What party to join, UK?

[etiennel]

Wondering if you could list as many communist/socialist/anarchist parties to join in the UK. Don't hesitate to list any.

[Sasha]

I hear there are some good illegal rave parties in the weekend...

Oh you mean political parties? they are all shite and an energy and motivation black hole, dont bother, they are going nowhere anyway.

Oganize around toppics, organize with friends, do not tough formal organisations with an 10foot pole.

[JayBro47]

UKIP represents a lot of the White Working and Middle Class and have a Euroscepticist Policy (thoughts?) and they are feeling LEFT BEHIND.

We need to recognize the native British Working and Middle Class!

[Comrade Jacob]

Cpgb-ml

[etiennel]

Are you a member/ do you know any members?:hammersickle:

[etiennel]

Are you serious or:ninja:

[Armchair Partisan]

UKIP represents a lot of the White Working and Middle Class and have a Euroscepticist Policy (thoughts?) and they are feeling LEFT BEHIND.

We need to recognize the native British Working and Middle Class!

Erm, lolwut?

What is this "middle class" you speak of, anyway?

[JayBro47]

I mean as opposed to the Ultra-Oligarchs.

You don't agree there?

You don't see any elements of common Brits who support UKIP.

[JayBro47]

I mean people say Nigel Farage also represents Oligarchy.

But there is a common strain of a sort-of Patriotism.

I'm not saying WE have to support UKIP, I'm saying there are disaffected and "patriotic" Brits who do. And we should not leave them behind.

[Futility Personified]

Jaybro, the mere thought of UKIP makes me feel irascible and hostile, and revleft can be an extremely unfriendly place. You mind elaborating what you said a bit more? What do you mean don't leave these people behind?

[etiennel]

UKIP are racist, fascist, nationalists. We do not accept UKIP.

[JayBro47]

Don't accept UKIP. Accept the *people* who support UKIP, same as those who vote National Front. Also, do not exaggerate UKIP's bad tendencies. They aren't total-fash. Incorporate them so they don't go to UKIP.

[JayBro47]

Yeah, don't be unfriendly to UKIP-Voters, who themselves are irascible and frustrated.

[Comrade Jacob]

Are you a member/ do you know any members?:hammersickle:

I am a member, yes.

[Blake's Baby]

@etiennel's avatar, Comrade Joseph is a cpgb-ml-er. I'm sure you can google them.

As for us providing a list of all the political organisations in the UK we can think of, why don't you tell us where you think your politics are and then that might narrow the list from the approximately 200 answers you'll get.

EDIT: oh, Comrade Jacob's already answered that anyway.

[JayBro47]

You're a member of CPGBML. Less supporters of UKIP.

Why do you guys go around with a Picture of Stalin and support Syrian-Ba'athism? People who have been instinctively raised to be patriotic will not flock to pictures of Stalin.

[JayBro47]

That's actually a turn-off. It's literally the opposite of the Popular Front Tendencies of the CPUSA which tried to "Americanize" and "Patriotize" itself, which is what European Communist Parties did during part of the Cold War.

[JayBro47]

Is Euroscepticism inherently Fash or is there a self-determination element there that we see with UKIP, National Front, etc. Of course Golden Dawn = Pure Nazism/

[Comrade Jacob]

You're a member of CPGBML. Less supporters of UKIP.

Why do you guys go around with a Picture of Stalin and support Syrian-Ba'athism? People who have been instinctively raised to be patriotic will not flock to pictures of Stalin.

We don't support Ba'athism at all. We support the Syrian government on anti-imperialist and secular grounds only.

[JayBro47]

I guess CPGBML is actually appealing to the "edge" of society. I wouldn't call it revolutionary. They aren't appealing to the people. And frankly your support of Russian and Soviet Social-Imperialism and Chinese-Revisionism and the Syrian Ba'ath is bad, so it's good you're following that strategy :glare:

[JayBro47]

"On secular grounds only"

Silly I guess. You're supporting Russian Social-Imperialism. The Ba'athist-Bonaparist Clique has existed for decades in Syria.

[Comrade Jacob]

i like to take people out of context, twist and ignore what they say:glare:

stfu

[JayBro47]

Well you support Hezbollah I'm guessing against Israel, so that is chucked out the window. And you probably view the Lebanese-National Uprising against the Ba'ath in 2005 to be "controlled by West" or something, so what else is there to say.

[Comrade Jacob]

Well you support Hezbollah I'm guessing against Israel, so that is chucked out the window. And you probably view the Lebanese-National Uprising against the Ba'ath in 2005 to be "controlled by West" or something, so what else is there to say.

Dude, stop spamming for posts. You don't know shit bruv

[JayBro47]

Anyway CPGB-ML is garbage. Again they aren't following a Popular Front Line, aren't making themselves appealing to regular British Workers. I mean sheesh the USSR is over anyhow, yet they running around with Gigantic Stalin-Pictures.

[JayBro47]

I guess we are dun, bruv. Oops, I mean братан. Even after USSR is gone, etc.

[Comrade Jacob]

I guess we are dun, bruv. Oops, I mean братан. Even after USSR is gone, etc.

My feels :crying:

[JayBro47]

Honestly, CPGB-ML supports the Russian-Imperialism. They're an outpost fucking lol

Even after they closed the Cominform Organization in 1956, even after De-Stalinization, even after the USSR turned to Social-Imperialism, even after Sino-Soviet Split, even after the USSR is *gone!*

They have a facebook page showing a picture of Gorbachev "this man ruined it all" Lol really? So Brezhnevist-Fascism was better? How? Anyway the word they are looking for is YELTSIN, Gorbachev did some reforms (whether you support them or not.)

[JayBro47]

Basically they're a satellite state for a state that hasn't had so many satellites for like 15-20 years already.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm done with this guy.

[JayBro47]

Okay then.

[etiennel]

They are complete fascists. I dont hate all their supporters but I think they are misguided.

[etiennel]

I filled the form thing.

[etiennel]

Sorry.

I'm a marxist communist/ anarchist, Economic Left/Right: -13.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74.

[JayBro47]

So guide them lol! Don't push them away! Is Euroscepticism acceptable in some ways?

[etiennel]

I never said otherwise.

[JayBro47]

And they have a sense of British Nationalism that is caused by Neo-Liberalism dislodging them in ways so they look for some sort of "unity" but also there has been a huge increase in multiculturalism and so on the last 20 years, but they feel dislodged. They need help

[The 92nd One]

Better off joining an organization than an actual party.

[Q]

List of leftwing groups and parties in the UK (http://communism.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_Kingdom).

I recommend to look into the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk/), publishers of the Weekly Worker (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/).

[etiennel]

Interesting suggestion. Any examples?

[Q]

Interesting suggestion. Any examples?
Examples of what?

[etiennel]

That was aimed at the guy before you.

[#FF0000]

That was aimed at the guy before you.

Dude might be talking about political organizations that aren't parties. I don't want to speak for that user but I can think of a couple of these -- mostly Anarchist. SolFed and AFed are groups I hear a lot about (the former recently published a pretty decent primer on syndicalism/council communism called Fighting For Ourselves). The IWW is also pretty big in the UK -- one third of all our members are in the isles.

[rednortherner]

Parties? Well best to start with the "Big Three" (or in other words actually have over 1000 members) in no particular order: the Communist Party of Britain (I'm a member), who are the continuation of the old CPGB, which had liquidated itself under anti-communists, helped set up Stop the War, The People's Charter, and then the People's Assembly, I'd say its got a broader range of opinion in it than most other parties, but is Marxist in outlook and Leninist in organisation. Then there's the Socialist Party (of England and Wales) who were the Militant Tendency, but then decided after years of entryism in Labour, they decided they should set up a new workers party to be a tendency in that instead. Their latest attempt is TUSC (Trade Union and Socialist Coalition) which is purely electoral, and has the support of RMT money but most members have never heard of it. TUSC got 36,000 votes at the general election with 135 candidates, so given how electoral they are, they're not gonna be replacing Labour anytime soon. They are based on Trotskyist theory, but in practice are very social democratic in practice. Then there's the SWP who are also a part of TUSC, but basically ran a separate campaign under the TUSC banner. They're not great... they have a reputation for sectarianism, opportunism, and scandal, including covering up a rape. This basically killed the SWP's student membership which it was dependent on as the party had an extremely high turnover of members. They have done some good things, and were the leading force in Stop the War until all the splits from the rape crisis. Not sure anyone would really recommend them now.

Then you've got your Marxist entryist groups in Labour, a few things in Scotland that have either become Scottish Nats or are supporting Nat parties, but if you're in Scotland just say and I can post about them (I'm a Yorkshireman so its northern based knowledge here) and then a whole bunch of crazy little groups, often based around one influential leading figure (whose usually a bloke) who tend to be insane. Sometimes they're interesting too, but all are basically an irrelevance.

Judge parties by their practice, and how much they get outside the left bubble, thats why i joined the CP, but there are many good comrades and activists across the board.

I'm trying to be as objective as i can so i hope that helps :) and best of luck to you

[A.J.]

They are based on Trotskyist theory, but in practice are very social democratic in practice.

Trotskyism is social-democratic in theory as well as practice(see the revisionist "transitional programme" and elevation of United Front tactics to the level of principal)


Also, anyone noticed how right-revisionist and trotskyite groups in Britain seem to be exclusivey made up of indigenous white people. (in Scotland, more specifically, trotskyite groups seem to consist entirely of persons of Irish descent :glare: )

What gives?

[VivalaCuarta]

Not sure what's "revisionist" about the Transitional Program.


elevation of United Front tactics to the level of principal

Trotsky (https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/02/centrism.htm):


The centrist swears by the policy of the united front as he empties it of its revolutionary content and transforms it from a tactical method into a highest principle.A Stalinist dishonestly misrepresenting Trotskyism? Say it ain't so.

[Left Voice]

I agree with the calls to not join a party. What would be the point? None of the existing parties are going to be very relevant if a real worker's revolution took place. It would be much more organic than that, and those that find relevancy would be those that can find a way to be relevant to that context. I don't want to drag up the old 'dead Russians' debate, but parties that focus on history more than working class stuggles are going to find themselves irrelevent. Understanding history is important, but insofar as we can link these lessons to the stuggles faced today.

If you must join a party, it would help to know which tendency you consider yourself a part of. The Socialist Worker's Party (SWP) are probably the largest nominally 'far left' party in the UK but their membership has rapidly decline after their covering up of rape and the kangaroo court fiasco regarding Comrade Delta. The Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) (CPGB-PCC) run an interesting newspaper than can be viewed online but suffer from everything I mentioned in the first paragraph. There's the unrelated Communist Party of Britain which advocate a reformist approach to achieving communism based on the 'Britain's Road to Socialism' text, which essentially means voting Labour. The Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) are probably the most genuine in their politics but also suffer from the same issue as the CPGB PCC. The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPGB-ML) is probably the place to be if you want to spend your Saturday afternoons taking about how Stalin 'was actually okay really'. Ultimately, would membership of any left party in the UK help the UK progress towards revolutionary socialism? Probably not. How many real life proles have heard of any of these parties? Not many. I'm not advocating succumbing to populism, just highlighting their irrelevance. Personally, I'd say you should get yourself involved in real issues, protests, debates, meetings and marches rather than a party.

I'd consider joining the Anarchist Federation if I could, but my current country of residence makes this impossible.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Big Three" (or in other words actually have over 1000 members)

There's no chance in hell that the CPB has over 1000 members.

[The Feral Underclass]

You could join the New Communist Party. They have the bleakest website I have ever seen in my life...Probably bleaker than the RCP-ML.

http://www.newworker.org/

"A world in which the will of the masses...the people who work in the factories and farms, is carried out"

Who works in a fucking factory or a farm any more? They literally think it's the 1920s.

[The Feral Underclass]

Apparently manufacturing in the UK accounts for 8.2% of the workforce. Farming is even less. There's like 660,000 people working on farms. What are they even talking about...The mind boggles.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I would highly recommend that you don't join any party.

[Rafiq]

That's actually a turn-off. It's literally the opposite of the Popular Front Tendencies of the CPUSA which tried to "Americanize" and "Patriotize" itself, which is what European Communist Parties did during part of the Cold War.

Which only served to be a complete failure, in weaking and softening Communist politics in their respective countires. This was a Soviet-directed course, of course.

But more importantly, such an act would be reactionary in this era of globalization, where neoliberalism has already largely destroyed the political basis of "patriotism" on a regular level, i.e. to be a "patriot" today is to be more or less be a reactionary. You keep going on about how UKIP has a "working class" voter base, but the solution isn't to stoop to their levels. They have this voter base because as always they're exploiting the ignorance of the working people, which perpetuates their conditions of exploitation. Working people don't innately give a fuck about "patriotism" as such, whether it manifests in the form of euroskepiticism or mulitculturalism. They care about the perceived effects of these, namely, the influx of low wage laborers and so on. The correct solution is to integrate migrant workers into a broader politicized labor movement as a deterrence to the classic tactic of not only dividing the working class, but driving wages down. The paradox is absolutely fucking hysterical: UKIPers and Fascists claim that the "elites" are bringing in migrant workers to cause trouble for native workers, and yet they proceed by fulfilling the EXACT role that they perceive the "elites" want them to! Namely, rabid anti-migrant sentiment which only weakens labor.

Euroskepiticsim is reactionary insofar as it ignores the fact that for the first time in history the possibility of a trans-national, broadly pan-European working class movement is high. Why should anyone oppose the EU? In contrast to WHAT? To the "nation"? Yeah, I don't think so. And it's also hilarious that you mention the "middle class", completely revealing the petite-bourgeois nature of UKIP and the pawn-like nature of the workers who succumb to its temptation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

OP: may I suggest that this thread is a microcosm of the reasons why you shouldn't join any of the 'parties of the left' that claim to represent decades/centuries old traditions. They are all, to varying degrees, irrelevant, bitter, ineffective and un-representative of the wider working class.

Come along to the next Radical Left General Assembly meeting if you like (they are normally held in London) - whilst you can take or leave the actual content discussed in the main meeting, it could prove a useful place for you to meet actual people involved in the socialist movement in the UK, and from there you can make your decision.

I strongly suggest that you waste no energy online with any of these little left sects. They are the past.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, there are many 'campaign'-style groups that are worth getting involved in, if nothing for the practical experience and networking. I'll post a little list here:

Plan C
Radical Housing Network
UK Uncut
National Campaign against Fees and Cuts

And whilst I'm not a massive fan, there are some groups that are less irrelevant such as People's Assembly, Left Unity, that might be worht a look. Again, if nothing but for the networking and practical experience of organisational interaction.

[JayBro47]

Lol Tankie. Russian-Social Imperialism is Revisionism. It's not even Communism. And you're speaking like it's 1955. Things have not stayed static dude. End of the Cold War, holy shit. *Tips Ushanka* :grin:

[JayBro47]

Chauvinism is not acceptable, but a level of English heritage that wants to be preserved it's something else.

[JayBro47]

So you don't see how the petit-bourgeoisie and the native working class has been dislodged by oligarchy? And you don't want to take advantage of that split? Odd.

I mean considering how things have changed in ways.

Also: immigration and an ethnic shift over the last 20 years has happened. That's a fact. And disaffected Brits notice it by the way. Even John Cleese himself ;) Is he a backwards skinhead? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100084274/london-is-no-longer-an-english-city-says-john-cleese-is-he-right/ "Cleese also spoke about the shift in British attitudes away from a "middle-class culture" and the emergence of a "yob culture".
He said: "There were disadvantages to the old culture, it was a bit stuffy and it was more sexist and more racist. But it was an educated and middle-class culture. Now it's a yob culture. The values are so strange." He added that he preferred living in Bath to London because the capital no longer felt "English".
"London is no longer an English city which is why I love Bath," he said. "That's how they sold it for the Olympics, not as the capital of England but as the cosmopolitan city. I love being down in Bath because it feels like the England that I grew up in."

Of course I don't want to hate the immigrants. It's the oligarchy/system.

Don't fascisize a case of nationalism, please. Don't exaggerate it. UKIP isn't Golden Dawn. And you think it's totally fascistic to have some elements of Euroscepticism? Odd.

[JayBro47]

So the enemy is owner of the pub or the shopkeeper eh? He's our enemy? The manager of the snack place? Nope.

[#FF0000]

lmao does someone have me blocked or is jaybro arguing with himself

[Futility Personified]

Jaybro, I doubt you are actually fascistic but the whole "native working class" thing completely ignores who the working class should be organising against. My interests coincide a great deal more with the bloke from latvia who works in KFC than they do with the chap from soton who works for an accountancy firm. When you thing about which aspect of capitalism is the most dangerous to the working class, it is most certainly not immigration, and it is completely ridiculous to think that it is. In the broadest possible context of struggle, even occupy with their "we are the 99%" have a more sensible understanding.

Of course, a lot of people in the UK were riled enough about migration to start voting for UKIP or the tories or even the labour party (believe it or not). I don't care if it sounds patronising to the workers or whatever, they have been fundamentally misled by the agendas that big capital has been able to dictate. Sure, one side of capital benefits enormously from mass migration, but another side does not, both sides of capital control the debate. And after we placate the wayward proleterian sons with tokenistic (or jah help us all, sincere) genuine anti-migratory policies, what then? We still encourage the xenophobia that has POC and white migrants in a climate of hostility, we still completely sidestep the cause of the financial crisis, and we still ignore the inevitable and consistent fuckups that are part and parcel of any type of capitalism.

What is the point in trying to dupe the working class into progressiveness by going down that road? No2EU has thankfully been an abject failure, so as a class tactic we know this is pointless as well as unhelpful.

Perhaps i've just strawmanned the fuck out of you and if you feel that or actually reply to this it warrants an apology, but worrying about english cultural decline is a load of shit just because other people fell into the mixing pot. Perhaps that we are overly reliant on american programming, our own music scene has been superseded by the X-factor and britain has haemorrhoids, and that actual working class culture is sanitised and suppressed?

[JayBro47]

Do you agree the Post-World War Two Cold War period was a good time in ways, compared to nowadays (even Thatcherism and Reaganism were just the very beginning) or do you insist on "revolution-now!" The Working Class, Petit-Bourgeoisie and Middle Class to the Upper Class all kind of coexisted, even if it was phony or temporary or not to be over-exaggerated. Same with the USA. Pretty difficult considering how things have changed with the end of the Cold War, not to mention the Comintern/Cominform for your very revolutionary-stance. " "The hope" in the ex-Eastern Bloc of 89' has been dashed (of course!) by the last 20 years of Privatization and loss of stability/unity. Same time period in America, after America "won" the Cold War and the Working and Middle Class began to continue to "lose" even more as Michael Moore has shown in his documentaries.

Well, do you not understand things are different in ways from 30 years ago or something, which are in turn different from 30 years before that?

I've read that the 1970's miners adventurism itself led to Thatcherism which was a hope there would be a type of Nationalistic-Unity/Fascism (not necessarily Racism), although as we see Neo-Liberalism has not been that. I even read the leader of that "rabble" was supporting Gen. Jaruzelski against SOLIDARITY (!!!) while a Maoist Group was openly supporting SOLIDARITY. Thatcherism even said the whole "there is no such thing as society, the nation, just "individuals!" which was criticized by the Maoist group in the early 1990's.

Here is Alan Moore (no relation :)) on V for Vendetta. This could easily apply to the whole Occupy-Thing! "Alan Moore, however, charged that in doing so, the story has turned into an American-centric conflict between liberalism and neo-conservatism, and abandons the original anarchist-fascist themes. Moore states, "There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity."

And this interesting quote from the 2000's: "The mainstream left and right colluding in a sort of depoliticisation through the Nineties, the demonstrably baleful aspects of capitalism becoming even more obsence, the political process even more moribund than ever, centre-left governments concealing their failure behind a facade of identity politics, (all after Thatcherism!) PC radicalism, and a multicultural discourse that is not only useless, but actually beneficial for the far right. Multiculturalism, promoting the politics of 'difference' rather than universal human rights, can produce strange ideological effects"

Do you see Fascism and Racial Purity in UKIP btw?

The immigration and ethnic shift within Britain HAS occurred over the last 20 years dude (and earlier!) There are more non-Brits then there were in decades past. A huge shift in the last 15 years. Enormous. Noticeably.

Did you watch the Nigel Farage v.s. Russel Brand Question Time. Immigration has been blocking up things, services, roads, and a whole ethnic shift has happened. And Brits (not oligarchs) were complaining to Russel Brand about how they don't want it.

[#FF0000]

So are you suggesting that we ought to subscribe to nativism, xenophobia, and cultural conservatism because there are working class people who subscribe to those things?

[BIXX]

You could join the New Communist Party. They have the bleakest website I have ever seen in my life...Probably bleaker than the RCP-ML.

http://www.newworker.org/

"A world in which the will of the masses...the people who work in the factories and farms, is carried out"

Who works in a fucking factory or a farm any more? They literally think it's the 1920s.

My whole family works in a factory.

[JayBro47]

Do you want them to vote UKIP? Or just say "Fuck Em?" Well?

Of course, it would be unjust to deport millions of immigrant/non-native families.

Let's keep in mind two differences: Americans are on settled/occupied-Indian land that was owned for only 300 years and which had many immigrant-waves to build it. With Europe, it's their native land for 1000 years, the immigration is really new. That's where we see the difference between Black Americans and Immigrants in Europe. There is a distinction. They've been here for 200 years and although there was obvious distinction, it's different. That's how I view the Riots in Baltimore and other such things in The States of people who've been in America for centuries and are less distinct then "New African Immigrants" versus the London Riots we've seen last few years of immigrants.

I'm an American citizen dude :glare:

[JayBro47]

" conservatives in my country took when it came to immigrants, and not the route taken by actual revolutionaries"

When, in the nativist 1920s? Didn't I say things are even different from 30 years ago? Republicans are fine with Cheap Labor. It's the Populist type of Right which isn't, like Pat Buchanan. Also, Latinos in the Southwest obviously are on their historic land that was settled on by Anglos. It's a different situation with Brits who had Britain for 1000 years and immigrants?

I even forgot to add the obesity expansion in the USA of the 1990's and forward.

[Counterculturalist]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position, but you seem to want to defeat UKIP by luring potential voters away from them by adopting an equally xenophobic platform. Is this correct?

Because if so... just no.

[JayBro47]

We can lure them in with some Patriotism I think. Unless that is what Russel Brand is doing? Is he pushing for the nation? And can get the Middle (YES!) and Working Class so-called "football hooligans" or is he gonna just get Yobs like John Cleese described em? There was a base for UKIP. I guess you wanna ignore it. And then we'll have a new National Front Skinhead problem.

[JayBro47]

The so-called Russian Hegemon/Block of the Cold War is gone. That is an issue which the American Right Wing no matter how hard they rail against Putin/Russia today, cannot invoke with the same feelings of the Red Scare and Cold War Time, when there was a Giant Russian-Social Imperialist Block, and could "scapegoat" or direct focus to. There is simply no more Berlin Wall since '91. Remember Reagan bulldozed it in 1989? Or did Gorbachev? They try to invoke the spectre Russia, it doesn't really work as well as when there was a Cold War and an actual Russian Bear. And some ex-Cold Warriors even feel some sympathy for Russia against the Neo-Con Clique: like Pat Buchanan.

[#FF0000]

Do you want them to vote UKIP? Or just say "Fuck Em?" Well?

You need to stop ascribing positions to other people that they haven't put forward themselves. You also need to stop with the multi-post responses to nobody in particular.

I am asking you to clarify your position regarding immigration.


Let's keep in mind two differences: Americans are on settled/occupied-Indian land that was owned for only 300 years and which had many immigrant-waves to build it. With Europe, it's their native land for 1000 years, the immigration is really new. That's where we see the difference between Black Americans and Immigrants in Europe. There is a distinction...

I'm talking about the tidal wave of immigration from Asia and Europe in the 19th century. What people in the UK are saying about Polish and North African immigrants is the same type of nonsense that was said about European, Asian, and North African immigrants in the US when they came to America. The sad thing is, there are people in the European left who are so short-sighted, so muddled with economism (or just flat out chauvinism and conservatism), that they treat immigrants as a threat to the "British working class".

[Counterculturalist]

We can lure them in with some Patriotism I think. Unless that is what Russel Brand is doing? Is he pushing for the nation? And can get the Middle (YES!) and Working Class so-called "football hooligans" or is he gonna just get Yobs like John Cleese described em? There was a base for UKIP. I guess you wanna ignore it. And then we'll have a new National Front Skinhead problem.

So let's try to get the more reactionary elements of the working class to rally around a banner of reaction and bigotry, instead of struggling to win them over to our position.

Why not just join UKIP?

[#FF0000]

We can lure them in with some Patriotism I think.

I don't think we can, as Patriotism is diametrically opposed to our position as revolutionary socialists. It'd be dishonest, for one, and totally counter-productive, secondly. And historically, we've seen where "patriotic" socialism has lead us, to yellow unionism, chauvinism, and racist pogroms.

I don't think that addressing issues of race, sex, gender, etc. (the "social justice" you talked about) is a problem. In fact it's necessary. The problem is that it's necessary to address these issues alongside the economic questions.

[Rafiq]

Also: immigration and an ethnic shift over the last 20 years has happened. That's a fact. And disaffected Brits notice it by the way.

The notion of an ethnic shift is meaningless to working people unless there are definite connotations ascribed to it which directly encapsulate their plight. The working people have ascribed to multiculturalism, an opposition thoroughly spear-headed by the petite-bourgeoisie, to the deterioration of their, for example, standard of living and job security. Of course any idiot can undestand that immigrants had very little to do with this, to the weakening of the position of the British working class. It was the full scale assault by the British bourgeoisie, together with the petite-bourgeois classes during the neoliberal era which had decimated the working people's movement and had following a revolution in capitalism dislocated the coordinates of struggle. Following globalization and the rise of trusts, and so on, the petite-bourgeoisie felt betrayed by what you refer to as the "oligarchy" (I.e. the bourgeoisie) and the working people, undoubtedly fucked over with no movement or political language of their own, in part conjoined themselves with the petite-bourgeois classes who posed the only visible opposition to the existing order, as reactionaries. THe reason UKIP is fascist is NOT because they borrow fascist aesthetics or even outwardly political language (I.e. talk of purity and whatever the fuck you're rambling on about like a schizophrenic) but because its class character, its political approximation to the existing coordinates of life are COMPLETELY Fascistic. One can, for example, say that the libertarian movement in the US (i.e. Ron Paul) is entirely Fascistic because of this. Fascism is not distinguished by the desire for "purity" but the unity of the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie and the capitalist class sustained by a disillusioned working class in the midst of a failed Communist alternative. Hence, Libertarians and UKIppers alike MIMICKING left-populist language and anti-elitism and so on. In case you didn't fucking know, Farage and UKIP are NOT an anti-bourgeois, or even anti-oligarchic party. They employ this language in the same vein that the Nazis spoke against "plutocracy" and "financial tyranny" while doing virtually nothing to undermine them whence in a position of power. The difference is that UKIP is a reactionary party which might, so to speak, oppose the "existing" bourgeoisie, but this does not make them any less bourgeois. What this means is that they are only unique insofar as they strive for a new state ideological apparatus, i.e. as opposed to liberalism.

What the FUCK constitutes an ethnic shift? Less than 8% of the UK population is non-white, and in addition, 3.6% of the UK population constitutes of whites born inside the EU who immigrated to the UK (presumably Romanians, Poles and so on). So as it happens, on a demographic level immigration is NOT so outwardly significant as to "naturally" warrant the vile reaction that it has. The fact of the matter is that the grievances faced by the working people are real, but it is the petite-bourgeoisie which has dis-located, obfuscated and re-direct those grievances toward the 'other', everything that represents advances in capitalism, from multi-culturalism to the decline of traditional family morality. That is why this "working class" opposition is DIVORCED fundamentally from the interests of the working class, it is reactionary insofar as it basis its reference point in a PREVIOUS STATE OF AFFAIRS, i.e. before globalization.

And what does this scum of scum apologist of the Fascists, JayBro say for the Left? That we ought to employ "patriotic" political language, that in other words, we ought to FEED into the corruption of the proletarian soul and perpetuate the ignorance of the masses in order to gain a view quick votes. Sorry, but as far as we "elitist" Marxists go, we are not like you petite-bourgeois scoundrels who will gain the merit of the working people by merit of deceit and dishonest trickery. As far as you're concerned, you reactionary swine, we are the militant proletariat by other means, we are the voice of a voiceless masses, and it is we who above all recognize that the working people have nothing to gain by opposing globalization and the cosmopolitanism which has followed with it, that on the contrary, only a universal, disciplined and militant working class will beat back the darkness and filth from which it came. It was not globalization that destroyed the British working class, it is the native British bourgeoisie which fostered polices of globalization to weaken it! And now that the deed is done, the answer is NOT to demand a return to the "sovereign nation state" as the pro-Russian jackals demand, but to turn the tables on the bourgeoisie itself through unconditional solidarity with the poor and desperate migrant workers who they had thought were their toadies.


So the enemy is owner of the pub or the shopkeeper eh? He's our enemy? The manager of the snack place? Nope.

Yes he is above all our enemy. Because he parasitically OBFUSCATES the coordinates of struggle for the working people, he deprives from them political class independence and instead sees them as ragged scum whom he uses at his disposal. This pub owner, this shopkeeper, what do they know of the plight of the working people? So brazenly will they declare solidarity with them, but when push comes to shove as always, he will like a cornered rat do everything he can to avoid joining the ragged masses in the condition of wage-labor. The small business man, more than anyone, rabidly despises the working people and seeks to use them to meet his own ends, in protecting his position, his property and his way of life. YES he is our enemy, and YES, fuck the small guy! Working people employed by the big-bourgeoisie are gifted with the ability to organize on a level en-masse wherein the bourgeoisie have nowhere to hide, with all the eyes of society placed upon them. But the small businessman can do almost whatever he pleases with his employees, outside of the prying eyes of the field of political struggle in society, because he's the "small man" who doesn't have the same pressure upon him as the big bourgeoisie do.

Frankly you've come to the wrong damn place. The petite-bourgeoisie in the advanced countries, without being completely subordinate by an independent working class movement, are by default class enemies. The owner of the pub, or the shopkeeper ARE our true enemies, because they parasitically cannot exist affirmatively without the big bourgeoisie or the "oligarchy". So they'll oppose the capitalists ONLY UP TO A POINT. Tell me, how can the small businessmen actually conform society to his will? He cannot. He has too much to lose.

The proletariat, conversely, have nothing to lose. And when they realize this, I promise you, you will wish the "oligarchy" was still your master yet.



I've read that the 1970's miners adventurism itself led to Thatcherism which was a hope there would be a type of Nationalistic-Unity/Fascism (not necessarily Racism), although as we see Neo-Liberalism has not been that.

SO now you're just OPENLY admitting that you're of the petite-bourgeoisie! Thatcherism was a hope FOR WHOM? For the working people, or for the petite-bourgeoisie, irritated by the "miners' adventurism"? Do you see the point now? You're conflating the interests of a class which has nothing to do with the aspirations of the working people, with the general sentiments and interests of the "British people". This is the bloody arrogance of all the bourgeoisie, of whom tacitly talk about the horrors of Communism solely from the perspective of the doomed proprietor and the traumatized autocracy. The logic you employ is so beautifully perverse in how it confirms what I have been saying: Thatcherism was "hope" that there would be national "unity" in doing away with "miners' adventurism" but, so it happens, "It has not been that". You encapsulate the feelings of betrayal of the petite-bourgeois classes who were ultimately fucked over by that which inevitably followed the triumph of the capitalist class over the working people, itself something largely supported by the "little guy". And look how sick your phraseology is here: Nationalistic-Unity/Fascism but "not necessarily" racism. You speka the tongue of the enemy insofar as your present Fascism by its own self-identifying merits of "nationalist unity", but we Communists know very well that this is a sham.

Just get the fuck out of here before you're inevitably banned. Save yourself some dignity, we here have no need for such filth if only to make an example of your kind.


And this interesting quote from the 2000's: "The mainstream left and right colluding in a sort of depoliticisation through the Nineties, the demonstrably baleful aspects of capitalism becoming even more obsence, the political process even more moribund than ever, centre-left governments concealing their failure behind a facade of identity politics, (all after Thatcherism!) PC radicalism, and a multicultural discourse that is not only useless, but actually beneficial for the far right. Multiculturalism, promoting the politics of 'difference' rather than universal human rights, can produce strange ideological effects"


But what is the answer to this? Where does this leave us now? In the face of political correctness and "multiculturalism", do we unleash the hellhounds of the Fascism that the bourgeoisie so desperately themselves tried to conceal? Do we, in a predictable manner wrought out the demons hidden within the crevices of capitalist society, or do we aim to DESTROY capitalist society and with it the demons? Namely, anti-multiculturalism and those so bravely "against" political correctness? The answer to multiculturalism and political correctness IS NOT to bind yourself to their logic, in demanding cultural uniformity or vile racism but to politically approximate the demand to abolish the conditions which inevitably breed racism in capitalism. That is to say, ONLY THE GUILTY BLUSH, that INNOCENCE is ashamed of NOTHING. Communists have no need for political correctness because they have no spontaneous inclination, on an ideological level, for racism or sexism. We do not need to control our speech because our hearts are clean and true. Likewise, multi-culturalism is a sham by its own merits: its opponents will claim it will be the ruin of our "culture", but the reality is that there IS NO multi-culturalism. Culture is ALREADY uniform, and what we now ascribe to the "cultural" is merely either pointlessly aesthetic, or political. A working class movement that can exist irregardless of national background, which has existed before, is the answer to this false dilemma. For at least with regard to their real relations to production, the working class is ALREADY united regardless of its distinct particularities in the same way that the bourgeoisie is: as you know, the "plutocrats" do not care about the "British nation", but neither do, in practice, the working class! It is like saying that because the bourgeoisie are in position of guns, the working class should not be.

Herein lies the so-called "anti-elitism" of the reactionaries. They want to weaken the working people by disallowing htem to become equipped with the theoretical sophistication necessary to destroy the enemy.


There are more non-Brits then there were in decades past. A huge shift in the last 15 years. Enormous. Noticeably.


And yet, not enough ALONE to warrant anti-immigrant sentiment. Do you claim that an 'ethnic shift' regardless of class considerations is of any relevance? Why would people care about immigrants if it didn't strike a few internal strings that conform only to the tune of their relations to production? You must admit that such sentiment is owed to the SOCIAL implications it has, not the "aesthetic" or "cultural" or "ethnic" implications. These are meaningless if they are divorced from the actual means of survival, of life, and subsistence of people.


Let's keep in mind two differences: Americans are on settled/occupied-Indian land that was owned for only 300 years and which had many immigrant-waves to build it. With Europe, it's their native land for 1000 years, the immigration is really new. That's where we see the difference between Black Americans and Immigrants in Europe. There is a distinction. They've been here for 200 years and although there was obvious distinction, it's different. That's how I view the Riots in Baltimore and other such things in The States of people who've been in America for centuries and are less distinct then "New African Immigrants" versus the London Riots we've seen last few years of immigrants.


What a sick fuck you are. Any IDIOT with a semblance of an understanding of European history should know that the nation-state is new, that Europe has never had a static, homogeneous national character. ONLY AFTER the rise of nation states has history been re-written so that Gauls and Romans, Nords and Spaniards are now somehow historically and culturally homogeneous. But in their respective historic conditions, they were not. But why would it matter anyway? Is there somehow a lack of livable land in Europe? Are immigrants *kicking out* Europeans? And to even further degrade myself with what is already a false dichotomy, where do these immigrants hail from? Former European colonies, the former colonies of the countries they're immigrating to! Don't you DARE fucking pick and choose where these people belong. From the onset of colonization, from the onset of global free trade one hundred and a half years ago, from the onset finally of globalization the spiritual essence of these two peoples, "Europeans" and "non-Euroepans" were ALREADY conjoined. It is not as though Europeans live independently of what goes in in Northern Africa, it is not as though the British live independently of what goes on in India and Pakistan, of whom are major manufacturers of commodities consumed on a global level. Only the ignorance of immediate sensory experience disallows the masses to see just how much they are connected to others.

You're ACTUALLY apologizing for this rabid anti-immigrant chauvinism, and yet.. You're not banned yet? Europe has been their "native land" for thousands of years, yet none of these people have been alive for that long. They have not felt the effects of the actual culmination of "Europe", it wouldn't make a fucking difference if they were in Europe for a decade actually. Look at a country like Israel: these people feel an intense attachment to their homeland in the same way any chauvinist UKIP scum would, and many have been there for perhaps little more than a few decades at most (the rest little over a century). Because the systemic PERPETUATION of the nation does not regard "history", for it learns nothing from history. Only the affirmative conditions which perpetuate the condition of the European identity TODAY sustain it, not the culmination of thousand of years. Civilization can die tomorrow, and with it thousands of years of history. Only the NOW keeps the old alive. And we are here to change the now.

[Rafiq]

You all have shown this "JayBro" a kind of politeness and respect that is undeserving of a Fascist. It's absolutely clear. His point isn't simply pointing out that the Left has failed, but that it needs to adopt the same filth that the Fascists have more voters at the next election.

[JayBro47]

Don't ban me please. :unsure:

[#FF0000]

Aside from Rafiq who made some good points, no one's talking about banning you. I just don't understand where you're coming from, here. Are you suggesting that we need to jettison pro-immigrant, explicitly anti-racist and anti-sexist politics to secure white workers to the movement?

[JayBro47]

The anti-Elite Fash supports Putinism over NATO and the "Zionist West."

I have no interest in Golden Dawn. No interest in Russian Social-Imperialism, Neo-Tsarism. or Eurasianism against the "decadent" West.

[JayBro47]

And no interest in kicking out millions of non-Brits.

"Former European colonies, the former colonies of the countries they're immigrating to! Don't you DARE fucking pick and choose where these people belong. From the onset of colonization, from the onset of global free trade one hundred and a half years ago, from the onset finally of globalization the spiritual essence of these two peoples, "Europeans" and "non-Euroepans" were ALREADY conjoined. It is not as though Europeans live independently of what goes in in Northern Africa, it is not as though the British live independently of what goes on in India and Pakistan, of whom are major manufacturers of commodities consumed on a global level. Only the ignorance of immediate sensory experience disallows the masses to see just how much they are connected to others. "

But Rafiq has to understand, that with Britain, this is post-British Empire, even if the effects are still felt. So he keeps saying the Working Class is against the nation: yes, when it is racist and imperialistic. Not inherently.

[JayBro47]

He mentions the Nazis, but the Nazis had this unity thing going on with racialism, to put the volk over class. Compare this to my quotes I showed you. And Rafiq should realize that Italian Fascism wasn't racist or antisemitic like Nazism was :/

[#FF0000]

But Rafiq has to understand, that with Britain, this is a post-British Empire. So he keeps saying the Working Class is against the nation: yes, when it is racist and imperialistic. Not inherently.

The working class is absolutely against the nation state, because the working class is subordinate to the bourgeoisie in the nation state. Italian fascism wasn't racist in the same way German Nazism was, but it was certainly nationalistic, chauvinistic, and class collaborationist, putting forth a conception of a Corporate State in which all classes had their role and their place (with that of the workers, of course, beneath the bourgeoisie).

[JayBro47]

Well.

[JayBro47]

"putting forth a conception of a Corporate State in which all classes had their role and their place (with that of the workers, of course, beneath the bourgeoisie)."

And all ethnic groups/races ;)

[JayBro47]

Rafiq I am going to respond in 20 minutes, okay?

[JayBro47]

actually it might be longer...

[#FF0000]

"putting forth a conception of a Corporate State in which all classes had their role and their place (with that of the workers, of course, beneath the bourgeoisie)."

And all ethnic groups/races ;)

Yeah, with nationals above immigrants, who were second class citizens.

You're not making a good case here, dude.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Italian fascism wasn't racist in the same way German Nazism was

It was - see the Manifesto of the Race for example. Even when the fascists put on airs about not being racists, they treated Libyans and Eritreans the same as e.g. Germans treated the peoples in Namibia.


And all ethnic groups/races ;)

So you manage to not just try to justify the "good" Italian fascism but completely ignore how the workers were legally subjected to the bourgeoisie. Good show.

[Rafiq]

But Rafiq has to understand, that with Britain, this is post-British Empire, even if the effects are still felt. So he keeps saying the Working Class is against the nation: yes, when it is racist and imperialistic. Not inherently.

And this is meaningless. The current totality of global capitalism was irrevocably shaped by colonialism, and the existing states that exist within Africa were irrevocably a product of colonialism. This is completely ignoring, of course, the neo-colonialism of the IMF and so on. But what do we have here? First you make grand claims regarding the native Europeans who have inhabited Europe (did they personally?) for thousands of years, but apparently colonialism and its impacts are now in the dustbin of history with all hands clean, right?

What a disgusting kind of hypocrisy. The working class could only ever be inherently opposed to the nation, because the ONLY thing which sustains the nation is the respective national totality of capitalism, and nothing more. What makes an Englishmen from the south of England related to an Englishmen from the North? What binds them in association? It is capitalism. So this is the ultimate paradox: nations are NOT wrought out "ethnically" or genetically, and the same predispositions that can build nations are the same ones that can destroy them all the same. The working class is inherently opposed to the nation-state precisely because the capitalist nation state does not exist unto itself. That is to say, even in an era without overt colonialism, nations exist in an inter-dependent manner and the power of the bourgeoisie is exercised on a trans-national basis. Therefore, for the proletariat to organize and express itself politically solely on a national basis is to be in a position of weakness, as we have seen in globalization: Without a trans-national working class, come migrant workers and shipping jobs overseas.

Marx was evermore right to say the workingman has no country. What the fuck does a worker in England have to do with an English pub owner? He has infinitely more in common than a Polish, Romanian or French worker, as basic experience dictates.


He mentions the Nazis, but the Nazis had this unity thing going on with racialism, to put the volk over class. Compare this to my quotes I showed you. And Rafiq should realize that Italian Fascism wasn't racist or antisemitic like Nazism was :/

No, I mention Fascists specifically. And I call you a Fascist because you identify them by their own means of self-identification. Italian Fascism is NOT what Italian Fascists want to call it, likewise liberalism is not what liberals want to call it! Unless you're prepared to define liberal democracy as "individualism and rule by the people" or whatever you want, you don't say a damned word about what Fascism "Really is". The fact of the matter is that Fascism is racist insofar as race is constitutive of national considerations. And even if ITalian Fascism was not racist, ITS MODERN APPLICATION, i.e. in consideration of new developments is undoubtedly racist, just like the demand to "return" to the Soviet Union in Russia is inherently nationalist and chauvinistic. Germans defined race differently than Americans did, for example, with the former defining it in terms of various NATIONS while Americans defined it in terms of the proximal relationship of blacks and "whites". And look at the fucking hypocrisy! You defend Italian Fascism SOLELY on the basis that it doesn't overtly violate POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. But we Communists do not measure our wrath in terms of how compatible it is with political correctness, but where it stands in reference to the emancipation of the proletariat. Fascism is above all reactionary, it is deceitful and dishonest.

And don't bother "responding" to me. You're not going to get your last word in. Simply leave this message board and be honest with yourself: associate with like-minded filth and stop pretending like you're one of us.

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, there are many 'campaign'-style groups that are worth getting involved in, if nothing for the practical experience and networking. I'll post a little list here:

Plan C
Radical Housing Network
UK Uncut
National Campaign against Fees and Cuts

And whilst I'm not a massive fan, there are some groups that are less irrelevant such as People's Assembly, Left Unity, that might be worht a look. Again, if nothing but for the networking and practical experience of organisational interaction.

I'm not sure it's fair to characterise Plan C as a campaign group. Their politics is a bit more sophisticated than that. They're essentially an autonomist Marxist group.

[The Feral Underclass]

My whole family works in a factory.

Well the New Communist Party of Britain is for them, then.

[JayBro47]

It's not the last word, Rafiq. I have to respond to some of the things you said.

[JayBro47]

What the FUCK constitutes an ethnic shift? Less than 8% of the UK population is non-white, and in addition, 3.6% of the UK population constitutes of whites born inside the EU who immigrated to the UK (presumably Romanians, Poles and so on). So as it happens, on a demographic level immigration is NOT so outwardly significant as to "naturally" warrant the vile reaction that it has. The fact of the matter is that the grievances faced by the working people are real, but it is the petite-bourgeoisie which has dis-located, obfuscated and re-direct those grievances toward the 'other', everything that represents advances in capitalism, from multi-culturalism to the decline of traditional family morality. That is why this "working class" opposition is DIVORCED fundamentally from the interests of the working class, it is reactionary insofar as it basis its reference point in a PREVIOUS STATE OF AFFAIRS, i.e. before globalization.


It was a very radical shift, very rapid ethnically. Also, there are those who are so racist that they want 100% racial purity, others not. There was an example of a Brit who complained "it doesn't smell like England anymore" so he was going to go to Australia (an Anglo-Colony, not England!) and he said this in the 60's (!!!) when things were "better" and the ethnic balance was totally different. So no we shouldn't accept racism like that. Golden Dawn, etc off limits. Why is the "CORPORATE" decadent change in family-values a positive? It did NOT go along with liberation or revolution. With 1970's Punk-Rock it was something actually subversive, hot. They want to "go back" to how things were a few decades ago, basically. And guess what, unlike the Nazis and REAL FASH who want a total reactionary revival, who want a mysticist thousand year old shit and who believe in total racial purity, many of the people don't even believe that!


But what is the answer to this? Where does this leave us now? In the face of political correctness and "multiculturalism", do we unleash the hellhounds of the Fascism that the bourgeoisie so desperately themselves tried to conceal? Do we, in a predictable manner wrought out the demons hidden within the crevices of capitalist society, or do we aim to DESTROY capitalist society and with it the demons? Namely, anti-multiculturalism and those so bravely "against" political correctness? The answer to multiculturalism and political correctness IS NOT to bind yourself to their logic, in demanding cultural uniformity or vile racism but to politically approximate the demand to abolish the conditions which inevitably breed racism in capitalism. That is to say, ONLY THE GUILTY BLUSH, that INNOCENCE is ashamed of NOTHING. Communists have no need for political correctness because they have no spontaneous inclination, on an ideological level, for racism or sexism. We do not need to control our speech because our hearts are clean and true. Likewise, multi-culturalism is a sham by its own merits: its opponents will claim it will be the ruin of our "culture", but the reality is that there IS NO multi-culturalism. Culture is ALREADY uniform, and what we now ascribe to the "cultural" is merely either pointlessly aesthetic, or political. A working class movement that can exist irregardless of national background, which has existed before, is the answer to this false dilemma. For at least with regard to their real relations to production, the working class is ALREADY united regardless of its distinct particularities in the same way that the bourgeoisie is: as you know, the "plutocrats" do not care about the "British nation", but neither do, in practice, the working class! It is like saying that because the bourgeoisie are in position of guns, the working class should not be.


I don't know if I agree that the Oligarchs "want" the "Fascists" or UKIPERS or British Nationalists. I mean maybe if this was the 1930's! They also relied on native labor in addition to colonial labor. Different with this immigration/cheap labor reverse colonization by the oligarchs. But the Oligarchy does not want to stir up nationalism, as it has no place for it at all. They don't push racism, the Golden Dawn does. You agreed they don't care about the nation, so why would they want nationalist-awakening? They want cheap labor and MONEY. However, we hate the legacy of Nazism, the worst anti-human filth ever of course. English Nationalism might not be tinged by that in a way Fascists of other countries have been. Although of course openly Fascist UK groups (like the NF) and maybe the BNP are. There is no Comintern or Cominform Rafiq. You speak like things are static, that we are in a revolutionary time now, that saying "Workers of the World Unite" will work like if someone said it in 1925 or even the 1970s! Things have NOT stayed Static. People don't flock to "Communism" they have "patriotism." Don't ignore Soviet Social-Imperialism was a big turn off for people obviously.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

40-odd million people in this country didn't vote Tory and there are some 'leftists' who want to pander to the 4 million or so pricks that voted UKIP. :rolleyes:

[JayBro47]

"What a sick fuck you are. Any IDIOT with a semblance of an understanding of European history should know that the nation-state is new, that Europe has never had a static, homogeneous national character. ONLY AFTER the rise of nation states has history been re-written so that Gauls and Romans, Nords and Spaniards are now somehow historically and culturally homogeneous. But in their respective historic conditions, they were not. But why would it matter anyway? Is there somehow a lack of livable land in Europe? Are immigrants *kicking out* Europeans? And to even further degrade myself with what is already a false dichotomy, where do these immigrants hail from? Former European colonies, the former colonies of the countries they're immigrating to! Don't you DARE fucking pick and choose where these people belong. From the onset of colonization, from the onset of global free trade one hundred and a half years ago, from the onset finally of globalization the spiritual essence of these two peoples, "Europeans" and "non-Euroepans" were ALREADY conjoined. It is not as though Europeans live independently of what goes in in Northern Africa, it is not as though the British live independently of what goes on in India and Pakistan, of whom are major manufacturers of commodities consumed on a global level. Only the ignorance of immediate sensory experience disallows the masses to see just how much they are connected to others."

Yes of course, from Feudalism to Capitalism and the nation-state of the 1800's etc etc. You want to know what is filthy? The Quebecois/French Canadians who supported Hezbollah in 2006 because they felt conjoined with the Lebanese as Francophones! This is a colonial/condescending mindset of viewing Frenchisized-Lebanese as "our ex-colonies fighting those Juifs!" What kind of anti-Zionist (or antisemitic?) mindset is that?! The Lebanese were their colonies, their servants, same with the Algerians too! It's not like them being "brothers" like Italian and French Latins, or Austria and Germany with the of Pan-Germanism or Pan-Slavism. So I would agree here, there is a colonial residue being thrown at the Jews, a kind of scapegoating of them there. Reading that made me feel a little pissed.

[JayBro47]

Lot of Immigrant-Pandering by certain parties as well Vladimir Innit Lenin.

[JayBro47]

Tell me Vladimir Innit Lenin, the Diuedonne Fash of France are scum correct? Who just want to wreck. Isn't that what the 1970's miners wanted, Rafiq? No actual revolutionary thing happening, was it?

[Futility Personified]

Have you ever noticed that opposition to immigration tends to happen in the areas where it is lowest? Anecdotally, because we aren't playing a statistics game, I have seen most folk tend to be alright with migrants, and these are the non-racist types, who don't seem to harbour any ill-will toward folk on the basis of where they come from, but they exercise their structural privilege, by virtue of being white and indigenous, to try and exert pressure against migrants. The same as against benefit claimants, the typical arguments you hear are regurgitated from tabloid headlines, the same tabloids that over half the public admit they don't trust!

Other folks are in my experience idiotic and psychotic and regardless of the perception that the left is 'elimination happy' I honestly couldn't give a toss what happens to those people.

The idea that immigration is putting excessive pressure on public services is absolute fucking shit, because these services are already being butchered as a result of austerity, general mismanagement and privatisation. Is there a housing crisis? Fuck yeah, because of right to buy handing over a third of formerly affordable housing over to private bougie scum who are ripping off ordinary folk. Useful development is always blocked in favour of which ever company can bribe the local council, and the existing home owners don't want their property values to go down.

One thing that you need to google would be "akala frankie boyle election referendum" to hear a reasonable dissection of the current mindset in this miserable bloody country.

FYI, while we are talking about the oligarchs, it would seem you are a bit behind the times on what the ruling class in this country advocate on a day to day basis. For a time, there were vans in london trying to catch 'illegal immigrants' ending up targeting people here legally (not that legality of migration is something a leftist should give a shit about). UKIPs main bag is that we are 'subservient' to Brussels, and it is on a purely nationalist trip that this is even being brought up. The tories are nationalist, labour are becoming so too, but the difference is that the logic of neoliberalism trumps this. It's capitalism, and accumilation is the whole point of the thing, not some abstract shit about countries of origin. UKIP have a nostalgia for a time long past where Britain was the top bastard in the world, and to my mind that is the difference in ruling class opinion. Capitalist pragmatism vs Nationalist sentiment, whilst both mix and match to suit whichever version of serfdom they want to impose on the people. While mass migration is beneficial to the ruling class in some ways, opposing it is not socialist as it is persecuting ordinary working folk, dividing the class instead of uniting us against capital. Going over the same old shit again.... Kippers are reactionary crackers who've gone crackers, or simpletons who want a sense of 'community' back, either for hidden racist reasons or some blinkered obliviousness to the evolution of a late capitalist economy in almost every single facet to 'the good old days'.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Let's see, obsession with Israel, check. Championing of the poor downtrodden shopkeeper against the evil plutocracy, check. Talking about the "decadent CORPORATE change in family-values", check. Obsession with immigration, check. Trying to sell us on the "good" Italian fascism and English nationalism, check. Why if it isn't most likely our good friend graffic, or Alexander, or whoever. Probably if someone asks them for their opinion on homosexuality and religion it would just result in additional evidence.

[JayBro47]

No, I mention Fascists specifically. And I call you a Fascist because you identify them by their own means of self-identification. Italian Fascism is NOT what Italian Fascists want to call it, likewise liberalism is not what liberals want to call it! Unless you're prepared to define liberal democracy as "individualism and rule by the people" or whatever you want, you don't say a damned word about what Fascism "Really is". The fact of the matter is that Fascism is racist insofar as race is constitutive of national considerations. And even if ITalian Fascism was not racist, ITS MODERN APPLICATION, i.e. in consideration of new developments is undoubtedly racist, just like the demand to "return" to the Soviet Union in Russia is inherently nationalist and chauvinistic. Germans defined race differently than Americans did, for example, with the former defining it in terms of various NATIONS while Americans defined it in terms of the proximal relationship of blacks and "whites". And look at the fucking hypocrisy! You defend Italian Fascism SOLELY on the basis that it doesn't overtly violate POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. But we Communists do not measure our wrath in terms of how compatible it is with political correctness, but where it stands in reference to the emancipation of the proletariat. Fascism is above all reactionary, it is deceitful and dishonest.


The return to USSR is also Chauvinistic and so on simply because Russian Social-Imperialism and "Great Power" Status had elements of Fascism in it. They miss being an Imperial-Power. Neo-Tsarism, Pan-Slavism, that shit was revived in the 1970's. Antisemitism (masquerading as anti-Zionism) was revived. Russian-Nationalism itself is Russian-Nationalism. There is nothing "progressive" about it. Non-Russians do not look at it with appreciation. Of course they looked at USSR in Stalingrad with appreciation. But not whole "Rus Bear" shit in and of itself. Nor is German Nationalism progressive in and of itself obviously or English Nationalism or American Nationalism. Power-Politics. I view it differently from Romanians who miss stability of Ceaeusescu's Romania (only country NOT to be antisemitic by the way) or Kadar's Hungary. Some Germans miss the stability of E. Germany too.

[JayBro47]

I in no way want to deport millions of immigrants, understand?

[#FF0000]

Nah I think this guy's different from Graffic, actually.

If you google his name you get a bunch of brony forums

[#FF0000]

I in no way want to deport millions of immigrants, understand?

We understand. We still don't agree with your asinine politics.

[JayBro47]

Talking about the "decadent CORPORATE change in family-values"]

Nope. I thought punk rock was actually subversive in a good way. Mindless Corporate-Hedonism that we saw is not, it's connected to capitalist-greed itself. Punk Rock was also new and hot at the time. Similarly with Modernist Architecture when it was NEW and connected to Socialist or Progressive policy. Nowadays it's meaningless. You know Goldfinger that Architect in 1960's England? His stuff was new at the time and part of that pretty good time period. In response to Rafiqs comment:


The fact of the matter is that the grievances faced by the working people are real, but it is the petite-bourgeoisie which has dis-located, obfuscated and re-direct those grievances toward the 'other', everything that represents advances in capitalism, from multi-culturalism to the decline of traditional family morality."

[JayBro47]

Will I be banned?:confused:

[JayBro47]

obsession with Israel

Where in my comment did I say this? I thought it was ironic how French-Canadians were cheering on the Lebanese against Israel in 2006 because of their "Francophone" [Read: French Imperial] link. That is an interesting "anti-Imperialism"

[#FF0000]

Will I be banned?:confused:

Why are you here in the first place?

[JayBro47]

Because I am have socialist views? Why are YOU here?

[JayBro47]

If what I write you will misconstrue as Fascistic, I guess I will stop writing now, because I don't want to be banned.

[#FF0000]

Because I am have socialist views? Why are YOU here?


If what I write you will misconstrue as Fascistic, I guess I will stop writing now, because I don't want to be banned.

A patriotic, middle class socialism, huh?

[JayBro47]

Don't peg me as a Fash, dude.

[JayBro47]

I might as well be a full on Communist if this was 1948!

[#FF0000]

I might as well be a full on Communist if this was 1948!

"You communists have to stop living in the past"
"Britain just isn't British anymore :( "

[JayBro47]

But like I said, things are not static. I might even be a regular social-dem if this was 1975. Maybe that is problematic. I hopefully would not enjoy Soviet Social-Imperialism in the Seventies.

[JayBro47]

"You communists have to stop living in the past"
"Britain just isn't British anymore "


Ha :grin:

[JayBro47]

Hey, I wish we could just sing the Internationale and "Unite The Human Race!"
Sadly things are different.

Let's hope we see some positive trends somewhere.

[#FF0000]

No one is acting as if anything is static, though. You can certainly say there are some communist groups that are living in the past (uh, in fact this thread was once about those very groups) but what you're talking about is nothing new either.

And why are you going on about the USSR? Nobody on this entire forum wants to re-create the USSR.

[JayBro47]

When CPGBML carries pictures of Stalin (gigantic, in your face ones) they are obviously pushing for the USSR. Which is silly, because they support the post-Stalinist, Revisionist Social-Imperialism of Brezhnev-Kosygin as well, which no one likes at all, from "Anti-Revisionist ML's" to Social-Dems to Anarchists to fucking Rightists.

The word Communist itself is now associated with Big Russian Bear. :glare:

Again I just hope we have some positive trends. I know Communist Groups in England in the 1970's were against the Bear. I also know some silly tankie blamed this piece on "Western British Propaganda" https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/downwithnewtsars.htm

And then we have all these different tendencies, blah blah.

[JayBro47]

Yeah, a guy on this literally said he was a CPGBML.

They shill for Russian Nationalism. But let's not go into a circle :)

[#FF0000]

Comrade Jacob is more like a mascot than an actual human being though. Don't mind him.

For real though, you've gone on like this about "Soviet Social-Imperialism" over one person in this thread?

You're just charging at windmills, dude.

[JayBro47]

And we have a problem with the Tankies which stems from their ridiculous support of the USSR until Yeltsin or whatever. And now support Russia against the West!:glare:

[JayBro47]

Not just Comrade Jacob, these supporters of Russian Nationalism (!!!) who also support the Social-Imperialist (according to MLs!) USSR. They are problematic. Are they strong, these types?

[JayBro47]

They call themselves anti-revisionist ML's...while being revisionists lol:laugh:

[#FF0000]

You're not telling us anything new, here. "Marxist-leninists r bad" doesn't mean we ought to start embracing patriotism and cultural chauvinism.

[JayBro47]

It's not ML's...It's people who support Russian Power-Politics against the West.

[JayBro47]

ML's condemn Social-Imperialism and Russian Nationalism. It's so-called Tankies or so-called Anti-Imperialists.

I guess there is nothing for us to discuss now. Rafiq hopefully will respond to my responses and we'll move on.;)

[Rafiq]

It was a very radical shift, very rapid ethnically. Also, there are those who are so racist that they want 100% racial purity, others not. There was an example of a Brit who complained "it doesn't smell like England anymore" so he was going to go to Australia (an Anglo-Colony, not England!) and he said this in the 60's (!!!) when things were "better" and the ethnic balance was totally different. So no we shouldn't accept racism like that. Golden Dawn, etc off limits. Why is the "CORPORATE" decadent change in family-values a positive? It did NOT go along with liberation or revolution. With 1970's Punk-Rock it was something actually subversive, hot. They want to "go back" to how things were a few decades ago, basically. And guess what, unlike the Nazis and REAL FASH who want a total reactionary revival, who want a mysticist thousand year old shit and who believe in total racial purity, many of the people don't even believe that!

And how generous of them. What you say is worthless on two accounts: Firstly, a basic empirical error that is simply not up for dispute, and secondly, a lack-of overall substance. What does this mean? Firstly, no actual qualifications for what constitutes a "rapid ethnic shift" are provided here. With historical considerations, a population of 7.5 million foreigners (a considerable amount hailing from other European countries) in a country with some 60 million native born residents in no way constitutes a "radical ethnic shift". Certainly globalization, and the establishment of the EU had led to an increase of immigration in general, but in no way has "this" alone accounted for the vile chauvinist sentiment that is growing among the UK population. I asked you a simple question: How could the influx of immigrants be of any relavence without class considerations? In other words, is the mere "cultural" difference enough to spark anti-immigrant fervor? No! I claimed something very simple actually - that UK workers could care less about defending British "culture", that this kind of rhetoric is nothing more than a projection of their real material grievances, such as the loss of benefits, working rights and the lowering of wages onto some kind of external other, which in the classic sense are only immigrants. If we are to buy into the cliche'd idea of the "oligarch" fostering mass immigration for his own ends, then it is logical that the ONLY ends to arise from this are: Migrant workers willing to work for lower wages and consequentially, perhaps indirectly dividing the working class. Now the solution to this is not to support putting restrictions on immigration, but on the contrary to organize and mobilize the migrant workers into a unified working class movement. This is the ONLY WAY to counter-act the actual effects of immigration that are harmful to the working class.

What do you hope to demonstrate with these little "quotes"? You make it as though anti-immigrant fervor is something we doubt exists. Unless you're a raving schizophrenic, there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate in trying to encapsulate this kind of sentiment with quotes. You prove nothing, you do nothing but make yourself look like an ass. But as we've already demonstrated, no one considered things "better" because of a stupid abstract idea like "ethnic balance", people associate their real material shortcomings with multiculturalism because the destruction of the worker's movement coincided with immigration. Without these class considerations, no one would care about such "cultural" issues. If immigration didn't inevitably result in, for example, driving wages down and threatening the "native" job security (even though any idiot knows there are more than enough jobs for anyone) do you think that there would be ANY fascist temptation among the British working class? Only a fucking moron would think so. Regarding the change in family values, it has nothing to do with such moral dichotomies of being "positive" or "negative". The point is that it happened, and that to call for a return to a condition that proceeded it is reactionary. One could imagine living the industrial revolution and hearing reactionaries such as yourself claim "What is so positive about the breaking of traditional family bonds, of destroying old ways of life by greedy capitalists?" And I will answer you today as any good Communist would have answered them before: Because Communism pre-supposes the advances of capitalism as the pre-supposition to its own realization. That is to say, the bourgeois family was not destroyed, it simply took a new form. And we opposed the bourgeois family before just as we do now. To call for a return of its previous incarnation, or to OPPOSE this change (to the "corporate" family) is to deny the possibility of the actualization of a Communism that derives from conditions of TODAY. It is to, in effect, assume the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie as our own interests, but the working people have nothing to gain from championing the old family and likewise, opposing its destruction by "corporations" on these grounds.


But the Oligarchy does not want to stir up nationalism, as it has no place for it at all. They don't push racism, the Golden Dawn does. You agreed they don't care about the nation, so why would they want nationalist-awakening? They want cheap labor and MONEY.

And yet again you fail to grasp a very basic point: It does not matter what in the immediate sense oligarchs want in this context, because capitalism is not a socially self conscious society. The fact of the matter is that a) Racism, chauvinism are an irrevocable product of capitalist relations, of which places the "oligarchs" squarely in the position of the ruling class, and b) the "oligarchs" have everything to benefit from Fascism, because it is a useful deterrence against an organized, class-conscious working class. Without such vile filth, the workers would be spontaneously predisposed to Communism. And this would absolutely destroy the so-called "oligarchy". Which by the way, constitutes what? What is this "oligarchy" and what are its origins? How in any meaningful sense, within the framework of capitalism, within the framework even by the inevitably anti-EU and nativist policies of even the BNP, can the conditions of the origin of their power be destroyed? You could claim that isolation from the EU would hurt the interests of the British "oligarchs", but the native British bourgeoisie that proceeded the "transnational oligarchs" by centuries. So what conditions led to their formation, and how would this in any meaningful sense be deterred by the likes of UKIP? It would not.

And my point was very simple: It was that in effect, political correctness seeks to conceal something that is already constitutive of capitalist society, and capitalsit relations. So a rejection of political correctness on reactionary lines would only ever exemplify that which is already there, there is nothing innately subversive about this as far as capitalism goes. What does this mean? It means that the big bourgeoisie's power is contingent upon all the vile and racist filth that, thanks to the efforts primarily of a decades long international worker's movement, they were forced to conceal through political correctness. So you do nothing but accelerate the consolidation of capitalist barbarism. It's not that they "want" a nationalist awakening on a personal level, or even on a political one, it's that nationalism is INHERENTLY bourgeois insofar as the petite-bourgeoisie cannot constitute themselves in a position of class dictatorship, parasitically relying on the primary foundations of productive relations in order to exist.


English Nationalism might not be tinged by that in a way Fascists of other countries have been. Although of course openly Fascist UK groups (like the NF) and maybe the BNP are. There is no Comintern or Cominform Rafiq. You speak like things are static, that we are in a revolutionary time now, that saying "Workers of the World Unite" will work like if someone said it in 1925 or even the 1970s! Things have NOT stayed Static. People don't flock to "Communism" they have "patriotism." Don't ignore Soviet Social-Imperialism was a big turn off for people obviously.


Oh yes, "Our fascism" isn't as bad as "German" fascism, as though things like nationalism somehow can account for specific national considerations. In other words, German Fascism was only "bad" because it was German. It's absolutely fucking hilarious in a painfully ironic way. There is no difference between English and German nationalism in this context, because in case you didn't know, Fascism is truly universal insofar as the social conditions which breed it are. It can assume different aesthetic characteristics, but ultimately the underlying pathological, ideological foundations in approximation to its respective political and social conditions are identical. Tell me, what exactly is different about German Neo-Fascism in contrast to British nationalism in 2015? Nothing! It is the same - Euroskepticism, reactionary anti-globalization, and so on. The POWER which sustains them are identical. And frankly, there was no Comintern before the October revolution, and there was no Comintern before the First International. And yet there were Communists, who stayed true to the historic party, who did not conform themselves to political backwardness and who did not degrade their standards in the midst of the powers that be. What would Lenin, what would the Zimmerwald Left be if they had JayBro's mentality? What is ultimately moronic is the irony that the comintern was literally WROUGHT OUT from a fervent OPPOSITION to the "patriotism" that was indeed widespread among the "masses". We could see them saying it in 1914 - "People don't flock to this 'Communism', they have patriotism, they have their homelands" and so on. Only a coward, only an ass thinks this way. What they have is only relevant insofar as it instills in us a clear picture of what needs to be uprooted, of the corruption and filth that needs to be stamped away in the midst of a Communist revival. There is no Comintern, and there is nothing close to an International Communist movement, and there is no Communism today. And there will never be, if Communists demagogically cater to the ignorance of the masses and stroke their misled "patriotism" to gain some numbers here or there. We seek for the class for itself, not the class in itself. There is a difference, and all the scum in the dustbin of history are there for you to learn of it.

It's ironic that you prattle of Soviet social-imperialism (itself a worthless idea) when in fact such soft "patriotic" policies of Communist parties throughout Europe were distinctively following a Soviet line. Patriotism is a meaningless word - everyone has a love of home, and all peoples have a sense of pride for their past, of their respective national history. But such pride in no way makes the logical leap to nationalism, to POLITICIZED "patriotism". In fact, someone who is truly proud of their nation's history would do all they could to oppose the defenders of the nation, because of the realization that their national history was shaped not by the "conservation" of the nation (which would have meant its ruin), but the acceleration of social antagonisms and class struggles. The highest manifestation of each according national spirit, is the trans-national, it is the destruction of the nation as such and the conjoining of all nations through the international solidarity of the working class. This is why the Fascists were so meek and impotent in confronting the dilemna of modernization - they did not want to return to feudal times, but they were always caught in the middle of the trauma of modernization - they did not know when to advance forward or where to step back in, there was simply no viable constellation for this. The result was that they were the ugly dwarf of their ACTUAL national spirits respectively. Charlamagne, Charles Martel, did not give a flying fuck about the French nation, national "heroes" like Julius Caesar were absolutely despised by the defenders of Rome, that is, the senatorial aristocracy and the conservative patrician class, western "heroes" like Alexander meant the ruin of oriental despotism, something which could have had a real application in native Greece, and so on. Virtually everything about a nation which one would ever think of being proud of was wrought out not by defending the nation, or going backwards, but through historic trauma, through the acceleration of social antagonisms.


Yes of course, from Feudalism to Capitalism and the nation-state of the 1800's etc etc. You want to know what is filthy? The Quebecois/French Canadians who supported Hezbollah in 2006 because they felt conjoined with the Lebanese as Francophones!

Oh, but what right do you have to oppose the reactionaries in the Lebanon if you're going to apologize for UKIP? Because your'e an intellectual barbarian - there is nothing really different about the conditions that wrought out UKIP and the conditions which wrought out the hezbollah, they are pathologically uniform.


Russian-Nationalism itself is Russian-Nationalism. There is nothing "progressive" about it.


Then why do you ignore the fact that by default, all Euroskepiticsim is either at best aligned with Russian imperial interests, or even worse an extension of it! Most European fascist parties, besides those of countries with territorial disputes with Russia one way or another, are by in part largely pro-Russian and pro-Putinist. As a matter of fact, this "patriotism" is nothing more than the mimicry of Putinism in Europe!


I view it differently from Romanians who miss stability of Ceaeusescu's Romania (only country NOT to be antisemitic by the way) or Kadar's Hungary. Some Germans miss the stability of E. Germany too.

Which definitely and wholly has reactionary connotations, though perhaps not inherently nationalist ones. What any fool in any of these countries should be able to know is that leaving the EU, and adopting anti-immigrant fervor is not going to revive the aspects of these societies which are so greatly missed.

[Rafiq]

I might as well be a full on Communist if this was 1948!

And this only proves our point. Don't you get it? Being a 1948 Communist in 2015 makes you, for the most part, a Fascist.


Nope. I thought punk rock was actually subversive in a good way. Mindless Corporate-Hedonism that we saw is not, it's connected to capitalist-greed itself. Punk Rock was also new and hot at the time. Similarly with Modernist Architecture when it was NEW and connected to Socialist or Progressive policy. Nowadays it's meaningless. You know Goldfinger that Architect in 1960's England? His stuff was new at the time and part of that pretty good time period. In response to Rafiqs comment:


Communism is still a real possibility, and vested in today's capitalism is the possibility of a new Communism, not the abandonment of our historic tradition because "things have changed". It is true things have changed, but all this demonstrates is that Communism must also change in turn - and this is, as we can all see, something of a nightmare to you.

[PhoenixAsh]

So the enemy is owner of the pub or the shopkeeper eh? He's our enemy? The manager of the snack place? Nope.

Yes. That person specifically is the enemy. A collaborator and covert agent and will sell you out for 10 silver pieces given half the chance and he is a Romanian immigrant.

Incidentally Jaybro...why do you have a picture of Ceaucescu on your profile page?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

you lot seriously need to stop engaging the trolls..:laugh:

[Comrade Jacob]

Straight outta Hull! Crazy muthafucka named Jacob, helping to organise a party called the CPGB-ML.

sorry

[The Intransigent Faction]

Straight outta Hull! Crazy muthafucka named Jacob, helping to organise a party called the CPGB-ML.

sorry

You mean those red flag fetishists who consider contemporary China to be socialist?

[Comrade Jacob]

You mean those red flag fetishists who consider contemporary China to be socialist?

Most members I have met disagree with the stance on China

[Carlos-Marcos]

UKIP represents a lot of the White Working and Middle Class and have a Euroscepticist Policy (thoughts?) and they are feeling LEFT BEHIND.

We need to recognize the native British Working and Middle Class!

UKIP are NOT left wing though - more like the old Conservative working class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As far as anarchist orgs go, Solidarity Federation (IWA) has done some interesting stuff in the past.

[Carlos-Marcos]

the TUSC are worth looking into, though generally they are a reformist kind of left wing party

[The 92nd One]

If you're a student then check out Marxist Student Federation, see if they have a society near you (non-students can go to meetings too!) its marxiststudent(dot)com (won't let me post links yet...) - list of societies in the UK on the left hand side. I guess they'll be out for summer now, but come September.

[The Idler]

I would suggest looking into the Socialist Party of Great Britain who contested ten constituencies in the last general election on a socialist manifesto.

[initforthelutz]

If you're Marxist-Leninist, yeah, definitely go for CPGB-ML.

[Callum the communist]

UKIP are right wing racists and fuck you jay bro 47 you facist fuck

[Callum the communist]

Also jay bro 47 you cannot change the racists that support UKIP as they blame everything on the imagrants who have come to seek a better life it is the immigrant we should accept not the racists who claim to be left behind by politics because they couldn't switch a fucking tv on or buy a book

[Q]

UKIP are right wing racists and fuck you jay bro 47 you facist fuck


Also jay bro 47 you cannot change the racists that support UKIP as they blame everything on the imagrants who have come to seek a better life it is the immigrant we should accept not the racists who claim to be left behind by politics because they couldn't switch a fucking tv on or buy a book
It's no fun to debate with someone who is banned from posting here anymore ;)