coming increasingly successful. Yes, they threw their weight behind the 'British jobs for British workers' slogan, but on the whole when fighting localised campaigns in isolated areas they tend to not focus on immigration. It reminds me very much of a National Front election leaflet in a ward in Aberdeen I saw which did not mention immigration or asylum seekers at all, and this was a few years ago at the hight of Islamophobic stereotyping and attacks by the state. Where the BNP are winning seats, more often than not they focus their campaign on how ineffective the current council administrations are, and effectively distinguish themselves from the 'conventional' political parties. This involves championing of local issues such as housing and opposition to council cutbacks. More often than not their success is down to a misplaced protest vote against the council administration.

So the way to compat it is very simple for leftists, in theory. By all means we challenge the BNP nationally, whose campaign still revolves around the issues of asylum seekers, immigration, and attacks on Islam. When they have paper sales or PR stunts we are there and we challenge them. However, it is equally as important that the left get more into local communities and trade unions and have a real presence amongst the class, on the streets and in the neighbourhoods. We should be standing for community councils, school boards, and the like because that is what many BNP members do, and that is why in some areas they are seen as trustworthy. Even basic things such as talking to people (from just on the street, to friends, and to supporting strikers on the picket lines and selling newspapers) makes a big difference in my view.

Most emphatically, we do not use naive arguments that split the working class by dubioius and artificial lines, as these will be more than capitalised on by the fascists and the far right.

[Holden Caulfield]

Excellent posts Sam and Rava, its good to see Melbourne making posts that enrage me (normality hath returned).

[POUM]

[quote=Ravachol;1389791]You don't seem to understand what i'm saying. By explicitly condemming 'migration' or adapting rethoric to include 'the negative results of immigration' you implicitly condemn it, and by condemning immigration itself, you create the preconditions for the politics that deny freedom of movement.


But immigration DOES have negative aspects. Being tolerant and leftwing does not mean being unrealistic.





You won't get people to be 'leftwing and radical' by stressing 'the left can make sure less people immigrate here as well!', au contraire, it would simply mix 'left wing' politics with populist anti-immigrant sentiments, which is the last thing any sensible person would want.

But on the other side, rightwingers DO gain leftwing ground by being anticapitalist? I was replying to thath thesis. In case the thesis is true,than my proposition is necessary,because the final result will be the growth of rightwing sentiments in the population thus creating even larger antipathy towards immigrations than any leftwing populism would ever do.




I do not see how a job is 'their job', a job does not belong to anyone but the person who provides labour with the mutual consent of the worker's collective. This can be a 'native' or someone from the moon for all I care. As long as the worker's collective/factory under worker's control and the new worker mutually consent about cooperating it's all ok.

I agree. But people in general tend to divide people. And ultimately for the general population it will be THEM who got the jobs, and not US. This tought will exist subconciously but it will still exist. And it WILL be exploited. Everybody is saying the leftwing has no adequate response to todays issues and thus the rightwing is gaining ground. What do you propose? The far right in some countries of EU has even 20% of votes or more,and the economic problems didn't even start. On the other side, there are almost no far left groups in national parliments at all. Im not saying parlimentary seats have any meaning in the distribution of power,since power lies in economic resources and information, but it shows the orientation of Europeans today.

[Sam_b]

But immigration DOES have negative aspects. Being tolerant and leftwing does not mean being unrealistic.

:rolleyes:

Praytell, what are the negative aspects? That is, of course, solely with regards to immigration and not caused by the wider capitalist system.

[POUM]

:rolleyes:

Praytell, what are the negative aspects? That is, of course, solely with regards to immigration and not caused by the wider capitalist system.

You can't have modernday immigration without capitalism. i guess,none of the aspects can be unconnected with capitalism. but still it maximizes the negative aspects of capitalism

[Sam_b]

This proves my point.

So you admit that you regard immigration as a 'negative aspect'? Give me a break.

[Melbourne Lefty]

ugh.. I am tempted to give up, this little fish aint worth it...


Such nonsense, instead of creating a wall of text here, I will refer to Michel Foucoult and Antionio Negri's concept of Biopower and the biopolitical 'flight from power', I suggest you look it up.

Never read it, will do so.


The capitalist state does in now way sponsor 'anti-racism'. It either does not care (in social democracies) about racism as long as it does not threaten their hegemony, or it profits from it (in conservative capitalist society) by creating a justification for lower wages, cheap labour and exploitation.

Your assumption that the capitalist state and 'anti-racism' go hand in hand is utter nonsense and nothing more than a borderline fascist conspiracy theory.

Right, then explain government funded multiculturalism initiatives, explain the anti-hate laws that keep fash up at night revising their leaflets.

Explain why newspapers like the Guardian and the Independent [both capitalist organisations] support immigration.



It's not like a 'conglomerate of capitalists' in the form of a council of shadowy old men in a dimly lit room


Now whos being childish?

Capitalists, capitalism and the capitalist state follow their class interests, there doesnt have to be a shadowy cabal hiding at the top of a tower somewhere.

And I would say that mass immigration is in the interests of capitalism, which is why capitalists dont just "allow" it to happen but sometimes encourage it.

If it were in the corporate interests for there to be no immigration then there would be no immigration, the fact that for the most part anti-immigration groups are treated like the plague [except by the Daily mail, home of all evil] does suggest their marginalisation.

But just at a guess, nothing I will say will convince you of a thing, you simply have a locked mind, good luck with that.

Thanks for the suggestions for the reading by the way. But I maintain that mass immigration happens because big business wants it to happen, if they didnt want it to happen it would not happen, regardless of how many people wanted to get into a country.



So you admit that you regard immigration as a 'negative aspect'? Give me a break.


As far as I see it there are many positives to immigration. A crossing of cultures and the chance for new experiences is one very big positive. For those who immigrate the positives are a higher standard of living and a better future for their families.

To pretend that putting more pressure on infrastructure and services with a larger population does not cause problems is hopelessly naive.

In a socialist country maybe these problems wouldnt exist, I dont know I dont live in one.

But to simply assume that all people who dont like the idea of mass immigration are dyed in the wool bigots is an assumption too far.

Modern mass immigration is a product of a capitalist world, it is therefore a part of a system based on exploitation, supporting it without reservation simply because you want to boost your anti-racism credentials is naive.

[POUM]

This proves my point.

So you admit that you regard immigration as a 'negative aspect'? Give me a break.

I consider capitalist/exploitation-induced mass immigration a negative aspect yes. Immigration in general i consider a question of free will, regardless of reasons. Everyone should have the right to move anywhere at any time or condition. Still that doesnt mean that it doesnt have it's downsides, every civil right has. But this one in particular is a part of a larger sociological problem. I am merely advocating that this sociological problem(modern capitalism's effect on migration) is presented to the potentially right wing crowd(the averege white working class blue collar man) in a manner they would initially understand, while later turning them into internationalists.
you see sometimes you do have to compromise, and you'll be lucky if you are compromising only in the way you do rethorics and propaganda. Imagine what will happen if the far right gains power, i bet you'll be asking yourself why you were so fucking PC back then :)
As melbourne guy said if we pride ourselves in our objectivity we have to be objective in things that are usually considered "right wing issues" too. Altought the rightwingers are generally wrong in their opinions, their opinion do have origins in reality (as most myths and fairy tales do :D)

[Coggeh]

ugh.. I am tempted to give up, this little fish aint worth it...



Never read it, will do so.



Right, then explain government funded multiculturalism initiatives, explain the anti-hate laws that keep fash up at night revising their leaflets.

Explain why newspapers like the Guardian and the Independent [both capitalist organisations] support immigration.



Now whos being childish?

Capitalists, capitalism and the capitalist state follow their class interests, there doesnt have to be a shadowy cabal hiding at the top of a tower somewhere.

And I would say that mass immigration is in the interests of capitalism, which is why capitalists dont just "allow" it to happen but sometimes encourage it.

If it were in the corporate interests for there to be no immigration then there would be no immigration, the fact that for the most part anti-immigration groups are treated like the plague [except by the Daily mail, home of all evil] does suggest their marginalisation.

But just at a guess, nothing I will say will convince you of a thing, you simply have a locked mind, good luck with that.

Thanks for the suggestions for the reading by the way. But I maintain that mass immigration happens because big business wants it to happen, if they didnt want it to happen it would not happen, regardless of how many people wanted to get into a country.


As far as I see it there are many positives to immigration. A crossing of cultures and the chance for new experiences is one very big positive. For those who immigrate the positives are a higher standard of living and a better future for their families.

To pretend that putting more pressure on infrastructure and services with a larger population does not cause problems is hopelessly naive.

In a socialist country maybe these problems wouldnt exist, I dont know I dont live in one.

But to simply assume that all people who dont like the idea of mass immigration are dyed in the wool bigots is an assumption too far.

Modern mass immigration is a product of a capitalist world, it is therefore a part of a system based on exploitation, supporting it without reservation simply because you want to boost your anti-racism credentials is naive.
Your right about that capitalists use immigration to undercut wage rates of native workers .

But this is a BS reason to be against immigration as it stalls us on the great debate . It creates conflict among the working class fighting for scraps off the bourgeoisie's table .

Its in the corporate interests to have a "surplus" of workers , so that they will fight with each other over jobs , drive down wages and be less inclined to join unions because of fear . Its a reason to oppose capitalism not immigration .

Your views on immigration are completely off ,I don't think your bigoted or racist but I do think you misunderstand marxist economics and capitalist economics . The scarcity argument put forward by anti-immigration orgs is idiotic because it is a product of the system that their basically defending and supporting .

[Melbourne Lefty]

Your right about that capitalists use immigration to undercut wage rates of native workers .


Yes they do, there may be millions of other reasons for immigration but thats one of them.


But this is a BS reason to be against immigration as it stalls us on the great debate . It creates conflict among the working class fighting for scraps off the bourgeoisie's table .

I AM NOT AGAINST IMMIGRATION.


Its in the corporate interests to have a "surplus" of workers , so that they will fight with each other over jobs , drive down wages and be less inclined to join unions because of fear . Its a reason to oppose capitalism not immigration .

It certainly is, but we must also understand why people will see it as a reason to oppose immigration instead, and how to counter the arguments of that worldview.


Your views on immigration are completely off

I am not against Immigration, my parents are immigrants to the country I live in!


I don't think your bigoted or racist

Thanks...:rolleyes:


but I do think you misunderstand marxist economics and capitalist economics . The scarcity argument put forward by anti-immigration orgs is idiotic because it is a product of the system that their basically defending and supporting .

Just because something is a product of capitalism does not undermine the appeal of the argument to broad swathes of the population.

My argument is as follows.

1. Mass immigration under capitalism has downsides as well as upsides

2. we must be prepared for when people use those downsides to stir up divisions between different sections of the working class.

3. Mass immigration serves capitalism, if it did not serve capitalism it would not exist.

4. socialists should not simply reply to an argument that includes the downsides of immigration by simply yelling the good sides louder and calling the other party a bigot. Rather a socialist should do everything they can to promote class arguments.

[POUM]

Jesus Christ!! NO ONE HERE IS AGAINST IMMIGRATION. How can you fail to see the difference between being against immigration and advocating propaganda and rethorics that would get more bluecollars to our side by initially convincing them how what they consider a major problem is actually a part of an even bigger problem,and that the only way to get rid of both problems (the inflated one and the basic one) is socialism/anarchism.