Socialistic wave over Europe? [Archive]

DaCuBaN

30th April 2004, 19:12

The working class do not hate immigrants. The xenophobes and rascists hate immigrants. Immigrants are welcome to our country

This is an outright falshood - the working class do not 'hate' the people coming into our country personally but they do percieve them as a threat

If there was an influx of people who were as qualified as you to perform your job yet would work for less wages of course you're going to fear/resent them under our current system as it offers next to no job security.

It by no means justifies the reaction, but being unjustified doesn't make it false.

The BNP leaders are members of petit-bourgeoise, just like you, fascism's biggest supporter is the petit-bourgeoise. Dont slur the name of the working class with your bollocks. Get the fuck out, and see the real world.

Never a need to flame anyone, and I fail to see what you achieve by doing so.
The BNP have gained support in the UK based on the fear that immigrants are going to take everyones jobs. It is totally irrational, but it does have a large working class support, not to mention the fact that the UK has a track record for racism in the first instance - ESPECIALLY amongst the working class.

James

1st May 2004, 01:45

james, yet again i have to remind you, get the fuck off your fat arse, and go into working class, they dont hate immigrants.

yet again? My fat arse??
The working class hate immigration. Everyone in this country does. Except a few idiologically driven individuals. But they arn't the majority at all.
The working class hate immigration. Thats why no real clump of the WC vote for those standing on a platform advocating an open door.
Its a silly proposal, and one that alienates voters.

Yes in the ideal world people should be able to move to and fro willy nilly, but i'm afraid we don't live in an ideal world.

The BNP leaders are members of petit-bourgeoise, just like you,

lol; i'm a regular little hitler eh!

fascism's biggest supporter is the petit-bourgeoise.

Nope, fraid not. In reality its working class communities that once voted labour. Newyouth or whatever won't tell you that though sadly.

Dont slur the name of the working class with your bollocks. Get the fuck out, and see the real world.

Slur? The real world?
Oldham riots - which class was that?
Did the working class come out in solidarity or anything? Did they hell.

You are living in a dream world. By all means stay in it, but don't try and insult me just because i don't share your fantasy.

I hope you realise what a fucking anti-working class motherfucker Disraeli was also.

Oh lets have some proof of this!!

James

1st May 2004, 01:49

Money is a useless material object. It is not important. What is important is that we welcome our fellow humans and help them.

I think £200m could be spent on improving alot of British lives, instead of being wasted on defending ILLEGAL economic immigrants.

Thats a labour policy by the way, providing such financial aid.
Another reasons why labours membership is plumiting? Smooth move labour..

toastedmonkey

1st May 2004, 09:07

Racism transends class, you find it in every class to varying degrees

people arent racist because of the class they are in, has nothing to do with class.

Kez

1st May 2004, 09:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 01:45 AM

james, yet again i have to remind you, get the fuck off your fat arse, and go into working class, they dont hate immigrants.

yet again? My fat arse??
The working class hate immigration. Everyone in this country does. Except a few idiologically driven individuals. But they arn't the majority at all.
The working class hate immigration. Thats why no real clump of the WC vote for those standing on a platform advocating an open door.
Its a silly proposal, and one that alienates voters.

Yes in the ideal world people should be able to move to and fro willy nilly, but i'm afraid we don't live in an ideal world.

The BNP leaders are members of petit-bourgeoise, just like you,

lol; i'm a regular little hitler eh!

fascism's biggest supporter is the petit-bourgeoise.

Nope, fraid not. In reality its working class communities that once voted labour. Newyouth or whatever won't tell you that though sadly.

Dont slur the name of the working class with your bollocks. Get the fuck out, and see the real world.

Slur? The real world?
Oldham riots - which class was that?
Did the working class come out in solidarity or anything? Did they hell.

You are living in a dream world. By all means stay in it, but don't try and insult me just because i don't share your fantasy.

I hope you realise what a fucking anti-working class motherfucker Disraeli was also.

Oh lets have some proof of this!!
So an entire class hate immigration?
bullshit, a minority who have been betrayed by new labour do so, and they are the only ones who get the coverage.
Did the protests in Manchester and Birmingham get any converage showing workers solidarity against Le Pen etc?

Fascism is propped up by the petit bourgeoise, you should know this by now, who funds fascism? coz it aint the working class who donates thousands upon thousands.

the reason they were riots in Oldham was due to anti-fascists coming out onto streets and throwing molotov coctails and stones at the police and fascists, as well as the smaller group of fascists throwing stones at the police and anti-fascists. Who were these anti-fascists? Ordinary working class, much bigger grouping than fascists.

Also, tell me, was it the petit-bourgeoise liberals who kicked the BNP out of oldham? or was it the mass action electorally from the trade unions?

Also, the BNP organised a protest against the NUJ (national unnion of journalists) because the union (with working class working in it) is strongly anti-fascist. However, for every one BNP supporter that turned up, there were 5 anti-fascists there as a counter protest, and this was organsed ad-hoc.

So, again i tell you to shut your petit bourgeois gob, and only come back when you know the facts.

As for Disraeli, i may open a thread at a later point, however, now i must go to mayday march, you just sit there on your fat arse, and hurl insults at the great working class, fucking prick.

Maynard

1st May 2004, 10:25

I think, most defiantly, there has been a shift wards to the left, not necessarily socialist , for various factors. I think the support for the Iraq war from conservative governments and also welfare reforms have been hugely unpopular, so the shift to the left is too counteract these measures. I think the attacks in Madrid, just confirmed the populations suspicion about what following US foreign policy so blatantly can do. I think nearly all governments who supported the Iraq war will suffer in some respects.

Communists do not have to "reflect' the views of the working class. That's not being in touch at all. Many communists are part of the working class anyhow but Communists offer an alternative to the current system which will, in our view, improve the lives of all the working class around the world, then immigration because of economic factors would not be an issue at all. It's also true, the politicians instil the fear of immigrants into many people, so immigrants can be blamed rather than the politicians or capitalism itself. Communists should not favour one nationality over another. Xenophobia has no place in any communist movement and if there is indeed hatred, we must look to change these views rather than just accept them. Immigrants are part of the working class also, so supporting them is also supporting the working class.

Anyway, the BBC did a survey and 47% of white respondents said that immigration had damaged Britain. While that is high, it's hardly a stunning majority , it's not even a majority at all and of course, there are more to the working class than those who are white. While, to show the Hysteria, a survey found the average percentage of the population people thought were immigrants or Asylum seekers to be 21.56 %, while the real figure is 8 %. Misinformation and ignorance is what fuels many of the beliefs. That is just in Britain as well, in New Zealand for instance, 78% agreed in a recent survey that immigrants have made an important contribution to New Zealand. In Norway as well 83 per cent agree to the statement "All immigrants in Norway should have the same opportunities to have a job as Norwegians". This statement gathered most positive answers. Two thirds of the population agree that " Most immigrants make an important contribution in the Norwegian work life", and 70 per cent agree that immigrants enrich the cultural life in Norway.

It may or may not be true in Britain but it's hardly conclusive that the working class hates immigrants everywhere.

And you claim the working classes hate the royal family because they waste money... While there is still majority support for the royal family , in the working class, a recent observer poll shows that "The number of people who think that the royal family should receive not a penny from the taxpayer has also soared in the last year, from 34 per cent to 41 per cent. Just one in 10 now thinks they should receive more than £20 million a year. This is less than half the current, highly complicated package of cash payments, allowances and concessions, such as inheritance tax exemption, that they receive from the public purse. "

In reality its working class communities that once voted labour. Newyouth or whatever won't tell you that though sadly. Any evidence of this ?

James

1st May 2004, 10:54

So an entire class hate immigration?

I'd say in general, most people, in all the classes (i hate the term class... its so blured these days) dislike immigration.
Thats why they don't buy the newspapers that suggest border control relaxation. Thats why they buy papers that tell them what they want to hear.
That is why a party will never get mass support, whilst it argues for an open house.
And that is why Blair now has to "crack down" on illegal immigration.

Or maybe i'm wrong, and in fact the working class en-masse always welcome immigration and want to be part of the EU properly so we can have an open house. Yeah...

bullshit, a minority who have been betrayed by new labour do so, and they are the only ones who get the coverage.

You mean its a conspiracy?

Did the protests in Manchester and Birmingham get any converage showing workers solidarity against Le Pen etc?
Yes it did - my geog teacher (middleclass) was on the front page of some papers yelling his head of. How many showed up?

This was unite against fascism - hardly a working class organisation. On the whole, i'd say its made up of "petit-bourgeoise liberals"; just like the SWP, "respect" and all those other minority groups who just want to raise the fist and resist. Or whatever it is you people do.

Fascism is propped up by the petit bourgeoise, you should know this by now, who funds fascism? coz it aint the working class who donates thousands upon thousands.

Who votes for them?
And lets also look at the term fascist - its someone who wants to infringe someone elses freedom of speech. Yes?

the reason they were riots in Oldham was due to anti-fascists coming out onto streets and throwing molotov coctails and stones at the police and fascists, as well as the smaller group of fascists throwing stones at the police and anti-fascists. Who were these anti-fascists? Ordinary working class, much bigger grouping than fascists.

Thats a nice fantasy.
Sadly you have independent governmental reports arguing otherwise. It was purely race tensions, brought about by segregation etc etc etc

I know when the real riots kicked off it was working class asians V working class whites.

So, again i tell you to shut your petit bourgeois gob, and only come back when you know the facts.

I'm never going to agree with your pipe dream.
I know for a fact that those at school who support the BNP, are working class. The middle class people are only turning to the BNP as a protest vote.

As for Disraeli, i may open a thread at a later point, however, now i must go to mayday march, you just sit there on your fat arse, and hurl insults at the great working class, fucking prick.

I doubt it will come...
Go raise your fist and resist old boy. You never know, new youth may put you on their front cover. oooo!

thatCHEr

1st May 2004, 15:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:59 PM
Are we looking at a trend?
First there was Spain then France and after that Austria they all have changed, more or less, from right to left.
Why the cause of all these changes?
Has the terroristattack in Madrid made any different to the outcome for these countries.
I don't know about rest of europe but maybe there is more countries leaning to the left and is having an upcoming election?
Personally I see it as being due to the socially backward nature of the 'right-wing' parties. There is sadly in a lot countries in Europe few properly free market parties. Usually they will claim to be it, and then continue to distort the market with unequal rights, subsidies and excessive regulation.
Luckily the populist parties, or socialist, do a bad job of things too, and dont last long once in office. And at least in Europe they cannot refuse elections like in Venuzuela for example.

socialistfuture

2nd May 2004, 06:37

james -
i'd ask you what about british imperialism?, the british empire.. that was british immigration into foreign land. that was cultural genocide commited by aristocratic nationalists.
Brits hate immigrants? maybe immigrants hate what brits did to their lands. I live in a country that still feels the effect of Britians colonial empire. dont be so arrogrant in saying people come to your country and destroy it, when your country travelled abroad and destroyed the lives of so many in India, Aotearoa, Australia, Palestine.... etc.
the people who hate immigration are either white supremists, ignorant about history, looking for someone to blame their situation on or racial nationalists. the working class hates immigrants? many working class people are immigrants, wether its now or from amny generations ago. man moves around, immigration is permenent. migration patterns change. who the fuck cares what colour sumone is.

james if you want to post racist shit go to a neo nazi forum.

the general anti capitalist movement if growing i think, socialists are in the thick of it. Spains election and all the action in south america including the election of Hugo Chaves is definaltly a step in the right (left) direction. I think the Iraq war has woken a lot of people up to what is going on in the world.

I believe their is a gradual shift to the left. then again their has been a growing racist anti islam/arab wave, and anti immigrant movement :( if u got a turban and a beard and u look a little dark skinned you must be a terrorist....

fuck racism, fuck imperialism hasta la victoria siempre

James

2nd May 2004, 17:55

james -
i'd ask you what about british imperialism?, the british empire.. that was british immigration into foreign land. that was cultural genocide commited by aristocratic nationalists.

Tenuous link...

For all its faults, British imperialism did have its benifits. It was totally different to the french brand... They didn't exactly believe in the "white man's burden".

Brits hate immigrants?

The british dislike illegal economic migrants who claim aslyum.
We also hate brits who abuse the welfare system.
A racist philosophy? Hardly
Made out to be racist by those who disagree? quite possibly

maybe immigrants hate what brits did to their lands.

So its like a revenge thing eh?

I live in a country that still feels the effect of Britians colonial empire.

Where?

dont be so arrogrant in saying people come to your country and destroy it,

I didn't say that did i. I think someone is now making assumptions. And fitting me into a nice little category.

when your country travelled abroad and destroyed the lives of so many in India, Aotearoa, Australia, Palestine.... etc.

True. But then again, look at the countries we didn't invade.
And anyway, do two rights make a wrong?

the people who hate immigration are either white supremists, ignorant about history, looking for someone to blame their situation on or racial nationalists.

No that is UTTER crap old boy.
I'm against unrestrained immigration. Now i understand that this may be beyond your grasp on reality. But i'll try and enlighten you.
Do you know what an optimum population is?
Do you know what over population is?
Do you accept that different cultures ARE different, thus sudden mixing is very likely to be DANGEROUS (because not everyone is as fair minded as your good self)?

I'm not a white supremist.
I'm not ignorant of history.
I'm not looking for a scape goat to "blame" my current "situation" on.
I'm not a racial nationalist. Why racial anyway? Why didn't you say nationalist?
Or even patriot, in the sense of being in favour of making ones country work?

the working class hates immigrants?

I said the british working class. As you point out, you are not british. Who therefore probably "knows more"?

many working class people are immigrants, wether its now or from amny generations ago. man moves around, immigration is permenent. migration patterns change. who the fuck cares what colour sumone is.

I like the way you've changed MY argument, from; not liking uncontrolled migration

To

"i hate anyone who isn't white"

nice move... Demonstrates your stupidity though.

james if you want to post racist shit go to a neo nazi forum.

I don't... nor have i in this thread. You are a typical "anti nazi", in that anyone who you disagree with, is branded a "nazi". Sadly in this case you don't have the "moreal highground", nor can you make me feel "guilty" about thinking logically about an optimum population.

Drop the cliches!

the general anti capitalist movement if growing i think, socialists are in the thick of it. Spains election and all the action in south america including the election of Hugo Chaves is definaltly a step in the right (left) direction. I think the Iraq war has woken a lot of people up to what is going on in the world.

OR, was it actually a protest vote over the previous conservative governments handling of the bombings, and more broadly, over Spain's "blind" co-operation with America, especially regarding iraq? One could compare that to the way alot of Britons feel. But surely thats nationalist? And therefore anti black or whatever.

Greek elections? Hardly "fit" your theory.

Kez

2nd May 2004, 20:35

Concerning your immigration bashing comments, i dont need to deal with them, i think everyone can clearly see your idiocy here.

As for Spain, again you clearly show your complete ignorance. Maybe your Guardian paper hasnt told you how the working people of Spain felt even before the bomb blasts, the truth is the bomb was merely the final straw, and the final nail in the coffin of Aznar.

The workers never supported Aznar, they simply didnt vote for the "socialists" in the past. How is putting a stop to imperialism in iraq "anti-black"?? in fact, what the fuck are you talking about?

As for the Greek elections, this was a symbolic fingers up at the PASOK groupin whose leadership had betrayed the workers, the workers replied by not voting at all. There wasnt a shift to the right, as you incorrectly state

James

2nd May 2004, 21:59

Concerning your immigration bashing comments, i dont need to deal with them, i think everyone can clearly see your idiocy here.

like...

As for Spain, again you clearly show your complete ignorance. Maybe your Guardian paper hasnt told you how the working people of Spain felt even before the bomb blasts, the truth is the bomb was merely the final straw, and the final nail in the coffin of Aznar.

Actually no thats not quite correct. Contary to what new youth told you to think - this election had one of the highest turnouts ever. Why? Well you only have to look at the comments at the exit polls, and the way the people took to the streets after the bombings.

How is putting a stop to imperialism in iraq "anti-black"?? in fact, what the fuck are you talking about?
My comment which escaped you was:

"more broadly, over Spain's "blind" co-operation with America, especially regarding iraq? One could compare that to the way alot of Britons feel. But surely thats nationalist? And therefore anti black or whatever"

Let me re-phrase it for you in more simple terms.

Blair supports Bush; seemingly in a blind fashion. Brits get pissed off at this. Why? Because they want the british representative to represent britain. Now this is where i was terribly clever: i suggested that this was a nationalist view. National determination and the what not.
But, and this is where it gets very complicated: alot of morons believe that "nationalism" and patriotism, in the broadest sense, is inherintly racist. e.g. anti black.

As for the Greek elections, this was a symbolic fingers up at the PASOK groupin whose leadership had betrayed the workers, the workers replied by not voting at all. There wasnt a shift to the right, as you incorrectly state

You'd fit well into Orwell's nightmare. Your spin is wonderful.
You suggest a rise in the left's vote is a shift to the left, a "socialist wave": i.e. a positive tidal wave breaking away all which oppose it.
Yet, a rise in the right's vote is simply a protest vote from the left... Its a mistake. Of course, its not possible to have a protest vote the other way around, is it?

This thought came to me earlier when you called me a racist in the commie club; yet you didn't have the guts or ability to proove it. Instead you slipped it in amoungst numerous other comments, hoping the reader would soak it in without question.

Kamo, you are sad.

James

2nd May 2004, 22:02

socialistfuture

3rd May 2004, 01:29

I am from Aotearoa (new Zealand). The british came here and fought the locals (maori) they were unable to beat them - a treaty was made (the treaty of waitangi). We still have the stupid queen on our flag and other royal british crap.
Colonialisation fucked other native peoples. The British empire was an imperialist empire. Nationalism generally is against the principals of socialism.

I am decended from English and Irish settlers - I defend no empire, pledge alligence to no monarch, fuck captilast neo-colonialism and eurocentric white supremecy. All people have a right to live off the land,on the land, free from war. Britian troops destroy the lives of many.. why is it no suprise refugees go to your country.. they want to escape wars waged on them by western troops (afghanistan, iraq, vietnam, colombia, kosovo...etc). Britian is responsible for the damage it does.

Yes we need local democracy. Blair supported the war and has continued Thatchers policy of privatisation and the police state, destroying workers rights and unions. New Labour is a neo-liberal right wing party. The nazi-BNP is britians anti-immigrant party, labour instead of standing up to the facists took on some of their ideas and went fathur to the right.

The socliast alliance, and various leftist groups in Britian are running in the next elections - they support workers rights, local democracy, and opposition to capitalist war and enviromental destruction.

Fighting immigration will never fix anything.

The Spanish elections worker because the government tried to use blind nationalism and anti-terrorist propaghanda. they tried to blame the boming on basque sepretists when it wasnt them. the people went on the streets and marched and a strong campaign on the streets worked. it was a victory to the working class. yes they are not going to bring socialism to Spain, but the people have made a small victory and have been given hope - more will come.

The scottish socialist party is a good example of a socialist groups at the grassroots that is growing in support and power.

Nationalism is reactionary and is used to divide the working class so the capitalist rulers can maintain power - dont fall for it. Blair, the torries and the BNP all represent the rulling class - only grassroots socialism can solve britians problems.

dark fairy

4th May 2004, 05:45

whoa hoa hoa...

Saint-Just

4th May 2004, 09:01

Do you know what an optimum population is?
Do you know what over population is?

A nation can have a greater standard of living with a smaller population. However, that countries international standing can be reduced. I think Britain could sustain a far larger population than it does at present. A big problem we have at the moment is more people are choosing to live on their own and remain single. And so, we need many more houses although our population is increasing very little.

I agree with what you are saying about the working-class. That is, they are generally wary of immigration. However, immigration has benefitted this country. The majority of migrants can work and live peacefully. Culture of course is a different issue to that, there are certainly problems with cultural clashes in respect to immigrants coming to Britain. I would say that this country should allow greater immigration so that our population may increase and our nation become stronger to compete with the economies of Germany, China and Japan. Although I think there needs to be a way in which we deal with cultural diversity.

Blair supported the war and has continued Thatchers policy of privatisation and the police state

I think the only sense in which Britain may be becoming more of a 'police state' is that the degree to which information about individuals is held and exchanged is increasing. However, police funding is increasing little whilst we develop a bigger and bigger crime culture. If anything Britain does far too little to prevent crime.

James

4th May 2004, 12:55

I would say that this country should allow greater immigration so that our population may increase and our nation become stronger to compete with the economies of Germany, China and Japan. Although I think there needs to be a way in which we deal with cultural diversity.

Exactly.
An open door is not the solution.

(Is mao now going to be branded a racist too?)

Comrade Zeke

5th May 2004, 07:24

Does anyone know if Ireland might turn Socalist or are they going to remaind their centrislist Democracy? <_<

Kez

5th May 2004, 11:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 12:55 PM

I would say that this country should allow greater immigration so that our population may increase and our nation become stronger to compete with the economies of Germany, China and Japan. Although I think there needs to be a way in which we deal with cultural diversity.

Exactly.
An open door is not the solution.

(Is mao now going to be branded a racist too?)
no.

somewhat bizarre tho, to what interest is it to the workers to be more competitive than german companies i dont know.

Is it in working classes interests to lose jobs in other areas such as germany, because a few are gained in UK?
Not a socialist solution

As for open door, a capitalist system cannot deal with it, this is why we must fight for socialism, to allow free movement without the state imposing bullshit rules on us, and then dividing us.

James

5th May 2004, 15:03

As for open door, a capitalist system cannot deal with it, this is why we must fight for socialism, to allow free movement without the state imposing bullshit rules on us, and then dividing us.

A socialist system couldn't cope with an open door either. Its illogical kamo.
Think about it.

Say you have a small community of around 1000 people: with a socialist inferstructure, that serves the current local population. Everyone has a job, and the different "sectors" function at 90% (say there is room for 200 more people)

Then add 2000 extra in one week. How on earth could it cope? The system could soak up around 250, at most. It may then cope in the long term, but so could a capitalist system. I fail to see your "point" kamo.

I don't believe in either the completely free unmanaged movement of people or capital. No doubt that makes me a racist in some vauge, unstated way. But ah well, tis life i suppose.
At least i'm not dogmatic.

Saint-Just

5th May 2004, 16:28

Then add 2000 extra in one week. How on earth could it cope? The system could soak up around 250, at most. It may then cope in the long term, but so could a capitalist system. I fail to see your "point" kamo.

I don't believe in either the completely free unmanaged movement of people or capital. No doubt that makes me a racist in some vauge, unstated way. But ah well, tis life i suppose.

I agree with what you are saying. But surely a socialist government would not allow the free unmanaged movement of people. A socialist government could have an open door immigration policy, it would of course have constructed housing and work for the number of people it anticipates.

Exactly.
An open door is not the solution.

The problem with culture is that to what degree do we demand those who come to this country adopt our own culture. I don't know the solution to this but certainly we must decide as we allow immigrants in to this country. I don't see how people can live here without adopting British culture as their own, conducting themselves in a British manner and speaking the British language. Having said that I would not want people to be forced to give up their own culture.

somewhat bizarre tho, to what interest is it to the workers to be more competitive than german companies i dont know.

Is it in working classes interests to lose jobs in other areas such as germany, because a few are gained in UK?
Not a socialist solution

If Germany were a capitalist country whilst our country were a socialist country then we should be focused on becoming a more powerful country than they. What happens to their working class population is important, however it is a lesser concern than the plight of our nation as a socialist nation since the fate of socialism would so heavily lie within our nation. Of course the prospect of a socialist revolution in Germany would be very important to the survival of our nation as a socialist nation. High unemployment in Germany may be conducive to such an aim, the aim of a socialist revolution in Germany that is.

James

5th May 2004, 17:02

But surely a socialist government would not allow the free unmanaged movement of people

Exactly!
To do so would be stupidity because it would always, in reality, end in chaos. No matter what philosophy you follow.

The problem with culture is that to what degree do we demand those who come to this country adopt our own culture. I don't know the solution to this but certainly we must decide as we allow immigrants in to this country. I don't see how people can live here without adopting British culture as their own, conducting themselves in a British manner and speaking the British language. Having said that I would not want people to be forced to give up their own culture.

Well summed up.
It is a matter which requires great thought - not one that can be swept aside as some would like to do.
Thus - an open door is not the solution.

(personally, i favour "mixing", whilst also adding aspects. I think the main culture of the host country should be primarily important however; as this basic formula means most cultures can have their own dominance in their "own" countries. Also it avoids the major clashes that would come about if "alien" cultures tried to dominate: as would most probably happen with an open door)

Culture isn't the primary reason why i'm against an open door though, so i'm not going to go down that path any further (as dragons dwell there...).

toastedmonkey

5th May 2004, 17:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:03 PM
Say you have a small community of around 1000 people: Then add 2000 extra in one week
That is a fucking rediculous and illogical scale!

on your scale, the population of the uk is 62million, then in one week 124million people move to the uk!

of course it wouldnt fucking cope! what would?
neither capitalism nor communism

James

5th May 2004, 17:07

exactly!

No system could cope with such an expansion overnight.

Kez

5th May 2004, 17:49

Firstly, since when was it overnight??
i bet these "bogus" immigrants are "swamping" and "flooding" the place are they? scum bag...

Let me tell you kid, in 1947 after the 2nd world war, Armenia (small Soviet republic) took on 1,000,000 new people in 1 year. This was from a population of 2 million before hand, how could it do it? because it had a superior system to your glorious capitalism.

Stop being an apologist and wake up, It is not an issue of no system can handle it, its an issue that capitalism cannot handle it (among other things it cant handle), and yet another reason to smash capitalism.

Kez

5th May 2004, 18:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:02 PM
(personally, i favour "mixing", whilst also adding aspects. I think the main culture of the host country should be primarily important however; as this basic formula means most cultures can have their own dominance in their "own" countries. Also it avoids the major clashes that would come about if "alien" cultures tried to dominate: as would most probably happen with an open door)

Culture isn't the primary reason why i'm against an open door though, so i'm not going to go down that path any further (as dragons dwell there...).
what kind of utter, chauvanistic (edging on racist), patriotic bullshite is that

For your information our great british culture, is a product of centuries of mixing you dumb fuck.

I guess you dont want dirty eastern cultures mixing with the "uber"culture, this is truly disgusting.

Cultures remain if they are good, and people choose what to pick up on, no1 is forced into a culture (like no-one forced us to pick up on socialism, except you of course).

Alien cultures, what the fuck are you on about??? You think of what is best about New York, LA, London, Paris and its how theyve bought about so many cultures, and if under a socialist system, these cultures can be highlighted.

Again, i use the soviet example, the seperate cultures were protected (for example kurdish minorities in the caucauses had their own TV station), however now, under capitalism, these same kurdish minorities have become the scapegoats for the problems in the caucauses. This is the difference between how socialism preserves and highlights cultures, and how capitalism smashes the smaller ones, and uses the bigger (quantity wise) cultures to oppress smaller ones)

stop being a bigot and open ur eyes kidda

James

5th May 2004, 18:55

Firstly, since when was it overnight??

It was a hypothetical situation; i'm trying to demonstrate my point.
Its an open door kamo, so there are no actual limitations in theory.

i bet these "bogus" immigrants are "swamping" and "flooding" the place are they? scum bag...

hang on, i'm just trying to show how your argument is flawed. Don't try and digress the real subject by getting attached to racist arguments.
Stick to the simple hypothetical numbers, in this hypothetical situation.

Let me tell you kid, in 1947 after the 2nd world war, Armenia (small Soviet republic) took on 1,000,000 new people in 1 year. This was from a population of 2 million before hand, how could it do it? because it had a superior system to your glorious capitalism.

This is very interesting. First you abuse my "overnight" situation for being racist and totally unrealistic, then you give me an example of my stated hypothetical situation. I'm interested in seeing some further information on this. Suffice to say though, at this point with my current understanding, i don't think the two countries are that comparable. Still, i'm interested in learning how this country with slight over-population (which i assume it is kamo - for if its dreadfully underpopulated, then its not really a comparison to the UK, is it?), delt succesfully with such an influx.
Please, tell me more (and some links please, not that i don't trust you old boy, it just is you have a habbit to be slightly dogmatic.)

Stop being an apologist

Pardon??
I'm not being apologist at all; unless of course you are using the literal meaning. In which case nearly any argument is apologist.

- and wake up,
Nice cliche

It is not an issue of no system can handle it, its an issue that capitalism cannot handle it (among other things it cant handle), and yet another reason to smash capitalism.

blah blah blah
Very nice; i've raised my fist here in my study room, and resisted too. Now lets get back to the actual issue.

Your post was full of insults and digression. Not a surprise.

My point however, is that NO system can cope with a large sudden influx, beyond a point, in the short term. Expansion takes time and resources - so needs time to do so. This isn't a racist apologist argument in the least. Its common sense.
This is why mao understands what i'm saying, and you don't.
I blame your stupidity. Sadly there arn't any pills for your condition.

James

5th May 2004, 19:07

what kind of utter, chauvanistic (edging on racist), patriotic bullshite is that

There was no reference to one culture... It was in reference to the fact that cultures are different. Or do you argue otherwise?

For your information our great british culture, is a product of centuries of mixing you dumb fuck.

Of course it is. Everyone knows this. Whats your point?

I guess you dont want dirty eastern cultures mixing with the "uber"culture, this is truly disgusting.

What a great point! not sure where you got it from, but it sounds really good!
I state that i want a mix.
I state that i want dominant cultures to be the dominant one though, in their countries. For example, i don't think me and a group of 50 English chaps should go over to france and raise St George Flag, and start doing everything in an english way. lol, i'd like to see any englishman try that in the south of france though! lol

Stop being so dam dogmatic. I like the way you assume i mean eastern culture.

Cultures remain if they are good, and people choose what to pick up on, no1 is forced into a culture (like no-one forced us to pick up on socialism, except you of course).
whaaaat?

Alien cultures, what the fuck are you on about???

Do you not know what that means?
I thought you were stupid... but come on... this is some sort of an image now isn't it! like Borris Johnson?

You think of what is best about New York, LA, London, Paris and its how theyve bought about so many cultures, and if under a socialist system, these cultures can be highlighted.

hmmm, i totally agree.

That would apply to this discussion if ANYONE was arguing for no migration, or mixing of cultures.
Put your hand up if you are arguing this so that Kamo can then see you clearly and stop getting our beliefs confused.

Again, i use the soviet example, the seperate cultures were protected (for example kurdish minorities in the caucauses had their own TV station),

Terriffic!
Surely that is what i was arguing though?
Oh hang on! i think you didn't actually read what i wrote, and went into automatic response mode. Ah well, shit happens!

however now, under capitalism, these same kurdish minorities have become the scapegoats for the problems in the caucauses. This is the difference between how socialism preserves and highlights cultures, and how capitalism smashes the smaller ones, and uses the bigger (quantity wise) cultures to oppress smaller ones)

Tenuous link to capitalism...

stop being a bigot and open ur eyes kidda

same back at you "kidda" (whatever that means)

toastedmonkey

5th May 2004, 19:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:07 PM
exactly!

No system could cope with such an expansion overnight.
but its a completely unrealistic expansion, it would never ahppen, meaning it was pointless for you to make that point, in a real situation an increase of 200% just wouldnt happen.

RevolutionNow

5th May 2004, 21:03

I, as a American envie the european political system. In europe their is a broder spectrum of mainstream political ideology. Here in America, if you want to be a part of the majority you either have to be a democrat or republican, not much else exists. I guess what im trying to say is, its kinda hard being an American socialist sometimes, but from what ive gathered from forum posts is that; it is not frowned upon as much to be a socialist in Europe. I guess the cold war had a lot to do with this, and the closest thing to socialism that most Americans have remotely heard of is the USSR. The equivalent to a four letter word to most Americans.

James

5th May 2004, 21:36

"but its a completely unrealistic expansion,"

A. It was a hypothetical situation - to demonstrate my point (so yes, it was an extreme example)
B. An open door means just that. In theory there is no upper limit. You are either for NO controls - or FOR controls. No controls means there is no limit (of course i understand that this doesn't mean there would be floods of people all the time). For controls means everything is managed. Controls come into their own during emergencies, and extreme times. I'm for controls.
C. Kamo states an example of it happening

Edit: i'd also like to point out that being for controls doesn't mean you are against migration. Or racist. Or imperialist. Or capitalist. Or kiddy fiddler. Or whatever else you can think of.

socialistfuture

7th May 2004, 13:01

I think Mao is not the best person to base Socialism on, China under him was brutal - so many died, Tibet was invaded - cultural genocide was attempted. People were trained to worship, it was dogmatic and censorship was extreme.

Borders are man made. They are used by the state to control the movement of poeple. When a imperialist power invaded a country and destroys the governement it wipes away those people rights. Why do refugees try to get in on false passports? because often they are unable to get them in their own countries.

Britian has been been responsible for the repression of the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Maori, Abouriginal, Indian, Palestinian... peoples... the list is endless, don't ever try to lecture people from a British nationalist perspective, British Imperialism has a long dark legacy that continues today (Afghanistan, Iraq...).

I support the struggle of the Brittish working class. The monarchy and capitalist rulers, and corporate lords must be overthrown. Any attempt to turn the focus onto migrants is a return to the reactionary social democrat movement. The Irish have a right to be free from British Oppression, as do the Scottish. Untill the Tories and New Labour are defeated socialists have a duty to unite with the oppressed of races.

Untill the third world is safe and has equal economic conditions people from there will flock to the ''developed world''. British socialists do not try to have better ecnomy than Germany - because German socialists are comrades - they take part of the struggle. Only by the revolution spreading can it be sustained.

CLASSWAR not race war

Kez

7th May 2004, 17:32

fuckin brilliant socialistfuture, i havent seen you before on the board, but we certainly need more true comrades rather than many of our petit bourgeoise residents.

James, your problem is you have a capitalists mindset, you must see that their is another solution to this brutal system that is Capitalism.

"i'd also like to point out that being for controls doesn't mean you are against migration"

?? Being for controls makes you against migration (ie against free movement). Again, your incapable of seeing a socialist solution, this is your problem, not ours, so dont spam across the board with your capitalist mindset.

James

8th May 2004, 00:32

fuckin brilliant socialistfuture, i havent seen you before on the board, but we certainly need more true comrades rather than many of our petit bourgeoise residents.

Because you are working class kamo...

Personally i liked the:
"The monarchy and capitalist rulers, and corporate lords must be overthrown."
Yes maybe, but thats not really a helpful comment. How are you going to go about that? The monarchy is popular with the WC. I assume you mean becoming a republic first. A great move: then us brits could also have a G. Bush who bought the election.
"Any attempt to turn the focus onto migrants is a return to the reactionary social democrat movement."
Turn the focus??? Who's trying to do that?
"The Irish have a right to be free from British Oppression,"
And do the irish who want to remain in the Union have a right to do so? Oh my god! i've just added colour to your black and white picture - its all messed up now! Ah well, thats probably why Kamo likes you
How do you think the british are actually oppressing the irish anyway?
"as do the Scottish."
Scotland is part of britain; i.e. the term british people, includes scotish people
"Untill the Tories and New Labour are defeated socialists have a duty to unite with the oppressed of races."
But kamo, surely you are going to vote labour? I remember a discussion of ours... you wouldn't accept that new labour had to loose an election before change could come within the party.

James, your problem is you have a capitalists mindset, you must see that their is another solution to this brutal system that is Capitalism.

"i'd also like to point out that being for controls doesn't mean you are against migration"

?? Being for controls makes you against migration (ie against free movement). Again, your incapable of seeing a socialist solution, this is your problem, not ours, so dont spam across the board with your capitalist mindset.

Okay kiddies: lets look at what these words actually mean.

capitalism
•n. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
- DERIVATIVES capitalist n. & adj. capitalistic adj. capitalistically adv.

socialism
•n. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. →(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
- DERIVATIVES socialist n. & adj. socialistic adj. socialistically adv.

As you can see, Kamo makes few valid points.
Being for controls equates in being anti migration?
Hang on kiddies, again, lets look at what the word migration actually means:

migrate / m'gret, 'mgret/
•v.
1. (of an animal) move from one habitat to another according to the seasons.
2. (of a person) move to settle in a new area in order to find work. →move from one part of something to another.
3. (Computing) transfer or cause to transfer from one system to another.
- DERIVATIVES migration / -'gre()n/ n. migrational adj. migrator n. migratory / 'mgrt()ri, m'gret()ri/ adj.
- ORIGIN C17: from L. migrat-, migrare 'move, shift'.

Note, it does not say migration is "free movement". You are quite wrong kamo.
I'm not against the principle of movement at all (migration), i'm just against large scale concentrated movement (Like i'm against the free movement of excess capital).

But see the definition of socialism - this doesn't loose me any socliast brownie points.

Kez

8th May 2004, 08:22

Again, you make such bullshit generalisations.

the majority of the working class do not want the queen, stop giving your views to the working class, they dont need it!

President??
fucks sake, no, because were not fighting for a capitalist republican revolution, were fighting for a socialist revolution, again your in a capitalist mindset...get out of it!

And i would vote Labour, as this gives the workers more of a voice than under the Tories, in anycase, the next election will prove your "theory" incorrect, or even earlier than that, as Blair is forced out.
It is interesting to see, that those who have the labour party in the last few years were the ones who had just come in, ie the blairites, and now the corporate backers are all leaving, (eg Express group left on tuesday)

Stop waffling, are you for or against free immigration of people, or do you support controls which the capitalist state has imposed?

guerrillaradio

8th May 2004, 13:29

At what point did James join New Labour Islington branch??

93% of Spanish people were against their involvement in Iraq, yet Aznar still plunged them in. Fucking good on Zapatero for doing something to sort it out.

Unite Against Fascism, Respect etc all have good intentions but their literature is hopeless. UAF seem to believe that voting for one of the major parties will eradicate the BNP (moreover, they claim that it's my duty to do so cos Lemar says so). That's sweeping the problem under the carpet. The BNP are cashing in on genuine working class issues which go way beyond immigration and race, which is the scapegoat here.

Invader Zim

8th May 2004, 13:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:29 PM
At what point did James join New Labour Islington branch??

But kamo, surely you are going to vote labour? I remember a discussion of ours... you wouldn't accept that new labour had to loose an election before change could come within the party.

LOL

I can see you paying real attention to that one.

Invader Zim

8th May 2004, 14:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 06:37 AM
james -
i'd ask you what about british imperialism?, the british empire.. that was british immigration into foreign land. that was cultural genocide commited by aristocratic nationalists.
Brits hate immigrants? maybe immigrants hate what brits did to their lands. maybe immigrants hate what brits did to their lands. dont be so arrogrant in saying people come to your country and destroy it, when your country travelled abroad and destroyed the lives of so many in India, Aotearoa, Australia, Palestine.... etc.
the people who hate immigration are either white supremists, ignorant about history, looking for someone to blame their situation on or racial nationalists. the working class hates immigrants? many working class people are immigrants, wether its now or from amny generations ago. man moves around, immigration is permenent. migration patterns change. who the fuck cares what colour sumone is.

james if you want to post racist shit go to a neo nazi forum.

the general anti capitalist movement if growing i think, socialists are in the thick of it. Spains election and all the action in south america including the election of Hugo Chaves is definaltly a step in the right (left) direction. I think the Iraq war has woken a lot of people up to what is going on in the world.

I believe their is a gradual shift to the left. then again their has been a growing racist anti islam/arab wave, and anti immigrant movement :( if u got a turban and a beard and u look a little dark skinned you must be a terrorist....

fuck racism, fuck imperialism hasta la victoria siempre
Ive been reading through this thread, and suddenly this post came out of the blue: -

i'd ask you what about british imperialism?,

And that has what to do with anything?

the british empire.. that was british immigration into foreign land.

No, it most certainly was not, it was colonial conquest.

that was cultural genocide commited by aristocratic nationalists.

And that has what to do with modern immigration?

maybe immigrants hate what brits did to their lands.

And they then move to the UK, in their tens of thousands? Right. :rolleyes: I see we have a genius in the thread.

maybe immigrants hate what brits did to their lands.

And that has what to do with modern immigration?

dont be so arrogrant in saying people come to your country and destroy it, when your country travelled abroad and destroyed the lives of so many in India, Aotearoa, Australia, Palestine.... etc.

100 years ago. And as regarding Palestine, its not like the british went in and conquered a soverign nation like they did in many other cases. palestine was part of the ottoman empire, and when the ottoman empire was defeated and collapsed in WW1, Palestine was effectivly given to Britian. You obviously need to resort to history books a little.

the people who hate immigration are either white supremists, ignorant about history, looking for someone to blame their situation on or racial nationalists.

You've just gone and catagorised the vast majority of the british population.

the working class hates immigrants? many working class people are immigrants

I believe that its around 5% of the UK at the moment.

wether its now or from amny generations ago.

Well if your foolish enough to think of it that way then we are all immigrats from Africa.

man moves around, immigration is permenent. migration patterns change. who the fuck cares what colour sumone is.

About 50 million people in the UK i'd say.

james if you want to post racist shit go to a neo nazi forum.

LOL, do you know what racism is?

socialistfuture

8th May 2004, 15:35

British Imperialism has a lot to do with the current situation of the world. Be it the colonialisation of many areas and the genocide commited against native peoples, or the imperialist interventions/invasions of nations today.Be it Afghanistan, the Kosovo, Iraq or any other area British troops are stationed.

Imperialism comes in the form of economics, the unholy trinity of the World Bank, IMF and WTO. Economic Imperialism is very effective at destroying the soverinty of third world nations.

Britian helped create Israel, which has sytymatically destroyed the state of Palestine and lead to state terrorism on Israels behalf. Once again British Colonial rulers did what money and power dictates.

Yesturdays colonialism is todays capitalism. What the British Empire did to native people yesturday is still effecting todays former colonies. White Supremecy is a deep feeling among some who feel Britian - White rulers - were superior to their native slaves. It exists in the form of the National Front, BNP, White Nationalist movement.. which says that non white immigrants and peoples are inferior and not worthy of living among white people in white areas (regardless of wether it is stolen land).

Last week I went on a Hikoi in Aotearoa (new zealand) It was a land march that went from different parts of the country and eneded with a march on parliament. I went to Wellington (the nations capital) to take part in the final section. It is estimated 20 - 30,000 marched. Many were maori, there were pakeha (non-moari) there too (some were anarchists and socialists), I went with a socialist worker comrade.

The point it the governent wanted to confiscate more Maori land and many New Zealanders fell for it. It was about racism, privatisation, rights and other issues. The National party leader spoke against it and the Prime minister refused to meet the protesters at parliament. Some politions and sections of the media tried to paint the marchers as Maori benefitiaries, extremists and the prime minister called the marchers ''wreckers and haters''. She was trying to defend the actions of the British empire of the past and its decendent the capitalist parliament. Colonialism is still felt today, it is still relevent - it continues.

Be it Imperialist war, colonial white supremecy (nationalism) in the form of parliamentary law and court with its defenders the police (state) - Colonialism effects our every day life. The rights indiginous people have got today are rights they have fought for.

Personally If I lived in Britian I would vote for the RESPECT coalition. Then again I am a memeber of socialist worker so maybe I am biased. New Labour and the Torries are the same thing - different from Republicans and democrats - all are capitalist neo-liberals. Socialism must break from reformism.

Do I know what racism is? It is immigrants being beaten up for their race, it is people being branded ( and prejudiced against) by their colour or culture, it is the neo-colonialsm many live under today. It is the reserves native american indians were forced onto, it is the treaties colonial powers made with native peoples and broke time and time again. racism is genocide of people, it is genocide of culture, it is blind hatred, it is intolerance. racism is the enemy of socialism, racism is a poison that can only darken the soul and destroy the mind.

Unite all the peoples, destroy the class system - Arise workers of the world -

socialistfuture

8th May 2004, 15:55

I will add a little more - The Irish people have a history of being oppressed by the English rulers. The Irish starved (the potatoe famine) while the English ate the produce the Irish made. They were ruled over by English lords. Held down by armed might. The resistance has a long history. The Easter Rising was a failure and its heroic leaders were executed (the left wing leaders were targeted in particular.. leading to the right wing structure the IRA was left with) James Conolly will be renembered forever.

The Irish Were seperated by religion, class and loyalities. James Conally seeked to unite Irish together to fight English Imperialism and fight for Irish independence, and workers rights.

The Welsh and Scots have had much the same treatment from the English Aristocracy. Tho attempts have been made at a UNITED KINGDOM or GREAT BRITIAN it has always been an aristocratic kingdom rooted in the past. Altough the monarchy no longer rules, the decendents of Norman tyrants, and ruthless lord still hold much. The Torries and Labour party today support neo-liberal capitalism. The fuedal lords of yesturday are today Corporate Multinationals, big buisness rules.

The Scottish Socialist party is growing and seeks to one day gain autonomy and have local democracy, grassroots democracy away from English Rule.

Through Religion the United Kingdom and Ireland are divided, class antoganisms remain, the enviroment suffers from industry and modern capitalism, and colonialism lives on through hereditary rights and traditions. Britian continues its imperialist tradition abroad in Iraq and at home with the police state. Only when the legal system is not favoured to the rich, and non-white are not unfairly targeted by police - only when the people control their own destiny - through grassroots democracy will the imperialism and colonialism be finally put to an end.

REVOLUTION CLASSWAR!!!!!!!

socialistfuture

8th May 2004, 15:57

last thing here is the RESPECT site for anyone intrested: http://www.respectcoalition.org/

DaCuBaN

8th May 2004, 19:55

The United Kingdom was just that - King James I of England and VI of Scotland took the throne and united the two. The idea of breaking these apart after all those years seems utterly preposterous, and totally against the ideals of communism whereby borders should not exist and where they do should be broken down. The SSP are traitors to their own cause - nationalism and socialism should not, and in my mind cannot run side-by-side, and a vote for them is as wasted as a vote for labour.

The Scottish Socialist party is growing and seeks to one day gain autonomy and have local democracy, grassroots democracy away from English Rule

If one side rules the other, it was the scots over the english. The current monarchy is more scots/german than it is english. You see how preposterous nationalism is?

James

9th May 2004, 00:30

Britian helped create Israel, which has sytymatically destroyed the state of Palestine and lead to state terrorism on Israels behalf. Once again British Colonial rulers did what money and power dictates.

I suppose you think the palestinians are blameless in the whole affair!
I can't see, for example, the arab states being as linient toward israel if it (the 7 day war) had been the other way around.
And what would you your reaction be if a palestinian boy was shot - you'd be on the streets preaching about how evil israel is. But what happens when a pregnant woman is shot by a pal? Not the same reaction.

I really do hate this blind support for palestine.

Yesturdays colonialism is todays capitalism. What the British Empire did to native people yesturday is still effecting todays former colonies. White Supremecy is a deep feeling among some who feel Britian - White rulers - were superior to their native slaves. It exists in the form of the National Front, BNP, White Nationalist movement.. which says that non white immigrants and peoples are inferior and not worthy of living among white people in white areas (regardless of wether it is stolen land).

What a bloody crap link to controls on immigration
You can't say that wanting immigration to be controlled is white supremecy!

Are you for no controls anywhere, in any situation? Are you a complete anarchist?

Personally If I lived in Britian I would vote for the RESPECT coalition. Then again I am a memeber of socialist worker so maybe I am biased. New Labour and the Torries are the same thing - different from Republicans and democrats - all are capitalist neo-liberals. Socialism must break from reformism.

Respect are a bunch of wankers. Thats all that can be said about them

Do I know what racism is? It is immigrants being beaten up for their race, it is people being branded ( and prejudiced against) by their colour or culture, it is the neo-colonialsm many live under today. It is the reserves native american indians were forced onto, it is the treaties colonial powers made with native peoples and broke time and time again. racism is genocide of people, it is genocide of culture, it is blind hatred, it is intolerance. racism is the enemy of socialism, racism is a poison that can only darken the soul and destroy the mind.

Being for controlled migration is NOT racism.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 01:07

Being for controlled migration is NOT racism

I don't know who the hell tried to peddle that idea, but it was rather foolish. What relevance does stopping everyone coming in have to do with racism?

Absolutely dick squat.

You are either for it or against it, but in a communist country it would be an absolute necessity - even if lots of people were being allowed in the control mechanism is necessary.

I can understand people not wanting said mechanism, but if that's the case I'd seriously look at your ideals... or maybe just reclassify yourself as a 'Global Communist'

Just thoughts... no substance...

socialistfuture

9th May 2004, 03:55

I do not blindly support the struggle of the Palestinian people. It is a war - war is messy. It is not about good and bad or right and wrong. Zionism is incapible of reason. The Palestinian people are not going to be handed back their homeland and given their rights back. They are fighting for them. To quote Nelson Mandela: When Injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty" Innocent people in Israel die, innocent arabs die. War will not bring solutions, it will deepen the problems.

I believe people have the right to local democracy. The scottish socialist party wants to nationalise the scottish bank and do many things. The scottish parliament is virtually powerless. How could anyone be against the decisions about scotland being made in scotland?

What do people have against the RESPECT coalition? (examples). Respect stand for
Respect
Equality
Socialism
Peace
Enviroment
Community
Trade unionism.

TEAR DOWN THE WALLS OF FOTRESS EUROPE

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 04:25

What do people have against the RESPECT coalition? (examples). Respect stand for
Respect
Equality
Socialism
Peace
Enviroment
Community
Trade unionism.

Only that last line - I distrust the trade unions as much as I dustrust political parties - I cannot get out of the mindset that these people are petit-bourgeious powermongers.

Osman Ghazi

9th May 2004, 05:00

the 7 day war

Wasn't it the six day war?

Anyways, Israel is a sovereign nation, whereas Hamas is a terrorist organization. I expect a certain amount of restraint and responsibility from the one, but not the other. There is a slight difference between the two sides in this conflict.

Being for controlled migration is NOT racism.

What exactly is it about uncontrolled immigration that is so bad? You've been talking about it for pages and I still don't see why you are against it.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 05:28

What exactly is it about uncontrolled immigration that is so bad?

I don't think he's trying to say it's bad - simply that its proposterous in current society. If you opened up all borders everywhere, there'd be a LOT of people would want to move to where they believe the grass is greener, which would SERIOUSLY upset the status quo

uncontrolled migration isn't a bad thing in itself - I just don't think it's currently practical.

guerrillaradio

9th May 2004, 12:25

Discussing immigration within a left wing context is pretty ridiculous. I mean, surely we all realise that immigration is only the tip of the iceberg?? Instead of discussing what to do with immigrants, how about you discuss what to do with the Third World??

Kez

9th May 2004, 15:27

i think theyre 2 seperate issues.

If we had socialism we wouldnt have much less economic migration, just preference over where to live.

guerrillaradio

9th May 2004, 16:18

Denying the link between immigration and global poverty/low standards of life is like denying the link between Nazism and the Holocaust.

Kez

9th May 2004, 16:29

i didnt say theyre not linked, i said they are 2 issues mate.

However, the way i said it was incorrect, they are not seperate issues, but rather seperate issues to deal with

Although, not all immigration is from 3rd world, eg eastern europe.

Anyway, point being that controls on immigration are not the solution we should be fighting for, but rather what capitalists and lumpen proleteriat fight for.

We should be fighting for the removal of all borders, the freedom to move anywhere under the socialist struggle.

James

9th May 2004, 17:17

If we had socialism we wouldnt have much less economic migration, just preference over where to live.

But what happens if everyone wants to live in one small area?
What if no one wants to live in, say - the north west of england (and boy can i understand that! :P): what would you do?

Kez

9th May 2004, 18:15

as you have planned ecconomy, the workers state would easily deal with it. and why would everyone flock to one place? is there some eternal youth fountain or something in one area?

cram your hypothetical adverserial bullshit, yeah james, maybe 2morrow aliens will come and rape us all, how would socialism deal with that? fucking idiot.

James

9th May 2004, 18:47

I assume that everyone noted how he avoided the question put, and instead resorted to crude generalisations.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 18:54

as you have planned ecconomy, the workers state would easily deal with it. and why would everyone flock to one place? is there some eternal youth fountain or something in one area?

Well lots of people like sunshine, so it follows that lots of people would want to live where the sun shines a lot, and the opposite could be said for where it's bloody cold. So yes, you are very likely to get people accrueing in a single area without any immigration control.

Under a workers society though, surely immigration control would be indisputably necessary... Certainly in the early years...

James

9th May 2004, 19:06

indeed, he says "as you have planned ecconomy" - to me, that suggests workers are allocated jobs in a centrally planned democratic manner.
i.e. controls

The idealist

9th May 2004, 19:16

May I point out that America and britain "gave" palestine to the jews after the II world war. Nobody asked the palestinians. besides, Hamas also supports hospitals and other health clinics. In reality Israel is an occupying force and Hamas sees itself as freedom fighters. I do not agree with the way they fight, suicide bombing of civilians is disgraceful, but Israel is no better. Israel gets away with it only because of the U.S.A and the fact that Europe is turning a blind eye on the matter due to that alliance.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 19:22

Israel gets away with it only because of the U.S.A and the fact that Europe is turning a blind eye on the matter due to that alliance

Europe has had it's tail between it's legs on this issue for decades now. The problem is US support, plain and simple.

Just look up the list of UN resolutions raised against israel, and the quantity of veto's against said resolutions and where they all come from

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that only the US has veto'd resolutions against Israel

Kez

9th May 2004, 19:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:06 PM
indeed, he says "as you have planned ecconomy" - to me, that suggests workers are allocated jobs in a centrally planned democratic manner.
i.e. controls
they arent controls, they arent a negative force, and they are decided upon by the people, not IMPOSED upon by the ruling class (who control the state believe it or not james...)

As for people moving for sunshine...jesus fucking christ, yep, the most important thing in life is sunshine.

Lets say people do more towards sunshine, then, the workers state creates jobs and housing there.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 19:45

As for people moving for sunshine...jesus fucking christ, yep, the most important thing in life is sunshine.

Lets say people do more towards sunshine, then, the workers state creates jobs and housing there

Feeling somewhat attacked? You only get as good as you give...

Anyway, the sunshine thing was an example - one I was certain you'd try and jump striaght on. I can just see it: we all start trying to farm the sahara, or mine for coal on loam flatlands. I'd be interested to see (from a distance) how a society like this worked out. People need to go where the resources are, not where they 'want' to be. Your own desires really shouldn't be coming into this, simply what is in the best interests of the vast majority.

So quit the selfishness, and drop the witch hunting :P

Kez

9th May 2004, 19:48

get that glass of Pimms out of your hand and actually learn what you talk about.

attacked? no. frustrated and bored? yes

why would people move to sahara? why would people leave families and move en masse? are you simply a stupid ****?

guerrillaradio

9th May 2004, 20:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:29 PM
i didnt say theyre not linked, i said they are 2 issues mate.

However, the way i said it was incorrect, they are not seperate issues, but rather seperate issues to deal with
They have the same solution if you ask me.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 20:28

Lets say people do more [I assume this to be a typo on move] towards sunshine, then, the workers state creates jobs and housing there

And what jobs are there for the workers in a resourceless desert? What can they do that aides the community whilst in a tiny s.pacific volcanic plug? Unless you also advocate the slaughter of all who oppose your views then there's going to be a lot of people moving to where they want to be.

get that glass of Pimms out of your hand and actually learn what you talk about.
attacked? no. frustrated and bored? yes

Well you have been attacked for your inital offensive, so there's something missing up top if you don't realise this.

If the conversation frustrates and bores you, then I really don't understand why you continue it...

why would people move to sahara? why would people leave families and move en masse? are you simply a stupid ****?

Firstly, I would seek help: you obviously have an issue with your own self-importance that you consider anyone who opposes you to be stupid.
As to why people would move, I outlined that above - not everyone in society wants what you want, but to attain what you want everyone must be part of it. To me this means you've got to learn a degree of tolerance. You've been around long enough surely to realise this by now.

Secondly, I'd be interested to see statistics of how many people are happy where they are, and how many would like to relocate. I'm sure it would make intruiging reading.

The idealist

9th May 2004, 20:57

Ok folks. Your grounded. Get both feet on the ground please. You both have good arguments, but when you swear at each other the original moral of the text is lost. Cool down guys. Leave it to the capitalists ;)

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 23:40

get that glass of Pimms out of your hand

Excuse my ignorance, but wtf is pimms?

Kez

10th May 2004, 08:31

its a drink for middle class twats who dont have the foggiest whats going on around them.

As for your hypothetical bullshit, why would everyone go to some island? Why would they go there if its resourceless and jobs cant be created there?

The idealist

10th May 2004, 09:01

Personally I am in favor of controlled immigration, but conditions in the 3rd world countries should also be improved, so that less people feel inclined to emmigrate out.

Imagain the world as a whole bunch of glasses, the sides of which are the borders of countries (borders we wish to see removed).

Inside these glasses there are different levels of water (people wishing to emmigrate). If the glasses were simply removed (open door policy) then all the water would slosh around forming waves (high population density and high unemployment) and troughs (low population and abandoned areas).

If large gaps were made in the glasses (controlled mass immigration) the chaos would be avoided.

Also by lowering the water level in some of the larger glasses (improving living and work conditions in 3rd world countries) huge immigration surges would be averted.

Once the water levels have equalised themselves the glasses can be removed (open door immigration policy).

Saint-Just

10th May 2004, 12:51

I think Mao is not the best person to base Socialism on, China under him was brutal - so many died, Tibet was invaded - cultural genocide was attempted. People were trained to worship, it was dogmatic and censorship was extreme.

If the destruction of feudalism in Tibet was cultural genocide then I would have to say I support cultural genocide in the case where it is the genocide of a feudalist system.

How was China dogmatic exactly? I was under the impression it was usually criticised for being revisionist. In addition, censorship is a necessary part of socialist society. In China it was outmoded and reactionary ideas that were censored, which is correct when an ideological struggle is being waged. Your analysis lacks science.

The idealist

10th May 2004, 13:05

Culture is not equal to the way a state is governed.

Tibet had a culture closely bonded to their government, but I do think China went a bit too far in wrecking the culture.
I support the idea of a communist state overrunning a capitalist one. But only as a last resort.

guerrillaradio

10th May 2004, 19:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:31 AM
its a drink for middle class twats who dont have the foggiest whats going on around them.
I thought you were interested in eradicating class, not perpetuating class stereotypes??

DaCuBaN

10th May 2004, 19:26

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+May 10 2004, 07:21 PM--> (guerrillaradio @ May 10 2004, 07:21 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 08:31 AM
its a drink for middle class twats who dont have the foggiest whats going on around them.
I thought you were interested in eradicating class, not perpetuating class stereotypes?? [/b]
I'm loath to even dignify him with a response.

Kez, not everyone thinks like you: lots of people would go just where they wanted to, and it would be chaos. I can't understand why you don't see this.

Imagain the world as a whole bunch of glasses, the sides of which are the borders of countries (borders we wish to see removed).

Inside these glasses there are different levels of water (people wishing to emmigrate). If the glasses were simply removed (open door policy) then all the water would slosh around forming waves (high population density and high unemployment) and troughs (low population and abandoned areas).

If large gaps were made in the glasses (controlled mass immigration) the chaos would be avoided.

Also by lowering the water level in some of the larger glasses (improving living and work conditions in 3rd world countries) huge immigration surges would be averted.

Once the water levels have equalised themselves the glasses can be removed (open door immigration policy).

Spot on :D

WhoWillFight

10th May 2004, 21:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:32 AM

"The Irish have a right to be free from British Oppression,"
And do the irish who want to remain in the Union have a right to do so? Oh my god! i've just added colour to your black and white picture - its all messed up now! Ah well, thats probably why Kamo likes you
How do you think the british are actually oppressing the irish anyway?
James they oppress us by occupying 6 of our counties. I don't think I need to elaborate that point it is quite simple.

The idealist

10th May 2004, 21:23

If all borders are removed, what is the point of fighting for indipendence?

WhoWillFight

10th May 2004, 21:38

The struggle against imperialism in The North as elsewhere can be used as a foundation stone for a Revolution that will eventually bring about a world without manmade borders. It won't happen overnight.

People struggle for independence so they can follow their own way and not have their path set out for them by those whose only interest is to squeez whatever they can from them.

Invader Zim

10th May 2004, 21:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:38 PM
The struggle against imperialism in The North as elsewhere can be used as a foundation stone for a Revolution that will eventually bring about a world without manmade borders. It won't happen overnight.

People struggle for independence so they can follow their own way and not have their path set out for them by those whose only interest is to squeez whatever they can from them.
I very much doubt that the UK wants the trouble which NI generates. Speaking as a british person, I can tell you from experiance that most people would like to detach NI and move it into the middle of the ocean far away from Britain as possible.

If it is imperialism then it is unwilling imperialism. The simple problem is, the situation is so complex that simply giving into the demands of either side will be worse than the current situation. Not to mention that fact that stupid people on both sides have done nothing but halt the progress of Change in NI. I recal reading an interesting artical from political experts regarding the NI situation, and the general conclusion was that if the process had not been sabotaged by terrorism, then chanses are that NI would no longer be part of the Union.

Then you get on to the point, you so carefully evaded, with a cunning mix of rhetoric and sidetracking. If you were to make the 6 counties independace, then you would be eroding the rights of the MAJORITY of NI, who are unionists. How do we know this? Because they vote for Unionist parties!

So mate, whats the answer? Leave the situation how it is, and attempt to reach compromise? or go for all out republicanism, which will mean that the loyalist terrorists will start the whole vicious cycle once again?

Well I await your answer with excitment, because you clearly believe you have found a solution to a problem, that experts with years of time in study, and great knowledge of the situation have failed to do.

If the destruction of feudalism in Tibet was cultural genocide then I would have to say I support cultural genocide in the case where it is the genocide of a feudalist system.

With upmost respect Mao, what right did China have to be in Tibet? And what right did china have to start a chain of events that would leave over 1 million people dead in Tibet?

I think that your view of the conquest of Tibet is inaccurate.

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:26 PM
Kez, not everyone thinks like you: lots of people would go just where they wanted to, and it would be chaos. I can't understand why you don't see this.
ah yes, there would be anarchy, we need a good strong state to keep people in place...

fuck that.

If people were to move, a workers state would cope with it. end of argument.

Its been done before even under inneficient deformed workers states, it will do it under a true one too.

Get rid of the capitalist mentality, and look outside its dimensions.

DaCuBaN

10th May 2004, 22:18

Get rid of the capitalist mentality, and look outside its dimensions

This is the point you fail to see! So many cannot see 'outside the box' and their mentality would no change after the revolution. Short of killing the millions who DO oppose you on this, how would you solve it if you don't agree with controls?

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:21

well
a) the mentality would change
b) with a workers democracy new jobs can be created
c) if somewhere becomes too crowded, people dont continue to go there
d) this is hypothetical bullshit

DaCuBaN

10th May 2004, 22:31

a) the mentality would change
b) with a workers democracy new jobs can be created
c) if somewhere becomes too crowded, people dont continue to go there
d) this is hypothetical bullshit

You are RIGHT! you're spouting shite now! Let's try to bring this back from the brink.

a) what is it would change their mentality? It doesn't just 'happen' - or do you not bother with the OI forum...
b) what exactly about a workers democracy would create 'new jobs' - Especially in Britain we already have a large proportion of the population employed by satellites of and the state itself, admittedly in beurocratic positions - but they are still there. What exactly would all these 'new jobs' entail?
c)If somewhere becomes too crowded, other people would wonder why everyone else wants to go there - and we're all well aware of mankinds tendency towards sheep or goat tendencies - eg be led or driven.
d) spouting slogans doesn't provide answers - attempting to construct viable hypothesese will

Saint-Just

11th May 2004, 09:02

You can have masses of people living in one place if you have the correct infrastructure to support it. People can also move anywhere assuming there are houses and jobs already there. If the current numbers of vacant housing and vacant jobs to fill did not meet the demand then the government would have to create more.

Kez

11th May 2004, 13:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:31 PM

a) the mentality would change
b) with a workers democracy new jobs can be created
c) if somewhere becomes too crowded, people dont continue to go there
d) this is hypothetical bullshit

You are RIGHT! you're spouting shite now! Let's try to bring this back from the brink.

a) what is it would change their mentality? It doesn't just 'happen' - or do you not bother with the OI forum...
b) what exactly about a workers democracy would create 'new jobs' - Especially in Britain we already have a large proportion of the population employed by satellites of and the state itself, admittedly in beurocratic positions - but they are still there. What exactly would all these 'new jobs' entail?
c)If somewhere becomes too crowded, other people would wonder why everyone else wants to go there - and we're all well aware of mankinds tendency towards sheep or goat tendencies - eg be led or driven.
d) spouting slogans doesn't provide answers - attempting to construct viable hypothesese will
a) no i dont bother with OI forum, not worth my time. And of course the mentality would change, the mentality of greedd and selfishness will change to maintaining the good of society as a whole, and looking out for those oppressed and needy groupings in society
b) what you on about?
c) yes, coz people are sheep, people risk moving their entire lives to somewhere because there is a rumous that there is something special about it, like a fountain of youth. fucking genius.
d) your hypotheses are not viable.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th May 2004, 14:47

Guys, a fundamental part of Marxist thinking and a necessary prerequisite of proletarian revolution would be a significant percentage of the proletariat discovering (Maybe slowly, maybe quickly) what is called 'class conciousness' kicked off by the 'immiseration of the proletariat' (The ruling class making conditions worse for the proletariat) and motivating them to revolution and massive class action.
It happens in small amounts (Strikes and demonstrations) as discontent build up in small amounts and bursts out before it reaches any significant size (Usually because the strike/demo is dispersed or they are appeased, for a short while)
But sometimes it does reach a more significant peak (Remember the petrol blockade anyone?) This is a good sign of times to come.

Such a thing of course does not happen under marxist-leninist-trotskyist-maoist-stalinist-whateverist revolution- what happens is the proles get pulled around by the ear by the 'revolutionary vangaurd party' who are in fact the new ruling class.
What honest communists set out to do is convince the proles to 'go red' rather than say "Go red or we'll shoot you".

Therefore 'after the revolution' there will be a significant amount of people willing to change themselves and society, and the task will be much easier thanks to their willingness.

Salvador Allende

12th May 2004, 00:23

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 10 2004, 12:51 PM
How was China dogmatic exactly? I was under the impression it was usually criticised for being revisionist. In addition, censorship is a necessary part of socialist society. In China it was outmoded and reactionary ideas that were censored, which is correct when an ideological struggle is being waged. Your analysis lacks science.
Very true, Mao was often criticized by Khruschov of being a revisionist (ironic isn't it?). And actually, one thing you forgot was how Mao actually did believe in a freedom of speech as shown in his thousand flower campaign. And to the guy who said we shouldn't base Socialism off of Mao, I say that it is the only form of Socialism that still follows the line of Marxist-Leninism, much more so than Khruschovism at the very least.

socialistfuture

12th May 2004, 03:26

Mao, good old chairman Mao.
First it is up to a people whether they become Socialist or not. Tibet was invaded by China. Many people were killed, Tibetans were told not to continue their religion which was a part of their lives, a fabric of their being. Priests were murded, people were slaughtered, raped and abused. Promises were made to the Tibetans originally - they were broken.

Today many Chinese live in Tibet. Chinese guards roam around. Tibetans that fled are not allowed to go home and visit their family ( there are many Tibetans that live in NZ some on the island I live on). The Dalai Lama and many Tibetans fled to Northern India where they live today. China has created nuclear power plants in Tibet, and much deforestation. They attempted to destroy a people and their culture. I call that IMPERIALISM not socialism.

I believe Mao had good intentions but the reality is the whole thing got out of hand, the cultural revolution went overboard. The result was after Mao died China swung far to the right. It has not recovered.

When you force socialism onto people, and control them with force - only disaster can follow - the eastern bloc (east europe) fell because of this. Today Tibetans do not control their lives, have no say other the running of their homeland - many are refugees - some seperate from their families. Surely that is not something for socialists to glorify.

Salvador Allende

12th May 2004, 03:33

socialistfuture, you are acting like the people weren't oppressed and used by the Dalai Lama. As Mao said, it is wrong to not intervene when the people are being hurt. As for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Mao actually had little control over it and he even told the Red Guards to stop in 1969, but they didn't for another 7 years. Still, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revoluion was effective in preventing a counter-revolution for another decade, unfortunately, Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng were not taken out of the party and seized power after Mao's death.

socialistfuture

12th May 2004, 04:29

The people of Tibet did not invite the Chinese armies into Tibet. It was an invasion not liberation. The people of Tibet were buddhist - that was part of there fabirc of being, it was so intwined with them. When the Chinese came in they destroyed the temples - destroyed Tibetan culture. Yes Tibet was fuedal - they lived isolated from the world. In the end it was there choice what to do not Mao's.

It was an atrocity. It was war, and buddhist religion teaches peace. The resistance was small. Tibet had virtually no army. Still today the people controlling Tibet are Chinese. It was cultural genocide, spiritual genocide, prison, destruction of property. The Tibetans are not more free today. The Dalai Lama was worhiped by them. That was part of their culture. Yes they were not modern and western - so what. Mao did not bring freedom to Tibet. No people should be slaves to any ruler - but that does not sanction violence.

I have a copy of Mao's red book, I respect those who completed the long march and faught the Japanese and the Nationalists in China. There was a dream but ultimatly it turned into a nightmare. The Cultural revolution went too far. There are lessons to be learnt. Ultimatly too much power lied with the government. The state became strong and the people worked hard and starved. China today is a slave market.

Saint-Just

12th May 2004, 16:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:47 PM
What honest communists set out to do is convince the proles to 'go red' rather than say "Go red or we'll shoot you".

Therefore 'after the revolution' there will be a significant amount of people willing to change themselves and society, and the task will be much easier thanks to their willingness.
One's consciousness is determined by one's material existence. As such, threatening to shoot masses of people is not necessary. Assuming a socialist society is constructed many people will become communists without the need of any threat.

Salvador Allende

13th May 2004, 01:23

You cannot blame Mao for the counter-revolution of Xiaoping and Guofeng. He tried to prevent the counter-revolution, but it got out of hand against his will. Either way, he is a hero for defeating Kaishek, the japanese, introducing the Thousand Flower campaign and recovering the Chinese economy from MANY years of warfare. Also, he corrected many errors made by Lenin, the main being that the revolution doesn't neccesarily revolve around the urban workers, especially if the country has few urban workers.

Saint-Just

13th May 2004, 11:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:26 AM
Mao, good old chairman Mao.
First it is up to a people whether they become Socialist or not. Tibet was invaded by China. Many people were killed, Tibetans were told not to continue their religion which was a part of their lives, a fabric of their being. Priests were murded, people were slaughtered, raped and abused. Promises were made to the Tibetans originally - they were broken.

Today many Chinese live in Tibet. Chinese guards roam around. Tibetans that fled are not allowed to go home and visit their family ( there are many Tibetans that live in NZ some on the island I live on). The Dalai Lama and many Tibetans fled to Northern India where they live today. China has created nuclear power plants in Tibet, and much deforestation. They attempted to destroy a people and their culture. I call that IMPERIALISM not socialism.

I believe Mao had good intentions but the reality is the whole thing got out of hand, the cultural revolution went overboard. The result was after Mao died China swung far to the right. It has not recovered.

When you force socialism onto people, and control them with force - only disaster can follow - the eastern bloc (east europe) fell because of this. Today Tibetans do not control their lives, have no say other the running of their homeland - many are refugees - some seperate from their families. Surely that is not something for socialists to glorify.
Why did China invade Tibet? Was it an act of imperialism? Not all military campaigns are imperialism.

In Tibet Buddhism was used to enslave people and perpetuate a brutal way of life in a feudal system. The Dalai Lama is a remnant of this Feudal system. He is a warlord interested in wealth and power therefore I do not think it is wrong that he has been exiled

I do not think that attempting to destroy people and their culture is necessarily imperialism. The Tibetan ruling class and Tibetan culture was an old reactionary culture. The white people in the United States favoured genocide to take land from Indians, as such you can see that genocide and democracy are compatible. Indian culture at that time was extremely conservative and led to a harsh way of life; in the U.S. a very old culture was replaced by a newer one, capitalism. The same happened in Tibet.

Tibet was a slave society at that time. The Dalai Lama's family owned 4000 slaves. Similarly to the violent abolition of slavery in the United States, the violent abolition of slavery in China was correct. For 700 years prior to the Chinese revolution no counry had recognised Tibet as an independent state, its attempts to remain independent, like the Confederate states in the U.S. were an attempt to retain a distinct economic system and highly inequitious system of society.