Upcoming UK General Election

[Poppytry]

Ok, so lets be realistic for one moment. There is absolutely no way that the left can expect to gain anything from the upcoming election, highly disorganised and fragmented it poses no real battle to other political factions. Especially under the first past the post system!.. So what do I do when the next general election comes?

Im tempted to go out and campaign with either Labour or Libdems to stand against nasty tories and everyone right beyond them such as UKIP and BNP. I agree that both Labour and Cons are backed by big business and neither have the working class interest at heart but I still cant help but think a Labour government would serve better than the Tories.

Now I've been on this website for a while so I've already braced my self for the verbal onslaught I have just set my self up for!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Don't be stupid. Labour and the Lib Dems are not our friends, even operating under the proviso of 'the enemy of our enemy.'

In theory it may be more comforting to have a Labour and not a Conservative government, but in reality there is little practical difference, policy wise and attitude/values wise, between the two.

Unless Brown holds it in April, i'll probably be away travelling:D Which is good, I wouldn't vote anyway.

[Kovacs]

Indicators suggest a hung parliament. Yes the Tories have a poll lead- but not a massive one.

I'll spoil my ballot I think. Parliamentary politics is a sham.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I'm gonna vote moster raving loony party.

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm gonna vote moster raving loony party.

Why...


in 2000 Angela Ashcroft won a seat on the multi-member Cuckoo Oak ward on Madeley (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Madeley,_Shropshire) Parish Council in Shropshire (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Shropshire). This soon turned to embarrassment when she defected not long after to become the local organiser for the far-right British National Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/British_National_Party).

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Why...

Because they are awesome.

[Revy]

Yet nobody has suggested voting for a socialist alternative yet.


Why...

I'd think that far-right politics would go along with being a "monster raving loony". Still, it's disheartening that parody parties are apparently more on our minds than the kind of socialist alternatives we need. And when socialist groups get together to support something, it's usually some pseudo-left watered-down BS (No2EU, RESPECT).

[Pogue]

And when socialist groups get together to support something, it's usually some pseudo-left watered-down BS (No2EU, RESPECT).

Yeh, we should totally launch an electoral alternative that calls for nothing other than completely cleana nd pure proletarian revolution, because if we dared address issues that goes against our left-communist ideology, we'd be selling out, dude.

[Wanted Man]

Im tempted to go out and campaign with either Labour or Libdems to stand against nasty tories and everyone right beyond them such as UKIP and BNP. I agree that both Labour and Cons are backed by big business and neither have the working class interest at heart but I still cant help but think a Labour government would serve better than the Tories.

Why? Labour have been in power for 12 years now; how have they "served better"?


Now I've been on this website for a while so I've already braced my self for the verbal onslaught I have just set my self up for!

If you don't want discussion or criticism, why start a thread?

[Pogue]

I'm going to vote for the Liberal Democrats because I'm an anarchist. :lol:

In all seriousness though, I don't understand why you'd ever consider supporting Labour or the lib dems, the Labour Party are neo-liberal, as are the tories and lib dems, because we're in a neo liberal consensus.

[Revy]

Yeh, we should totally launch an electoral alternative that calls for nothing other than completely cleana nd pure proletarian revolution, because if we dared address issues that goes against our left-communist ideology, we'd be selling out, dude.

:blink:Stop trolling.

I'm not a left communist.

Did I say anything of the sort? I said a socialist alternative. Supposedly, that's an extremist demand.

[Holden Caulfield]

:blink:Stop trolling.

I'm not a left communist.

Did I say anything of the sort? I said a socialist alternative. Supposedly, that's an extremist demand.

no2eu is worth voting for. any 'son of no2eu' is worth voting for.
Its all fine and well to sit in internet towers criticising things and waiting for the left-wing messiah but we must take steps and support steps that will help build class consciousness.

This was pogues point I assume

[Revy]

No2EU was NOT worth voting for.

It did not mention socialism at all. And worse of all, its implied position amounted to "British jobs for British workers". It blamed immigrant workers for "local" (read: British) unemployment.

Open borders is a basic socialist demand.

[cyu]

Im tempted to go out and campaign with either Labour or Libdems


Don't campaign for any specific parties or individuals, but campaign for ideas and issues. If no party platform has a plank that you like, then invent one / some of your own and campaign for that. Then again, anybody active in politics would be doing that all the time and not just at election time - but there may be more uninvolved moderates who become more interested in hearing about politics at election time.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm sure the BNP would love to round up all the immigrants and send them to concentrations camps, but they don't need to, because Labour are already doing that. The BNP would jump at the chance to send troops to another country to kill Muslims, but they don't need to, Labour beat them to it. And of course we all know that the BNP would empower capitalism, but Labour did that long ago. It's no good complaining about Labour being backed by big business, this is true with any mainstream bourgeois party, but it isn't even half of the problem, Labour being backed by big business doesn't mean a thing, the fact of the matter is that they are easily one of the nastiest parties going. It doesn't even make much sense to vote for Labour to keep the Tories out, they're basically the same, Labour are no more pro-worker than the Conservatives are. On every single issue they have vowed to help the poor, yet when it comes to action they are always on the side of capitalism, imperialism, and the ruling class. Voting for Labour is one of the stupidest things anyone can do. Anyway, my thoughts are basically the same as those of the Comrade who wrote this article (http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=568).

[Kovacs]

No2EU was NOT worth voting for.

It did not mention socialism at all. And worse of all, its implied position amounted to "British jobs for British workers". It blamed immigrant workers for "local" (read: British) unemployment.

Open borders is a basic socialist demand.

That is an implication some read into it, but as an electoral platform it was wooly enough to read quite a bit that wasn't there and supports only ones own prejudice. I voted NO2EU solely because our local standee is an old and well respected good egg and has written well about marxism in education. I wouldn't have even bothered except the BNP vote needed outweighing.

As vote shares go, NO2EU went dismally and really was to little, to late, to poorly defined and named. The funny thing is with a name like NO2EU they likely got a few votes from confused UKippers. :D

[rednordman]

No2EU was NOT worth voting for.

It did not mention socialism at all. And worse of all, its implied position amounted to "British jobs for British workers". It blamed immigrant workers for "local" (read: British) unemployment.

Open borders is a basic socialist demand.Sadly this is the truth, and i even voted for them in the EU elections. Worst of all, they took an absolute hammering in the polls. Im not sure, but didnt even the socialist labour party do better? (need rectifying here if wrong).

Anyhow, like others have said, why get hung up over parlamentory elections? If you really honestly believe that this system is a success, than you are celebrating the impotency of the left. This isnt that the left is impotent by its own accord, just that the system is designed to make it futile.

Afterall, the party that wins the election is the one that has the most money backed into it, and subsequently, best media coverage. No left-wing political party will ever recieve any of this. Please do not kid yourself.

Another thing, even if a leftwing party ever won, the other capitalist nations of the world would do absolutly everything the could to make sure that the government failed. Regardless of how many people supported it. Even the Nulabour party could not make any leftwing reforms (and i believe that they did promise to make some). All they could do and did is defend the ones that where already there.

Not surprisingly, these have been the number one target by the conservative right and they have done all they could to make sure that in some ways, these reforms do not work properly or are hindered to frustrate people (NHS comes to mind).

At least we now know what its like to live in an autocratic state (capitalist one that is). Problem is that when the ideology that drives it is looking very very shakey during the last year, things can get a little scary.

[Pogue]

No2EU was NOT worth voting for.

It did not mention socialism at all. And worse of all, its implied position amounted to "British jobs for British workers". It blamed immigrant workers for "local" (read: British) unemployment.

Open borders is a basic socialist demand.

No, it dealt with real concerns from a left wing standpoint in crude language that the ultra-left were always going to jump upon. It wasn't perfect but it wasn't as bad as you claim it was, you just wanted it to be bad because it was a serious attempt at trying to realistically reach out to people.

Open borders is a neo-liberal demand. In the context of capitalism it means exploiting labour from overseas to undermine unionised labour. Its nothing but a catchphrase shouted by those who don't really want to appeal to people but want to say whatever sounds the most radical. I think we need some serious responses to the question of immigration rather than just 'no borders, no states!', such as community control/communication, integration, encouraging immigration to areas of the UK that have more room, etc. I would have liked No2EU to speak more on this and explain views on the neo liberal view of open borders more, and out-lining a proper socialist perspective on things. I think they at least could have used an oppotunity to put out a rational view of immigration, i.e. debunking the myths of Labour, UKIP, BNP et all whilst also offering the rational response.

But fundamentally your critiques are ultra-leftist, and thus purile, its like criticising them for not running for election with one phrase: Abolish capitalism. You can play the game of purity if you want but it wont get you anywhere.

[ls]

Comrades, it is pure infantile ultra-leftism not to vote for anywhere where the SP, SLP, Labour, RESPECT or any other true socialist party of the workers is standing.

I can be infantile sometimes and I am an ultra-leftist so count me in.

[Pogue]

Comrades, it is pure infantile ultra-leftism not to vote for anywhere where the SP, SLP, Labour, RESPECT or any other true socialist party of the workers is standing.

I can be infantile sometimes and I am an ultra-leftist so count me in.

But I didn't say its infantile not to vote for them. I wouldn't vote for them, because as it stands its not part of my praxis to support electoral coalitions, it wouldn't help acheive my aims, so it'd be a pointless exercise. The point is, if your rejecting it because 'Voting is wrong man!' or 'z0mg any1 who talks about immigrations is racist!!111' then your behaving in the way the left always has, i.e. rejecting reality in favour of ghettoised politics that make you feel nice because you cand efine yourself with a nice little world and argue on internet forums. Too many people have an idealised conception of how socialism is acheived which is a plague on our movement.

[vivapalestina]

is there no call for a pirate party, which has already had successes in Germany and Sweden. Highly anti-capitalist and stand on issues the left and workers can relate on.

[bricolage]

But fundamentally your critiques are ultra-leftist...

An anarchist calling a member of a Socialist Party an ultra-leftist. It's a strange world.

[Pogue]

An anarchist calling a member of a Socialist Party an ultra-leftist. It's a strange world.

Why do you assume I'm an anarchist? And why would it be strange?

[Revy]

Here's what "ultra-leftist" Lenin said (Capitalism and Workers' Immigration):



There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations.

[....]

The bourgeoisie incites the workers of one nation against those of another in the endeavour to keep them disunited. Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries. Here's what Debs said (A Letter from Debs on Immigration):


Away with the “tactics” which require the exclusion of the oppressed and suffering slaves who seek these shores with the hope of bettering their wretched condition and are driven back under the cruel lash of expediency by those who call themselves Socialists in the name of a movement whose proud boast it is that it stands uncompromisingly for the oppressed and down-trodden of all the earth. These poor slaves have just as good a right to enter here as even the authors of this report who now seek to exclude them. The only difference is that the latter had the advantage of a little education and had not been so cruelly ground and oppressed, but in point of principle there is no difference, the motive of all being precisely the same, and if the convention which meets in the name of Socialism should discriminate at all it should be in favor of the miserable races who have borne the heaviest burdens and are most nearly crushed to the earth.


Upon this vital proposition I would take my stand against the world and no specious argument of subtle and sophistical defenders of the civic federation unionism, who do not hesitate to sacrifice principle for numbers and jeopardise ultimate success for immediate gain, could move me to turn my back upon the oppressed, brutalized and despairing victims of the old world, who are lured to these shores by some faint glimmer of hope that here their crushing burdens may be lightened, and some star of promise rise in their darkened skies.


The alleged advantages that would come to the Socialist movement because of such heartless exclusion would all be swept away a thousand times by the sacrifice of a cardinal principle of the international socialist movement, for well rnight the good faith of such a movement be questioned by intelligent workers if it placed itself upon record as barring its doors against the very races most in need of relief, and extinguishing their hope, and leaving them in dark despair at the very time their ears were first attuned to the international call and their hearts were beginning to throb responsive to the solidarity of the oppressed of all lands and all climes beneath the skies.


In this attitude there is nothing of maudlin sentimentality, but simply a rigid adherence to the fundamental principles of the International proletarian movement. If Socialism, international, revolutionary Socialism, does not stand staunchly, unflinchingly, and uncompromisingly for the working class and for the exploited and oppressed masses of all lands, then it stands for none and its claim is a false pretense and its profession a delusion and a snare.


Let those desert us who will because we refuse to shut the international door in the faces of their own brethren; we will be none the weaker but all the stronger for their going, for they evidently have no clear conception of the international solidarity, are wholly lacking in the revolutionary spirit, and have no proper place in the Socialist movement while they entertain such aristocratic notions of their own assumed superiority.

[bricolage]

Why do you assume I'm an anarchist? And why would it be strange?

Well you are in L&S, are they not anarchist anymore?

And because ultra-left has traditionally been a pejorative term utilised by Leninists, for example Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. This is the first time I've ever heard a non-Leninist use the term.

[Pogue]

Well you are in L&S, are they not anarchist anymore?

And because ultra-left has traditionally been a pejorative term utilised by Leninists, for example Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. This is the first time I've ever heard a non-Leninist use the term.

Well like my organisation I deifne myself as a libertarian socialist. Not that I think terms are really that relevant when it comes down to it.

I think its a good term to use for anyone who has unrealistic positions more interested in self-satisfaction than actually changing it.

[ls]

The point is, if your rejecting it because 'Voting is wrong man!' or 'z0mg any1 who talks about immigrations is racist!!111' then your behaving in the way the left always has, i.e. rejecting reality in favour of ghettoised politics that make you feel nice because you cand efine yourself with a nice little world and argue on internet forums. Too many people have an idealised conception of how socialism is acheived which is a plague on our movement.

Voting in bourgeois elections is not morally wrong, it's just a waste of time so I wouldn't go "omg voting is wrong" cuz as you know I endorsed that candidate for head of the RMT. I now realise it was mostly pointless because it is the rank-and-file in the RMT that.. well, actually do stuff, the workers committes organising in a sense, outside of the RMT. I'm sure the guy would've helped but, it was pretty clear he wasn't going to get in because they made it so. I think now that he should focus on working with workers below and not bother going up for re-election, cuz he is definitely a good guy.

Anyway, I don't really approach the issue of immigration from a holier-than-thou attitude at all either, in fact my stance on that has always been resolutely clear but not at all condescending. Immigration (not to be confused with colonialism) in all cases is progressive throughout the globe.

[Pogue]

Voting in bourgeois elections is not morally wrong, it's just a waste of time so I wouldn't go "omg voting is wrong" cuz as you know I endorsed that candidate for head of the RMT. I now realise it was mostly pointless because it is the rank-and-file in the RMT that.. well, actually do stuff, the workers committes organising in a sense, outside of the RMT. I'm sure the guy would've helped but, it was pretty clear he wasn't going to get in because they made it so. I think now that he should focus on working with workers below and not bother going up for re-election, cuz he is definitely a good guy.

Anyway, I don't really approach the issue of immigration from a holier-than-thou attitude at all either, in fact my stance on that has always been resolutely clear but not at all condescending. Immigration (not to be confused with colonialism) in all cases is progressive throughout the globe.

What are you talking about? RMT guy?

[bricolage]

Open borders is a neo-liberal demand. In the context of capitalism it means exploiting labour from overseas to undermine unionised labour.

Ok, while I'm not debating the facts of this, it does pose the question that if you are not calling for open borders you have to, by default, at some point call for a stop to immigration or, even for a short amount of time, closed borders. Once this happens you start using the same rhetoric as mainstream parties and tread into the realms of managing, not attacking, capitalism. How would you justify this and is there a point at which you would feel comfortable opposing immigration of calling for closed borders? If the answer is no then you support open borders whether you think so or not.

[Pogue]

Ok, while I'm not debating the facts of this, it does pose the question that if you are not calling for open borders you have to, by default, at some point call for a stop to immigration or, even for a short amount of time, closed borders. Once this happens you start using the same rhetoric as mainstream parties and tread into the realms of managing, not attacking, capitalism. How would you justify this and is there a point at which you would feel comfortable opposing immigration of calling for closed borders? If the answer is no then you support open borders whether you think so or not.

I didn't say I opposed the cocnept of people migrating where they want, I justs aid I oppose the shitty rhetoric of just saying 'no borders' and taking it no further as an attempt to appear radical and 'true to anarchism' rather than outlining a coherent and realistic position you could actually win people over too.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What are you talking about? RMT guy?

I think he means the building union dude who proposed building a workers army to prevent evictions.

[Pogue]

I think he means the building union dude who proposed building a workers army to prevent evictions.

oh right. mick dooley. supporting him would have led to real physical gains for us, something the ultra-left find difficult to comprehend because "HE'S IN A UNION OH GOSH".

[bricolage]

I didn't say I opposed the cocnept of people migrating where they want, I justs aid I oppose the shitty rhetoric of just saying 'no borders' and taking it no further as an attempt to appear radical and 'true to anarchism' rather than outlining a coherent and realistic position you could actually win people over too.

Well you said open borders was a neoliberal demand in the context of capitalism which leads me to believe you oppose open borders in the context of capitalism, am I right? If that is the case I was just wondering where you would draw the line im opposing this, I'm not having a dig at you, just trying to work out where you stand.

I agree though that you need to expand ideas beyond slogans, but that's applicable to everything.

[ls]

I didn't say I opposed the cocnept of people migrating where they want, I justs aid I oppose the shitty rhetoric of just saying 'no borders' and taking it no further as an attempt to appear radical and 'true to anarchism' rather than outlining a coherent and realistic position you could actually win people over too.

Ah, you mean like anti-ultra-left 'Libyan socialism' and its preference for immigrant prisons in the desert (which Italy requested or rather demanded from Qadafi to which he capitulated) where beatings regularly occur? Anti-imperialism at its finest.


oh right. mick dooley. supporting him would have led to real physical gains for us, something the ultra-left find difficult to comprehend because "HE'S IN A UNION OH GOSH".

The ultra-left does not have one entire and coherent position, you are ultra-left by most people's standards. In any case, he may have made a difference I really don't know, but he had less than 5% chance of getting in too. Union shop stewards are sometimes good positions strategically for our movement.

Anyway without doubt, full-time union bureaucrats are majority of the time absolute scum and are not worth a thing to us.

[Pogue]

Ah, you mean like anti-ultra-left 'Libyan socialism' and its preference for immigrant prisons in the desert (which Italy requested or rather demanded from Qadafi to which he capitulated) where beatings regularly occur? Anti-imperialism at its finest.


Who the fuck mentioned Libya in anyway, shape or form?



The ultra-left does not have one entire and coherent position, you are ultra-left by most people's standards. In any case, he may have made a difference I really don't know, but he had less than 5% chance of getting in too. Union shop stewards are sometimes good positions strategically for our movement.

Anyway without doubt, full-time union bureaucrats are majority of the time absolute scum and are not worth a thing to us.


If someone wants to define a standard by which I am ultra-left they can do so, I think thats precisely the opposite of the accusation thrown at my group, whom I share many of my positions with, and I don't think it applies to me. I think its mainly for people with a left-communist analysis.

Union shop stewards are different from union leaders, which leads me to believe you don't really know what your on about, as supporting shop stewards shouldn't really be a case for discussion within our movement.

[Vanguard1917]

Open borders is a neo-liberal demand.

Really? Then why don't any 'neo-liberals' demand it?

The reality is, of course, that only socialists have ever consistently and unconditionally opposed the capitalist state's immigration controls, because we have recognised that the purpose of such controls is to divide the working class, economically, socially and politically.

The Human Condition is right: open borders is a basic socialist demand.

[Pogue]

Really? Then why don't any 'neo-liberals' demand it?

The reality is, of course, that only socialists have ever consistently and unconditionally opposed the capitalist state's immigration controls, because we have recognised that the purpose of such controls is to divide the working class, economically, socially and politically.

The Human Condition is right: open borders is a basic socialist demand.

I'm talking about in the present context. If you just leave it as it is, i.e. if your proposing some sort of transitional demand like No2EU were basically doing. Hence why No2EU took the only position they really could on it, but sadly didn't explain it properly.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm talking about in the present context.

So am i. In the present context, the only progressive position on the capitalist state's immigration controls is to call for their immediate end.

Your 'Open borders is a neo-liberal demand' is way off the mark.

[FSL]

Really? Then why don't any 'neo-liberals' demand it?

The reality is, of course, that only socialists have ever consistently and unconditionally opposed the capitalist state's immigration controls, because we have recognised that the purpose of such controls is to divide the working class, economically, socially and politically.

The Human Condition is right: open borders is a basic socialist demand.


Did you happen to not notice the European Union? It's getting pretty big, you might want to give it a look.


A basic socialist demand for those who are unaware is ending the uneven development. Socialists with brains don't think of immigration as a blessing, but as a plight on those who must leave their home to scrap a living. That immigrants need to have equal rights in all life's spheres goes without saying, but people who'd rather support a No borders movement rather than go out and unionize Pakistanis are simply useful to the capitalists.

Of course, supporting the EU on the basis of its progressive immigrant policy is laughable. Supporting the EU on any basis is laughable and people should of course take that into account if they are to vote in these elections. A party's stance on imperialism when it's coming from its "home" speaks volumes for that party's character. Opportunists will just offer a helping hand to big european capital because it's "anti-racist", "anti-nationalist", "green" etc

[nuisance]

Well like my organisation I deifne myself as a libertarian socialist. Not that I think terms are really that relevant when it comes down to it.

I think its a good term to use for anyone who has unrealistic positions more interested in self-satisfaction than actually changing it.
Bah, libertarian socialist/communist is just an intelluctual way of claiming to be an anarchist for those who think anarchist is to puerile a term- unless your a council or left communist I guess.

[Vanguard1917]

Did you happen to not notice the European Union? It's getting pretty big, you might want to give it a look.

Does the EU support open borders, or does it in fact only support highly controlled 'free movement' between a chosen set of states?

While socialists oppose all the immigration controls of the capitalist state, you will find that the EU very much supports immigration controls.



people who'd rather support a No borders movement rather than go out and unionize Pakistanis are simply useful to the capitalists.


Why should one exclude the other? Can you not support Pakistani workers unionising and at the same time oppose the British state imprisoning and deporting them for wanting to work and live in Britain?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

As vote shares go, NO2EU went dismally and really was to little, to late, to poorly defined and named. The funny thing is with a name like NO2EU they likely got a few votes from confused UKippers. :D
That is funny, but also says a lot about their terrible politics. Seriously, my mostly-apolitical housemate at the time of the last Euro election did just assume they were a far-right splinter group along the lines of UKIP or England First.

But I didn't say its infantile not to vote for them. I wouldn't vote for them, because as it stands its not part of my praxis to support electoral coalitions, it wouldn't help acheive my aims, so it'd be a pointless exercise. The point is, if your rejecting it because 'Voting is wrong man!' or 'z0mg any1 who talks about immigrations is racist!!111' then your behaving in the way the left always has, i.e. rejecting reality in favour of ghettoised politics that make you feel nice because you cand efine yourself with a nice little world and argue on internet forums. Too many people have an idealised conception of how socialism is acheived which is a plague on our movement.
So if you don't vote because you don't think that it'll achieve anything, that's fine, but if you don't vote because you don't think that it'll achieve anything, it makes you a mad ultra-left dickhead? I'm slightly confused by your position here.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why should one exclude the other? Can you not support Pakistani workers unionising and at the same time oppose the British state imprisoning and deporting them for wanting to work and live in Britain?
I'd think it would be quite a lot easier than supporting Pakistani workers organising and at the same time supporting the British state deporting them.

[ls]

Who the fuck mentioned Libya in anyway, shape or form?

Well, I would imagine you support it on some ridiculous anti-imperialist basis.


If someone wants to define a standard by which I am ultra-left they can do so, I think thats precisely the opposite of the accusation thrown at my group, whom I share many of my positions with, and I don't think it applies to me. I think its mainly for people with a left-communist analysis.

Your group are largely leninist in outlook, I do have moments wondering how anarchist you are or if it's even an applicable label at all.


Union shop stewards are different from union leaders, which leads me to believe you don't really know what your on about, as supporting shop stewards shouldn't really be a case for discussion within our movement.

I thought you'd try and say I'm claiming that they are the same thing, which I'm clearly not, nice try at destroying my argument but even you said "they did everything to stop him from getting in [Mick Dooley]". So yeah.

And by the way, just a fyi even though this was not my original argument, a lot of shop stewards are reactionary union stooges anyway, in about a third of all cases probably just as reactionary as someone like Bob Crow.

[ls]

Bah, libertarian socialist/communist is just an intelluctual way of claiming to be an anarchist for those who think anarchist is to puerile a term- unless your a council or left communist I guess.

Nah, trust me on this there is a qualitative difference. Notably, many of those who claim to be libertarian socialists (not libertarian communists though ;) ) tend to have very washy politics, I know cuz I was one and have been associated recently with a bunch of them. Most notably, the radical history network has a lot of em types in, good people but severely misguided in a lot of cases politically, a definite case where "the lefter the better" is true. :p

[Crux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU

[FSL]

Does the EU support open borders, or does it in fact only support highly controlled 'free movement' between a chosen set of states?

While socialists oppose all the immigration controls of the capitalist state, you will find that the EU very much supports immigration controls.



Why should one exclude the other? Can you not support Pakistani workers unionising and at the same time oppose the British state imprisoning and deporting them for wanting to work and live in Britain?


The EU supports free movement of workers withing its limits so it will be able to synchronize the cycles of all the economies. Treaties were signed to protect this.

Also, I take it it was easier for you to pretend you didn't notice the "equal rights" part.

[bricolage]

That is funny, but also says a lot about their terrible politics. Seriously, my mostly-apolitical housemate at the time of the last Euro election did just assume they were a far-right splinter group along the lines of UKIP or England First.

Yeah I knew someone who thought the same thing to. The thing was even if you included their full name it was still not much better, what exactly was the democracy they were saying yes to? The UK's democracy? How the UK would be if there was no EU? Yeah real socialist...

[Revy]

That's true. On the surface, not many people could have distinguished them from the right. I am sure the idea of a left-wing Eurosceptic campaign intrigued many. But it was simply not from a left-wing perspective. Socialists do not argue that the EU is bad because it's a threat to national "sovereignty", or because it brings immigrants from other countries.

I could imagine if it were something different, championing socialism, defending open borders and internationalism. "For a Workers' Europe - Resist the Bosses"? But that's a subject for alternative history.

The question is the next UK general election. If the main left alternative offered will be the so-called "Son of No2EU" then it could either take two courses: provide a genuine socialist alternative, or simply reflect the platforms of the mainstream parties offering no radical politics. The latter would be disastrous and offer another hopeless diversion. Rather than a breakthrough, it will just be a blip on the radar.

If anti-capitalist, revolutionary politics are really the way forward in Britain, then you should act like it. If you don't, there is no hope. As Debs said, "Let those desert us who will....we will be none the weaker but all the stronger"! Because the strength of revolutionary politics does not derive from what holds sway but from what is correct and true.

[Crux]

So has anyone criticisizing the No to EU Yes to democracy (horrible name I agree, and I know SP voted against the name aswell) list actually read the platform?

Stand up for workers’ rights
The social dumping of exploited foreign workers in Britain is being carried out under EU rules demanding the “free movement of capital, goods, services and labour” within the EU. Successive EU Directives and European Court of Justice decisions have also been used to attack trade union collective bargaining, the right to strike and workers’ pay and conditions.

The Single European Market, created by the Tory government with the Single European Act in 1987, creates a pool of working people to be exploited and treated no better than a commodity like a tin of beans. These EU rules allow employers to escape from national collective bargaining and employment legislation and impose lower wages and worse working conditions, creating a “race to the bottom”.

These EU rules, which no-one asked for, have been behind some of the most bitter industrial disputes in recent years, like the Irish Ferries dispute, the strike of Gate Gourmet workers at Heathrow, and the Lindsey oil refinery workers’ strike.

The European Court of Justice has even decreed in the Laval and Viking cases that collective agreements that protect workers’ conditions contravene the ‘free movement’ of labour in the single market.

The recent protests at Lindsey, supported by workers across Britain, were not against foreign workers or xenophobic. These workers were simply defending the fundamental right to work under union agreements – a right not given by EU directives or treaties.

The so-called ‘free movement’ of labour is part of the development of a deeply racist Fortress Europe which would increasingly exclude people from outside the EU and undermine wages and working conditions inside the bloc.

To ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained to perform is an environmental, economic and social nonsense.

If ‘food-miles’ represent an unacceptably large carbon footprint, then ‘labour-miles’ and shunting human beings around Europe in the pursuit of profit is even more damaging.
In the 1980s recession Tory minister Norman Tebbit famously told the unemployed to ‘get on their bikes’ to look for work. Nowwell-shod government ministers advise workers in Britain ‘to get on a plane’ and find work elsewhere in the EU!

Vote No2EU - Yes to Democracy to resist the EU turning human beings into commodities to be shunted around Europe while local workers are excluded from being able to provide for their families.

[Crux]

is there no call for a pirate party, which has already had successes in Germany and Sweden. Highly anti-capitalist and stand on issues the left and workers can relate on.
As a Swede all I can say is this, the Pirate Party of sweden is not in any way, shape or form anti-capitalist. To be domninantly male, young and so called "protest voters". Comparatively a lot of their voters also expressed support for the Sweden Democrats, a far-right, populist and racist party. So no the Pirate Party is not really anything positive, it's only a matter of time before they go the way of other one-question parties, the trashcan of history.

[Revy]

So has anyone criticisizing the No to EU Yes to democracy (horrible name I agree, and I know SP voted against the name aswell) list actually read the platform?

Stand up for workers’ rights
The social dumping of exploited foreign workers in Britain is being carried out under EU rules demanding the “free movement of capital, goods, services and labour” within the EU. Successive EU Directives and European Court of Justice decisions have also been used to attack trade union collective bargaining, the right to strike and workers’ pay and conditions.

The Single European Market, created by the Tory government with the Single European Act in 1987, creates a pool of working people to be exploited and treated no better than a commodity like a tin of beans. These EU rules allow employers to escape from national collective bargaining and employment legislation and impose lower wages and worse working conditions, creating a “race to the bottom”.

These EU rules, which no-one asked for, have been behind some of the most bitter industrial disputes in recent years, like the Irish Ferries dispute, the strike of Gate Gourmet workers at Heathrow, and the Lindsey oil refinery workers’ strike.

The European Court of Justice has even decreed in the Laval and Viking cases that collective agreements that protect workers’ conditions contravene the ‘free movement’ of labour in the single market.

The recent protests at Lindsey, supported by workers across Britain, were not against foreign workers or xenophobic. These workers were simply defending the fundamental right to work under union agreements – a right not given by EU directives or treaties.

The so-called ‘free movement’ of labour is part of the development of a deeply racist Fortress Europe which would increasingly exclude people from outside the EU and undermine wages and working conditions inside the bloc.

To ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained to perform is an environmental, economic and social nonsense.

If ‘food-miles’ represent an unacceptably large carbon footprint, then ‘labour-miles’ and shunting human beings around Europe in the pursuit of profit is even more damaging.
In the 1980s recession Tory minister Norman Tebbit famously told the unemployed to ‘get on their bikes’ to look for work. Nowwell-shod government ministers advise workers in Britain ‘to get on a plane’ and find work elsewhere in the EU!

Vote No2EU - Yes to Democracy to resist the EU turning human beings into commodities to be shunted around Europe while local workers are excluded from being able to provide for their families.

Of course I've read it. Sure, there is feigned sympathy but the xenophobia is there. Just because they use words like "shunted", "exploited" to describe the foreign workers doesn't mask the real argument here: that foreign workers cause unemployment in Britain and their presence is therefore menacing to British workers.

A palatable argument to the union bureaucracy, but to revolutionaries, it is thoroughly reactionary and more characteristic of the kind of right-wing populism one might expect than a so-called "left" alternative.

[Crux]

So basicly you are reading in thing's that are not there? So you approve of the so called "free movement of labour" of the EU court rulings? How is that in any way "revolutionary"? Because that's what's this is about. Granted the No2Euyes2democracy platform is limited, but calling it "nationalist" and "xenophobic" just does not have anything to do with reality.

[Revy]

Do they really have to sound like the BNP to be advancing a xenophobic position? I have read it several times and I am not reading things that are not in there.

"To ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained to perform is an environmental, economic and social nonsense."

Does this not spell out their position? Just because I haven't repeated it word-for-word does not mean I haven't repeated what their argument actually is.

[BOZG]

is there no call for a pirate party, which has already had successes in Germany and Sweden. Highly anti-capitalist and stand on issues the left and workers can relate on.

Actually, the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party considers himself an ultra-capitalist and dropped out of the Swedish Moderate Party because it was too "socially liberal". MEP Christian Engstrom is a former member of the Liberal People's Party.

They may have supporters and members on the left but the leadership are right-wing.

[Crux]

Do they really have to sound like the BNP to be advancing a xenophobic position? I have read it several times and I am not reading things that are not in there.

"To ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained to perform is an environmental, economic and social nonsense."

Does this not spell out their position? Just because I haven't repeated it word-for-word does not mean I haven't repeated what their argument actually is.
Yes, it does and to anyone familiar with the EU court rulings specifically mentioned in the article it's plainly clear what these views are, or are you saying that being opposed to, say, Laval using latvian contractors to bypass the swedish union-market agreement is progressive? Just to name one example. So where exactly do you find any xenophobia in their statement?

[Revy]

Yes, it does and to anyone familiar with the EU court rulings specifically mentioned in the article it's plainly clear what these views are, or are you saying that being opposed to, say, Laval using latvian contractors to bypass the swedish union-market agreement is progressive? Just to name one example. So where exactly do you find any xenophobia in their statement?

Are you going to keep beating around the bush? Do I have to keep repeating myself?

They think that foreign workers take British jobs and drive down wages and conditions. Is this scapegoating rhetoric somehow compatible with our politics?

Why am I being treated like I just burst out of a mental hospital, when I'm promoting the very idea that should be basic, that the capitalist state has no right to impose restrictions on the freedom of movement of the working class, and that solidarity without respect to borders and national origin is essential? Our struggle needs to reach out to immigrant workers not treat them as if they were the problem.

[ls]

Human Condition, some people and some of the rhetoric no2eu came out with was a bit stupid, but I really don't think your characterisation of it as saying they wanted non-British immigrants to stay out is true at all, not one bit.

[Crux]

Are you going to keep beating around the bush? Do I have to keep repeating myself?

They think that foreign workers take British jobs and drive down wages and conditions. Is this scapegoating rhetoric somehow compatible with our politics?

Why am I being treated like I just burst out of a mental hospital, when I'm promoting the very idea that should be basic, that the capitalist state has no right to impose restrictions on the freedom of movement of the working class, and that solidarity without respect to borders and national origin is essential? Our struggle needs to reach out to immigrant workers not treat them as if they were the problem.
Because it is not about the "freedom of movement of the working class". If you read the statement I challenge you to point to anywhere wher blame is put on the worker's rather than the neoliberal policies of the EU, granted, as I said before, this is a limited platform. It is not about the capitalist state "imposing restrictions" it's about companies using foreign contractors to drive down conditions and wages and calling this the "freedom of movement of labour and capital". I think it's quite crystal clear actually.

[Vanguard1917]

It is not about the capitalist state "imposing restrictions" it's about companies using foreign contractors to drive down conditions and wages and calling this the "freedom of movement of labour and capital". I think it's quite crystal clear actually.

And the solution to that is immigration controls, deportations and arrests? Clearly not. Open borders is the only progressive, socialist policy in respect to immigration controls.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is a somewhat reformist argument.

Within the confines of Capitalism, it is madness to ship in workers from another country to do a job when there is enough labour in the country to do the job. This does just drive down wages for workers, due to the profit motive and competition.


The issue here is that the existence of Capitalism means that whichever path is taken - open borders or stopping wages from being driven down by workers competing with one another - it will not aid the exploited. The choice of one of these policies is a moot point, and a reformist one at that, as the only way to end discrimination against immigrants without compromising the material position of the working class is to end the Capitalist mode which we live in now.

I am not an impossibilist in general, but I really don't see any solution, or even a placebo, arising whilst Capitalism is still the dominant system.

[Vanguard1917]

The issue here is that the existence of Capitalism means that whichever path is taken - open borders or stopping wages from being driven down by workers competing with one another - it will not aid the exploited. The choice of one of these policies is a moot point, and a reformist one at that, as the only way to end discrimination against immigrants without compromising the material position of the working class is to end the Capitalist mode which we live in now.

But if you don't support open borders, you support immigration controls -- which means that you support immigrant deportations, arrests and imprisonments at the hands of the capitalist state. You support that state having powers to dictate to workers where they can and cannot seek work and choose to live. Even on that basis alone, open borders is a far more progressive policy than the alternative: anti-immigrant legislation.

But it goes beyond that. Immigration controls are a product of the imperialist epoch, largely a product of the 20th century, designed to control the movement of labour in the interests of capital in its imperialist stage of development. Confronting immigration controls is a direct challenge to this arrangement.

Also, crucially, immigration controls are a cause of chauvinist and xenophobic sentiments in society. They reinforce the view that the working class of one nation needs to be protected from workers of other nations. The international movement of labour, on the other hand, brings workers from all over the world closer together. As Lenin pointed out, this is a positive development for socialists.

Finally, the argument that we should oppose immigrant labour because it supposedly drives down wages for British workers is thoroughly nationalist. It implicitly accepts that British workers should have a privileged status in the domestic labour market. It accepts the populist bourgeois slogan about British jobs being for British workers, that British workers interests should come first. It sees foreign labour as a threat to domestic labour, and it decides to seek to safeguard the latter from the former. This is, of course, in direct opposition to socialism's internationalist outlook.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My point is, it doesn't matter which you support in a Capitalist society.

By your logic, one could then say that supporting open borders is also supporting free trade.

It is a reformist discussion. End of.

[Vanguard1917]

My point is, it doesn't matter which you support in a Capitalist society.

How can it not matter? It matters hugely, for the reasons that i gave.

[ls]

My point is, it doesn't matter which you support in a Capitalist society.

By your logic, one could then say that supporting open borders is also supporting free trade.

It is a reformist discussion. End of.

This is a stupid thing to say as well, supporting open borders necessarily means being against the bourgeois nation state.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

One can also say that whilst that is a comforting theoretical point (and I do agree, i'm not belittling the validity of said point), the policy of supporting open borders to the extent of foreign workers being used to do labour in another country when that country also has labour available to do the job, results in a practical loss for the working class, as it is an action which drives wages down, due to the forces of competition which exist in Capitalism.

[ls]

So you are taking the chauvinistic side of workers vs workers, the bourgeois line.

So by your definition miners should never have striked in the UK as they killed the jobs off for the metalworkers, so by your definition the postal strike shouldn't have happened as it was an 'own goal' etc.

So by your ideas, we should just join the labour party and give up class struggle, no thanks I'll stick to my own thing.

[Wanted Man]

My point is, it doesn't matter which you support in a Capitalist society.

By your logic, one could then say that supporting open borders is also supporting free trade.

It is a reformist discussion. End of.

But surely that could be said about so many political issues of the day? Some communists seem to confuse the need for proletarian revolution with the idea that dealing with any other subjects (that directly affect people) is "pointless" or "reformist".

I mean, it would be nice if people asked you "What do you think of immigration/trade unions/elections/whatever?" and you could respond: "Well, there is no real solution to this except proletarian revolution". But who is that supposed to convince? (in before: "Nobody needs to be convinced of anything, the proletariat will rise up when the time is right" :rolleyes:)

[Patchd]

Yet nobody has suggested voting for a socialist alternative yet.
Why? All that ever got us was New Labour. It's time people stopped campaigning for reforms and started acting like revolutionaries.

[Crux]

And the solution to that is immigration controls, deportations and arrests? Clearly not. Open borders is the only progressive, socialist policy in respect to immigration controls.
Quit strawmanning. If you look up a bit you'll see that the opinion you try to paint on the No2Eu platform, and possibly me as well, is one we do not hold.

[robbo203]

Why? All that ever got us was New Labour. It's time people stopped campaigning for reforms and started acting like revolutionaries.


Well not quite. The point that Human Condition made was " Yet nobody has suggested voting for a socialist alternative yet". Voting for New Labour was not voting for a socialist alternative but for the Tweedledum of British capitalism as opposed to the Tweedledee (the Tories). In other words it was an inappropriate use of the vote, not an indictment of using the vote as such.