Immigration

[Amusing Scrotum]

Over the last couple of days I've been reading a lot of the Redstar papers and basically there are two statements that Redstar holds true with regards the proletariat becoming revolutionary. The first is that they will need to be atheists and the second that they will be advanced both in views and abilities.

Now these things seem a very good basis on which to build a Communist society. However it occurred to that more and more of the Western proletariat is being made up of immigrants. I don't know the exact figures but I'd guess that there are far more immigrants in the working class than the middle and upper class. And a lot of these immigrants come from countries, if I borrow another Redstar phrase, "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st."

This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don't like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class. Over the last fifty years in Britain there has been more immigration from deeply religious countries and there has also been a reduction in labour movements. This is probably more a coincidence than a trend, but it would be interesting to know whether this has happened in other countries and whether that maybe the increase in religious immigrants entering the working class has made the working class of today more like the working class of a century ago.

It would be interesting to hear everyones thoughts on this. Also I don't know if theory is the best forum, it seemed appropriate to me as its an attempt at devising a theory as to whether immigration is harming the chances of creating a revolutionary proletariat. Though if someone knows of a more suitable forum, then please move this thread.

[drain.you]

Wow. Never thought of immigration like that before and hopefully never will again.
I believe that people should be able to freely live and travel to where ever they wish. I don't see immigrants as holding the revolution back at all.

Immigrants coming from countries "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st." is surely a good thing. I mean, it would be more of a problem to the revolution if immigrants were going from 21st century countries to ones that seem closer to the 11th.

I dont see being atheist as something required in order for a revolution. They are still exploited regardless of if theres a God or not. Religion brings its followers closer together and the power behind religious is great and scary, it could be harnessed to achieve anything. Religious people must be educated about how they are being exploited by the capitalist society and how there is need for change, just like anyone else.

I'm not a religious person, myself but I don't think religion,race,gender or sexuality will be things that specifically hold back the revolution.
Capitalism fucks you over if you are catholic or atheist, african or chinese,female or male, gay or straight.

Someone saying that the revolution is being held back by immigration, in my eyes, are inciting racism.

[edit] Maybe I'm over-reacting and maybe it wasn't meant to sound how it does to me but this thread is sick.
Someone trying to justify racism by saying immigrants are preventing a revolution.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Wow. Never thought of immigration like that before and hopefully never will again.
I believe that people should be able to freely live and travel to where ever they wish. I don't see immigrants as holding the revolution back at all.

I've got no problem with free immigration, all I am saying is it could well have a down side. It probably doesn't, but its worth discussing.


Immigrants coming from countries "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st." is surely a good thing. I mean, it would be more of a problem to the revolution if immigrants were going from 21st century countries to ones that seem closer to the 11th.


Absolutely, we need to try and encourage progressive views, especially if there is ever to be a revolution.


I dont see being atheist as something required in order for a revolution. They are still exploited regardless of if theres a God or not. Religion brings its followers closer together and the power behind religious is great and scary, it could be harnessed to achieve anything. Religious people must be educated about how they are being exploited by the capitalist society and how there is need for change, just like anyone else.

I'm not a religious person, myself but I don't think religion,race,gender or sexuality will be things that specifically hold back the revolution.
Capitalism fucks you over if you are catholic or atheist, african or chinese,female or male, gay or straight.

The point is religion is useful to the ruling class to make people accept the status quo. Communism is a complete break with the old order, religion and all. So its not a matter of whether Capitalism is fucking you over, but whether you are willing to accept different ideas and solution. Religion in its nature goes against Communism and therefore religious people are unlikely to become revolutionaries.


Someone saying that the revolution is being held back by immigration, in my eyes, are inciting racism.

Grow up will you, I think this could be a serious issue and maybe the solution is working with immigrant communities and putting a lot of effort into getting the Communist message into these communities. Don't drag the discussion down to silly cries of inciting racism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

[edit] Maybe I'm over-reacting and maybe it wasn't meant to sound how it does to me but this thread is sick.
Someone trying to justify racism by saying immigrants are preventing a revolution.

Where am I justifying racism, I'm asking a serious question here as to the consequences of immigration. I'm not saying we should go out and club immigrants over the head because they may be holding back the revolution, I'm saying that maybe we need to try and work with them promoting Communism.

[Connolly]

The only thing that can hold back revolution from capitalism to socialism is those who defend the capitalist mode of production when the time comes - those are the capitalist class.

If Immigration is happening rapidly under the present system, then, from a materialist point of view, it is necessary for the future unfolding of events.

In my view - religion, race and gender relations will improve as the natural necessity for discrimination on these grounds declines. A united proletariat will emerge made up of all variations of people whether we like it or not.

[Amusing Scrotum]

In my view - religion, race and gender relations will improve as the natural necessity for discrimination on these grounds declines. A united proletariat will emerge made up of all variations of people whether we like it or not.

I'm not saying I don't want a proletariat of all variations, I'm saying that things like a religion which help create reactionary views could be detrimental to creating an emancipated proletariat. And been as a lot of immigrants are deeply religious does this in any way delay the revolutionary process?

[drain.you]

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Hinduism: 850 million
4. Buddhism: 400 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Primal-Indigenous: 300 million
7. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
8. Sikhism: 23 million
9. Juche: 19 million
10. Spiritism: 15 million
11. Judaism: 14 million
12. Bahá'í: 7 million
13. Jainism: 4.2 million
14. Shinto: 4 million
15. Cao Dai: 4 million
16. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
17. Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Unification Movement: 1.5 million
20. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
21. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
22. Rastafari movement: 600 thousand

In addition, approximately one billion people do not profess any belief in a religion.

These figures are worldwide, taken from wikipedia, naturally :P
Yeah I agree that religion can be used to uphold capitalism however religion came before capitalism and its not like religion stopped capitalism and backed up slavery, true?

And if you believe in world revolution and not communism in one state then immigrants shouldn't matter as religion exists everywhere. I can't imagine that communism will destroy religion, it appears unstoppable. I think 'communists' should stop preaching against religion and instead try to get them to share our views.
Maybe religion holds the idea of hierarchy through the organisation of the religion itself however most religions see everyone as being equal 'in the eyes of God' and whatnot.
I should probably stop defending religion, I'll probably get restricted to OI :P

Immigration allows cultures to join together and though we currently have racism as a result of it, one day, a couple of generations down the line, it will dissolve racism with any luck.
Many people immigrate to get away from political persecution and such.
An example : My father. He immigrated to England in the early 1970s. he was catholic but also, he was a communist and supported Allende. When Pinochet came to power, he had to leave Chile (his homeland) so not to be killed for his beliefs, like so many others were. He's dead now but he supported the revolution despite his roman catholic views and he was part of the working class.

I think its wrong to generalise too much on people immigrating from these 'third' world countries and such. I guess I can see your concern but I can shrug it off.

[drain.you]

In my view - religion, race and gender relations will improve as the natural necessity for discrimination on these grounds declines. A united proletariat will emerge made up of all variations of people whether we like it or not.
Yeah I agree with that.
Our societies are becoming more diverse and I think we are currently at a time of conflict between races and religions. However it will pass and once it does, we will have a much more culturally aware working class which can lead the revolution and bring about equality.

[Connolly]

I'm not saying I don't want a proletariat of all variations, I'm saying that things like a religion which help create reactionary views could be detrimental to creating an emancipated proletariat. And been as a lot of immigrants are deeply religious does this in any way delay the revolutionary process?

I agree with you to an extent, presently, religion can divide the proletariat and hold them back from unified action. But then again, if the proletariat is not unified and elements of division still remain, the proletariat and the material conditions are not ready for natural revolution and the transformation of society in the first place.

Only when you agree that the material conditions are ready presently do you find this a problem - those can usually be Leninists and Maoists - those who support vanguard methods, which in my view, are supporting premature revolutions.

[Amusing Scrotum]

And if you believe in world revolution and not communism in one state then immigrants shouldn't matter as religion exists everywhere. I can't imagine that communism will destroy religion, it appears unstoppable. I think 'communists' should stop preaching against religion and instead try to get them to share our views.
Maybe religion holds the idea of hierarchy through the organisation of the religion itself however most religions see everyone as being equal 'in the eyes of God' and whatnot.

I personally believe in revolution in advanced Capitalist countries and most of these countries could survive isolated, if North Korea can do it, so can Britain or France.

The fact that religion is hierarchical in nature, does pose problems to those of us who wish to see a classless society. Therefore it is my opinion that religion should be gotten rid of, not only does it promote irrational views, it also promotes reactionary views. If it was possible to rid the world of slavery, something which existed for most of human history, the same possibility is there with regards religion.


Immigration allows cultures to join together and though we currently have racism as a result of it, one day, a couple of generations down the line, it will dissolve racism with any luck.


Yes immigration does help to rid native people of reactionary views, however many immigrants bring a whole set of reactionary views with them. In Holland for instance, if I'm not mistaken there has been a huge upsurge of domestic violence in the Muslim communities. Now personally I don't care if your black, white, brown or purple, hitting women is not okay and if your religion or "culture" says it is, then quite frankly its a steaming pile of reactionary shit.

My point is that perhaps we as Communists, Anarchists etc. need to make an effort to rid reactionary views from all elements of society, no matter where that society is from. I'm not really a white man, I'm a mungrel, so I have no white mans guilt with regards telling any wife beater, black or white, that beating your wife is not acceptable. We should battle against reactionary ideas whatever "culture" their in and whatever religion promotes them.


I agree with you to an extent, presently, religion can divide the proletariat and hold them back from unified action. But then again, if the proletariat is not unified and elements of division still remain, the proletariat and the material conditions are not ready for natural revolution and the transformation of society in the first place.

Fair point. However we need to ask ourselves if by battling against reactionary views we can possibly help create the material conditions?

[Connolly]

Fair point. However we need to ask ourselves if by battling against reactionary views we can possibly help create the material conditions?

This can be a little tricky to explain,........ the simple fact that we would be fighting against these reactionary views is a material action in itself, which yes, helps to create new conditions of our existance. But it must be remembered that the battle action itself is a materialist action. An attempt to create order and balance to our material existance.

Sorry if that came across a little vague - Its dificult, for me anyway, to communicate my views already established in my head and put it in words. :D

[drain.you]

hitting women is not okay
Hitting anyone is not okay :P

I can see your point though, dunno what to say about it but yeah, immigrants can bring a 'whole set of reactionary views with them'. What can we do about that?
Unless the immigrants are in big communities of their own 'kind' then surely these views will just filter away over the generations?

[Amusing Scrotum]

This can be a little tricky to explain,........ the simple fact that we would be fighting against these reactionary views is a material action in itself, which yes, helps to create new conditions of our existance. But it must be remembered that the battle action itself is a materialist action. An attempt to create order and balance to our material existance.

Sorry if that came across a little vague - Its dificult, for me anyway, to communicate my views already established in my head and put it in words.

Great answer. ;)

A bit cryptic but a good answer all the same.


I can see your point though, dunno what to say about it but yeah, immigrants can bring a 'whole set of reactionary views with them'. What can we do about that?
Unless the immigrants are in big communities of their own 'kind' then surely these views will just filter away over the generations?

The problem is that in Britain at the moment immigrant communities seem to be ghettoised. It used to be the case that immigrants just went straight into the community, my street is an example of this we have many different nationalities, descendent's of immigrants and natives, if anyone can be called native.

However there seems to be a lot of segregation happening at the moment. Different cultures are not mixing like they did and this leads me to wonder if the reactionary views brought into a country will "filter away" like they did in the past.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

As drain.you rightly said, capitalism screws people over no matter what their religion or race. Through struggle, people with reactionary religious views will learn that socialist ideas are the correct ones and this will start the breaking of religious views.

The evidence suggests that today, immigrants coming into Britain, and the increasing size of faith communities is in fact allowing socialists to break religious views and involve people in the struggle much more effectively.

To name one example, you will be aware of the recent Gate Gourmet strike at Heathrow. The management of this catering company deliberately treated the majority Asian staff extremely badly so that they would walk out in illegal strike action. When they did this they were promptly sacked, provoking illegal secondary strike action across other airport staff areas such as the baggage handlers.

The left wing parties in Britain quickly ran this story on the front pages of their newspapers, supporting the workers and offering practical suggestions on how to win the strike. They also visited the picket lines to show solidarity. This kind of action showed the workers that they had a new best friend in the labour movement where the mosques and religous leaders were not present.

The linking up of struggles such as this, issues such as racism and fascism which disproportionately affect migrant communities and the war on Iraq, and occupation of Palestine puts socialists squarely as the defenders of black and Asian people, offering one solution to all their problems which religion simply cannot deal with. The muslim community in particular will soon come to the socialist parties in droves. Trust me! :)

[Connolly]

I can see your point though, dunno what to say about it but yeah, immigrants can bring a 'whole set of reactionary views with them'. What can we do about that?
Unless the immigrants are in big communities of their own 'kind' then surely these views will just filter away over the generations?

I think it would be very difficult to change a persons views, those of immigrants, when thier views, at least in their own mind, have been set in concrete.

If they were to grow up in the society in which they are immigrating to, their whole view of life would be different.

Yes, it would take a few generations to filter out these ideas under current situations. But, the countries where they are immigrating from are living in a period of reactionary ideas, ie. Islam etc. Over time, these countries will be forced (gradually) to change with time - the discoveries of science and new forms of thought. Saudia Arabia for example, there is talk about changes to womans rights etc. Europe, another example, where the material conditions have changed and the necessity for religion becomes nil (if not near).

there is and will be a gradual unified and assimilated proletariat. Thanks to the advances to communication technology, no human/society, will be isolated, left to their own thoughts and cults. Information technology will help bring a unified thought pattern amongst the whoe of the proletariat.

[drain.you]

Could you not argue that these ethnic communities that are created by immigrants are not a direct response to the racism they recieve upon moving to a country?

I was going to suggest that the government ought to not allow large groupings of ethnic minorities but I guess thats just balantly against people's rights and is racist too.

Is there anyway we can help intergrate immigrants into our society when so much hostility exists towards them?

Where does this race hostility come from? The media and government? Do you think they create this on purpose to stop us from uniting and revolting?

[Connolly]

Could you not argue that these ethnic communities that are created by immigrants are not a direct response to the racism they recieve upon moving to a country?

I wouldnt say they are created by immigrants, but rather a mixture of the government and catagorisation into certain races and beliefs. Of which the catagorisation has got to do somewhat with the preferences of the ethnic leaders.

People are generally afraid of anything new, or something they dont understand. Hence the Racist attacks etc. In attempts to win electoral votes, those most influential (political parties) tend to blame immigrants for the problems in society, promising to stop immigration. The question is, do those voting understand the system, economic and social, in which they live? Majority, no. They jump on the band wagon and vote for the simplified solutions - which, if analysed a little deeper, would be found to be rubbish.


I was going to suggest that the government ought to not allow large groupings of ethnic minorities but I guess thats just balantly against people's rights and is racist too.

How about housing them in locations less ethnically centralised, a more scattered ethnic population. This would allow easier assimilation into the rest of the mainstream beliefs, morals etc.


Where does this race hostility come from? The media and government? Do you think they create this on purpose to stop us from uniting and revolting?

I dont think this is to stop "global revolution", but rather, that the political leadership is also victim to beliefs such as religion, racism and ideologies.
Man is too irrational to make decisions on such a quantitive scale as to stop global revolution.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:41 PM








Could you not argue that these ethnic communities that are created by immigrants are not a direct response to the racism they recieve upon moving to a country?

The large ethnic groupings are partly because of the racism and they are also because immigrants tend to get the poorest quality housing in the cheapest neighbourhoods. That entire communities are so oppressed by capitalism however, does give socialists a real chance to intervene into those communities and win people over.


Is there anyway we can help intergrate immigrants into our society when so much hostility exists towards them?

Of course there is, Asian workers and white workers work together across the country in different workplaces facing similar struggles and hardship. Revival of the trade union movement will do wonders for this and help break some sections of the working class from racism, as happened very well in the great miner's strike as black supporters broke many white miners away from terribly racist views.



Where does this race hostility come from? The media and government? Do you think they create this on purpose to stop us from uniting and revolting?

It comes from the racist media and government that rather than tell us that there are no hospital beds, no jobs and no housing because they don't tax the rich and have sold off all the council houses and are privatising healthcare, would rather blame a vunerable section of society - refugees and economic migrants for the crap state of our public services.

Socialists should win people from these racist lies and tell people in disadvantaged areas the real reasons for unemployment and the like - capitalism.

[drain.you]

How about housing them in locations less ethnically centralised, a more scattered ethnic population. This would allow easier assimilation into the rest of the mainstream beliefs, morals etc.
Well thats the same thing but its still racist, isnt it? Its like you saying to keep them seperate from each other and breaches on their right to choose where they live. Thats why I abandoned the thought of it.

[Connolly]

Well thats the same thing but its still racist, isnt it? Its like you saying to keep them seperate from each other and breaches on their right to choose where they live. Thats why I abandoned the thought of it.

I would class it as racist if I was contiously making the decision to place these immigrants in particular locations because they are immigrants. But, now this may sound a little idealist, and it is, If I were making the decision, without any thought towards whether they were someone on the housing list or an immigrant - it wouldnt be racist. As I would have randomly(simplified "randomly") placed these people in a pattern which is scatterd, not ethinically centralised in a attempt to catagorise.

A machine (computer), which could evaluate available housing locations and randomly select the location to place the immigrant would help with this, as it wouldnt be biased - or be contiously making a decision based on its life experience and personal beliefs. The random selection would be limited only to the general area for which the person has chosen ie. North Dublin, South Dublin. But it would be random. Generally, the immigrant dosnt get much choice anyway where they are placed.

Again, this is highly idealist - I have practically invented a machine.!!!

Not to be taken as some realistic option, but just an example of how it wouldnt be racist to place a person when I am not taking personal and contious decisions based on my own personal beliefs and the understanding that these persons are "different"

Again, respect my limited ability to communicate this correctly.

[drain.you]

But it is racist if all immigrants are of a minority race to the majority then you are discriminating against them. If you were to do that then you should have to locate everyone like this and that would spilt up families and such.
Not a good idea at all in my opinions.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

It's still racist though - you are denying the rights of immigrants to live where they choose, socialists should be arguing that people fleeing persecution and poverty have every right to live where they choose.

Its a false solution which has alot in common with bourgeois ideas of multiculturalism ie 'why can't we all just get along'. The reason why there is racial divide is because the the class inequality and urban deprivation that capitalism results in and the scapegoating of sections of society to divert attention from the real issues surrounding racism.

What happens if your computer allocates a single Asian into an extremely racist housing estate! It would be hell for them!

[Connolly]

Again, just let me state that this is idealist - fiction.


But it is racist if all immigrants are of a minority race to the majority then you are discriminating against them.

First, I was assuming that the person allocating the houses was not biased (hence the machine), seconed, that there is no non racist housing estates and no racist housing estates, but that each person/family kept their personal beliefs within the house, and that the majority are not racist - which they are not.

I am discriminating against them if I am stopping them and favouring somone else over them consiously. If I am not biased, and place a minority family into a majority housing estate - it can not be racist or discriminating - as I could be a random machine. It is only discrimination/racist if the minority family want to leave the housing estate, but are disallowed - because they are "mere" immigrants. Why not remove this particular house within this housing estate from the "random computer" and only allow this to be placed to a non coloured family on the housing list (ie, persons waiting for a house from council). This does not remove the randominity of the machine, and allows the minority family to be placed to a new housing estate, which may be white (majority) but not necessarily racist.


Not a good idea at all in my opinions.

I agree, I was simply coming up with a solution there and then. Dig deep and it will probably fall apart - or maybe it already has.


It's still racist though - you are denying the rights of immigrants to live where they choose, socialists should be arguing that people fleeing persecution and poverty have every right to live where they choose.

It cannot be racist for a non biased random machine. It is only racist when they are denied the opportunity to leave - or if the machine is biased.

I personally agree with what you say, I was just thinking of a solution, however simplified or wrong, on how to end the centralisation of ethnic communities, the catagorisation of people. But, in the present system, Immigrants dont generally get to choose anyway.

Edited to add quotes on section.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

Your machine only deals with immigrants though, not people already living in Britain so it is not unbiased. Also I would be interested to know if this machine (and fair enough you have already said it wouldn't work) would send Britain's largest illegally working population - Australians into randomly selected housing.

[Connolly]

Thank goodness I didnt get a bashing for that last post :D

I dont want to get into the nitty and gritty of this theoretical machine just thought up from the top of my head, but, I mentioned those on the housing list, by this - I mean those "Britans" waiting for affordable housing from the state, at least here in Ireland thats what we call it - not sure what its called over there...........

But here...........


random computer" and only allow this to be placed to a non coloured family on the housing list (ie, persons waiting for a house from council). This does not remove the randominity of

and here...........


without any thought towards whether they were someone on the housing list or an immigrant - it wouldnt be racist.

..............I mentioned those on the housing list.

To simplify, all those waiting for housing from the state, Immigrants, Britans, homeless - all those who cannot afford housing.


Also I would be interested to know if this machine (and fair enough you have already said it wouldn't work) would send Britain's largest illegally working population - Australians into randomly selected housing.

Im not sure about the procedure in Britain in relation to the Australians. Do they regularly request housing?.........Do they rent or buy these premises?.......

[Amusing Scrotum]

This debate has taken a really weird turn, a theoretical machine that will randomly select destinations for immigrant families. :unsure:

Though I do like the idea of using the Unions to break down barriers and I never thought of the Gate Gourmet strike in that way. Hopefully more militant Unions and more active outreach to immigrant communities will help in the shedding of reactionary ideas, from both the native population and the immigrant population.

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:34 PM
It's still racist though - you are denying the rights of immigrants to live where they choose, socialists should be arguing that people fleeing persecution and poverty have every right to live where they choose.

Its a false solution which has alot in common with bourgeois ideas of multiculturalism ie 'why can't we all just get along'. The reason why there is racial divide is because the the class inequality and urban deprivation that capitalism results in and the scapegoating of sections of society to divert attention from the real issues surrounding racism.

What happens if your computer allocates a single Asian into an extremely racist housing estate! It would be hell for them!
Ideally we need to aid the whole world in order for their to be good enough conditions for doctors from poor countries to stay in their native country as they are severely needed there

[Connolly]

This debate has taken a really weird turn, a theoretical machine that will randomly select destinations for immigrant families.

Agreed. I think this machine should be brought to the scrap heap and burned - then recycled :D . Please, delay any questions about this imaginary machine - I know shit all about it to be honest - It was just an example of how you cannot label a nonbiased decision Racist.

[Guerrilla22]

The reason you have immigration is because of capitalism. I have a different view on immigration, utilize the immigrants in a general uprising. They don't have to be on board with leftist ideology to partake in activites that will bring the exisitng system down. We should make a consious effort to reach out to these communities and endow them with our ideologies if at all possible.

[KickMcCann]

Historically speaking (about the united states anyway) immigration has actually helped stoke the flames of revolution. In the mid-late 1800's a large number of immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and Italy arrived. Among these immigrants were many Hegelians, Marxists, and Anarchists. They first made their presence felt in the civil war, they were the ones in the front lines promoting equality, human rights, and the abolishment of slavery.
Afterwards, when wide-spread industrialization began, these immigrant marxists, hegelians, and anarchists inspired, developed, and led the proletarian uprisings across the midwest, like the great strike of 1877.
So in that context, immigrants can be quite helpful and maybe even neccessary to create revolutionary conditions, especially in a place like the US, where the populace has been almost completely cut-off from the leftist ideology found throughout the world.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Historically speaking (about the united states anyway) immigration has actually helped stoke the flames of revolution. In the mid-late 1800's a large number of immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and Italy arrived. Among these immigrants were many Hegelians, Marxists, and Anarchists. They first made their presence felt in the civil war, they were the ones in the front lines promoting equality, human rights, and the abolishment of slavery.
Afterwards, when wide-spread industrialization began, these immigrant marxists, hegelians, and anarchists inspired, developed, and led the proletarian uprisings across the midwest, like the great strike of 1877.
So in that context, immigrants can be quite helpful and maybe even neccessary to create revolutionary conditions, especially in a place like the US, where the populace has been almost completely cut-off from the leftist ideology found throughout the world.

There is a difference here though, these immigrants came from more advanced countries and therefore had advanced views. Most immigrants today come from very backward countries and their views to some degree show this.

Religion is in my opinion the best measure of just how backward a country is in terms of its views. The more religious a country is, the more reactionary it tends to be.

[drain.you]

'the non biased immigrant housing machine' deserves a religion. lol.

Seriously though, I've just noticed immigrants help capitalism. Immigrants are a kind of mobile workforce, when coming to a country they tend go to large cities of commerce or industry so they can earn money and build a new life, si? Well, that gives capitalists more of an advantage when picking his workforce as s/he has more people to pick from and because there is more than enough possible workforce, when a worker acts up (does not conform to capitalists needs of slave-like worker - showing up on time, working hard, accepting authority) then the capitalist can sack this worker and pick another.
Okay, a surplus amount of workers already exists (often over qualified anyway - such as Higher education students working in supermarkets) but immigrants increase the surplus,giving the capitalist more choice over his workforce and because immigrants need the job in order to start a new life/provide for family/etc then they cannot afford not to be exactly what the capitalist wants.
I dunno, what do my comrades think?

[Morpheus]

Immigrants are more oppressed than the majority of the working class. Hence they will be easier to convince to become revolutionary. At present this doesn't happen as much because revolutionary movements are weak, but the current uprising in France shows they have definate potential. Talk about immigrants being from "backwards countries" that are stuck in the 11th century is just racist stereotyping, reality doesn't match that. Even full-fledged Bin Ladin following Islamists don't actually take their ideas from the 11th century, they base their ideas on an inaccurate romanticized version of the 11th century. The US, a so-called "advanced" country, has a big Christian fundamentalist movement more powerful than most "3rd world" fundamentalist movements.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Talk about immigrants being from "backwards countries" that are stuck in the 11th century is just racist stereotyping, reality doesn't match that. Even full-fledged Bin Ladin following Islamists don't actually take their ideas from the 11th century, they base their ideas on an inaccurate romanticized version of the 11th century.

Exactly, religious fundamentalists base their ideas on superstition and the romantic practises of the Middle Ages. Therefore its hardly "racist stereotyping" when one says that people from "backward" countries that have not have had the access to secular ideas and modern technology still hold backward ideas. Parts of the world are still much like countries in the Middle Ages, this is not stereotyping its a statement of fact.

When these places develop, the ideas will cease to exist.


The US, a so-called "advanced" country, has a big Christian fundamentalist movement more powerful than most "3rd world" fundamentalist movements.

I get the impression that parts of America, particularly the mainland, are very backward. The modern world seems not to have penetrated certain areas of America and therefore its not that surprising the religious movement is so large.

[Vanguard1917]

This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don't like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class. Over the last fifty years in Britain there has been more immigration from deeply religious countries and there has also been a reduction in labour movements. This is probably more a coincidence than a trend, but it would be interesting to know whether this has happened in other countries and whether that maybe the increase in religious immigrants entering the working class has made the working class of today more like the working class of a century ago.

It's true that immigrants from backward countries may bring with them some backward ideas, religious or otherwise. But it's also historically true that those very immigrants - and, more so, their sons and daughters - soon begin to
appear on the frontlines of the class strugle. For example, in Britain, it was the black community that fought the hardest against racist police thuggery in the 1980s. In the inter-war period, it was the Jewish community in east London that was most active in the fight against the rise of British fascism. In fact, socialist and communist movements in Britain would hardly have existed without the contributions of Jewish, as well as Irish, immigrants.

The problem for us is not the backward ideas that immigrants may be bringing into western countries. People's ideas are not static. The history of the working class struggle has shown us that, given the right conditions (objective and subjective), people's ideas and viewpoints can take huge shifts in a quite short space of time.

The real problem for us is the divisions that exist within the working class today. Today the working is more fragmented and atomised than ever before. In the past the state aimed to divide the working class by promoting, among other evils, racism and chauvanism. Now it is multiculturalist policies that effectively ghettoise the whole of society. Ethnic groups are encouraged by the state to celebrate their differences. The state promotes the idea that people's "identities" are static, and children from first-generation immigrant parents are expected to conform to the ideals of their particular "cultural background". This is the ruling class ideology of our era. And instead of promoting chauvanism (which Armchair Socialism is effectively doing), we should be out challenging the reactionary ideas of our ruling class and their political representatives.

[Amusing Scrotum]

And instead of promoting chauvanism (which Armchair Socialism is effectively doing)

Where the fuck have I promoted chauvinism?

Look at my posts on this topic -


I think this could be a serious issue and maybe the solution is working with immigrant communities and putting a lot of effort into getting the Communist message into these communities.


The problem is that in Britain at the moment immigrant communities seem to be ghettoised. It used to be the case that immigrants just went straight into the community, my street is an example of this we have many different nationalities, descendent's of immigrants and natives, if anyone can be called native.

However there seems to be a lot of segregation happening at the moment. Different cultures are not mixing like they did and this leads me to wonder if the reactionary views brought into a country will "filter away" like they did in the past.

Emphasis added.

Now please tell me how either of those statements are that different from the substance of your last post. The language I used may be more blunt, but the content is about the same as your post. Therefore you must be promoting chauvinism too?

[Vanguard1917]

You're right, i only read your first post. I think your observations in the above post are pretty accurate. But what do you think is the cause of the rise in segregation? Is it the "fault" of immigrants and their "culture", or is it due to a climate - promoted and sponsored by the social elites - that encourages the ghettoisation of ethnic communities and the celebration of cultural differences, identities, diversities, etc? Afterall, the multiculturalist logic is not something that was initially promoted and fought for by ethnic minorities; it's something that was promoted by the ruling elites, before it could become so widely (and blindly) accepted within society as a whole.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You're right, i only read your first post. I think your observations in the above post are pretty accurate. But what do you think is the cause of the rise in segregation? Is it the "fault" of immigrants and their "culture", or is it due to a climate - promoted and sponsored by the social elites - that encourages the ghettoisation of ethnic communities and the celebration of cultural differences, identities, diversities, etc? Afterall, the multiculturalist logic is not something that was initially promoted and fought for by ethnic minorities; it's something that was promoted by the ruling elites, before it could become so widely (and blindly) accepted within society as a whole.

I don't think I know anywhere near enough about the history of modern immigration or even the history of modern British immigration to give an answer that would not have serious flaws. However I'll give it my best shot and try to cloak it in as much Marxist rhetoric as possible in order to make it at least sound more intelligent.

Now I don't know the exact date of the inception of multi cultralism, but I would imagine it started in the 70's. This was a period in Britain when the National Front and co. were huge and caused a lot of trouble. Now at this period of time we had a Labour Party which was sill largely inspired by the Fabian variety of Marxism. So multi cultralism in this respect can't be called a divisive policy of the elites. It was probably seen as a perfectly decent policy at the time and I think its a bit elaborate to think it was intentionally created in order to attempt to retard class struggle.

So the nature of the policy was a reaction to the material conditions of the time, but likely should have been a policy which was abandoned after the trouble died down. This never happened and as time went on "tolerance" and "multi cultralism" gradually became accepted buzzwords.

The immigrant communities which now had some financial and democratic clout undoubtedly liked that they could create a mini Iran or a mini India in London, Birmingham etc. and therefore the idea became accepted political thought. The segregation became obvious but any opposition view to immigrant populations is automatically labelled as reactionary. I've been called some pretty wild names already in this thread for raising the issue so its obvious that issues like this are extremely politically sensitive.

This I do blame the left for in some ways, there seems to be the perception that if we can't see the racism its no longer there. Multi cultralism hides the racist elements of British society, therefore we think (or hope) that they've disappeared. Instead of actually trying to combat the view, we try to find liberal solutions.

I don't know how good you think this theory is, I'm probably wrong about the time when the policy of multi cultralism (racial segregation if you put it bluntly,) was formulated so please add your thoughts on this. I'm actually considering an article on this topic along the lines of "Multi cultralism and what it means for the working class movement." So your thoughts would be much appreciated.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it is too impressionistic to say that since people come from cultures with backwards ideas or have backwards ideas at one time, they will never change their ideas.

Consiousness changes rapidly and exponentially especially in times of struggle. Just look at US consiousness about the Iraq war. If you told someone during the patriotism following 9/11 or the Afganistan invasion that in a matter of two years, there would be the biggest opposition to war since VIetnam and the military would be struggeling to meet recruitment goals, they would have laughed and called you crazy, but this is what has happened and Bush who had 80-90% approval ratings a few years ago is now struggleing to keep his approval above 40%.

Look at the migrents who came from Oaklahoma to California in search of jobs. Certaintly many of these farmers were religious and many probably had backwards ideas, but when they got to california they were met with repressison and exploitation by the growers and quickly became radicals.

Radicalization works both ways though and two generations ago, midwesterners were some of the most radical workers in the US and are now seen as conservative and religious.

Marx shows us that people arn't born or destined to have particular ideas and that ideas of induviduals and the working class in general change. I believe because of right-wing backlashes and opression of immigrents that immigrents will likely become very radical very quickly and be at the forefront of revolutionary movements because they have daily and urgent reasons to fight back against the system.

Were Mexican migrents of a generation ago from a culture where religious ideas were important? Yes, but the material conditions of field-work and exploitation led many of them to take on their exploiters and form a union while also fighting for civil rights. This is because they were also encouraged by the examples of struggles throught society particularly the Black civil rights movement.

If immigrents seem realitivly passive and accepting of backwards ideas right now, it is not in some inherent "cultural" difference (I find this argument extreemly troubbling and not dissimilar for white supremist arguments that immigrents can't "intergrate" or that black "culture" causes blacks "to commit more crimes") it is because the society in general is passive and accepting of backwards ideas.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Come on, I mean, look at France right now! Many of these immigrents are part of an underclass and many of them are religious and yet 10 days of rioting in responce to opression shows that they want to fight back against they system even if they have not found an organized expression for this anger yet.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'll get back to your post when I've got more time but there was one glaring statement I felt I needed to address.


If immigrents seem realitivly passive and accepting of backwards ideas right now, it is not in some inherent "cultural" difference (I find this argument extreemly troubbling and not dissimilar for white supremist arguments that immigrents can't "intergrate" or that black "culture" causes blacks "to commit more crimes") it is because the society in general is passive and accepting of backwards ideas.

You seem to be another person who has not read a single fucking word I've said. What I have been saying is that the segregation of immigrant communities has led to these communities being detached from the rest of the community.

Therefore it stands to reason that if say a Muslim community were to only mix with other Muslims they would only hear the views that were common in Muslim countries. These countries are pretty backward on the whole in terms of development and so their views would be similarly backward. However the more they come into contact with secular views and western "decadence," the more likely it is these views will change and become more progressive.

Its nothing to do with "race," if an European had gone to the Muslim world at around the 8th century the Europeans views would have seemed incredibly backward. Societies and countries don't develop at equal rates and therefore neither do views.

So it stands to reason that if the immigrant worker is being horribly exploited, if the only ideas they hear are those of their religious leaders and their equally religious peers they're going to accept the exploitation to a far greater degree than if they had come into contact with more radical ideas.

As much as Leninists despise the Western worker, the class consciousness of the Western worker has reached a significant level that they will no longer accept the brutal exploitation of the 19th century. The immigrant workers' tend to grudgingly accept the exploitation because they have not yet reached the same level of consciousness. A prime example being the Morecambe Bay cockle pickers.

Drawing comparisons with white supremacy is incredibly juvenile, though given the kind remarks posted earlier not surprising. I can't wait to see what the next insult will be, maybe a reference to Hitler?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 6 2005, 09:14 AM
Over the last couple of days I've been reading a lot of the Redstar papers and basically there are two statements that Redstar holds true with regards the proletariat becoming revolutionary. The first is that they will need to be atheists and the second that they will be advanced both in views and abilities.
....
Now these things seem a very good basis on which to build a Communist society. However it occurred to that more and more of the Western proletariat is being made up of immigrants. I don't know the exact figures but I'd guess that there are far more immigrants in the working class than the middle and upper class. And a lot of these immigrants come from countries, if I borrow another Redstar phrase, "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st."
I'd say this should tell you not to 1)take a basically theological, atheism as a dogmatic religion, view of politics 2)underestimate working people in most of the world and 3)take Redstar (or anyone) as your guru. 'Cause you're going to end up with conclusions like this which are in total contradiction to observed reality.

Immigration has clearly added revolutionary elements to the working class, and tends to break down chauvinism and national divisions. What's more, immigrant workers often bring experience of struggle that enriches the knowledge of our class in this country,
and a militancy that is welcome given the conservative, collaborate-with-the-employer tradition that dominates the labor movement.

Right now, in the U.S., immigrant workers are more likely than the native-born to want to organize unions. Statistically and based on experience. Even the AFL-CIO bureaucracy has recognized this reality and taken stated positions in favor of immigrants' rights.

I could hope that self-described revolutionary leftists could be at least as progressive as the AFL-CIO bureaucracy.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 7 2005, 02:14 AM
Now these things seem a very good basis on which to build a Communist society. However it occurred to that more and more of the Western proletariat is being made up of immigrants. I don't know the exact figures but I'd guess that there are far more immigrants in the working class than the middle and upper class. And a lot of these immigrants come from countries, if I borrow another Redstar phrase, "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st."

This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don't like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class. Over the last fifty years in Britain there has been more immigration from deeply religious countries and there has also been a reduction in labour movements. This is probably more a coincidence than a trend, but it would be interesting to know whether this has happened in other countries and whether that maybe the increase in religious immigrants entering the working class has made the working class of today more like the working class of a century ago.
your conclusion, and from what you said the redstar papers which it is based on, reeks of cultural superiority. and so do some of the comments posted by other members on this thread. you are basically saying that western countries are mostly left-leaning and progressive, and countries from which immigrants arrive are mostly reactionary and deeply religious. firstly, in australia, the majority of immigrants arrive from britain, canada, or america - also, the majority of 'illegal' immigrants are from those countries [not that i think there is such a thing as legal or illegal immigrants - i'm just using the government's rhetoric to highlight how 'illegal western immigrants' are largely overlooked while illegal 'ethnic' immigrants are thrown into detention centres]. this is a pattern which, from my understanding, is emulated in other western nations as well.


Therefore it stands to reason that if say a Muslim community were to only mix with other Muslims they would only hear the views that were common in Muslim countries. These countries are pretty backward on the whole in terms of development and so their views would be similarly backward. However the more they come into contact with secular views and western "decadence," the more likely it is these views will change and become more progressive.

you say that a lot of the countries which immigrants come from are backwards. again, i find this incredibly racist, particularly when considering that a lot of these countries [which i take you mean to be third world or developing countries or countries which are being destroyed by warfare] are in the state that they are because of the continuing economic exploitation of western nations and western multi-nationals of these countries. so not only are you placing the blame of the decline of the revolutionary working class on 'immigrants' from backward countries, you are also effectively blaming them for their backwardness.

if only i hadn't lost the memory card for my camera; cos then i would take a photo of a badge i have. as it happens, all i can do is post the words on it: "You;re a fucking immigrant too!"

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Nov 7 2005, 06:59 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Nov 7 2005, 06:59 AM) You seem to be another person who has not read a single fucking word I've said. What I have been saying is that the segregation of immigrant communities has led to these communities being detached from the rest of the community. [/b]
Don't take offense comrade, I was speaking in general terms, not calling you a racist. But if you look at the history of people in Latin America or Arab countries, there is a strong history of class struggle.


Therefore it stands to reason that if say a Muslim community were to only mix with other Muslims they would only hear the views that were common in Muslim countries. These countries are pretty backward on the whole in terms of development and so their views would be similarly backward.

Look at the living history of the Iranian revolution or Algeria and so on! Look at the living merory of Allende, Che, and the Zapatistas. Everywhere that capitalism has touched, there is resistance and so I don't think that in global capitalism, immigration could be a barrier.

Consiousness changes and so even though US workers may be more secular and have more unionization in the 1990s than in the 1910s, the working class in the US was much more advanced as far as class consiousness in the earlier period. This is because there was more struggle in 1919 in the US than in 1994, not because more people wouldn't accept 19th century conditions.

If there are struggles or movements, then marxist ideas are relevant because people want to figure out how to take these movements further or win struggles and Marxism is a guide of how to fight back and win.

To say that people need to be won to marxist ideas for struggles to happen in the first place is an inversion of marxism. Marx wasn't writing these things out of a vaccume of his own brillience; he was writing these things because industrial life was/is horrible for workers and labor movements were developing to fight against it.


So it stands to reason that if the immigrant worker is being horribly exploited, if the only ideas they hear are those of their religious leaders and their equally religious peers they're going to accept the exploitation to a far greater degree than if they had come into contact with more radical ideas. In the US I think you could say:

So it stands to reason that if the secular American worker is being horribly exploited, if the only ideas they hear are those of their post-modernist teachers and their equally post-modernist peers they're going to accept the exploitation to a far greater degree than if they had come into contact with more radical ideas.

Seriously, I agree that in general being exposed to ideas is preferable to not. Being urban is preferable to isolation and being rural. But even the most backwards peasants in history have revolted. Even the most religious of slaves in history have rebelled. They rebelled because of the material conditions, not because they adhered to a specific rational worldview beforehand!

There are going to be a lot of mixed ideas in any movement even the revolutionary one: that's democracy. These ideas will be debated out among workers based on the conditions of the revolution as it's happeneing. Revolutions are organic processes, not some kind of automatic pre-determined checklist:


"revolutionary checklist"

1. Agree with Marx 100% [x]
2. Aithiest [x]
3. Checked off checklist [x]

Ok, now start the revolution!


As much as Leninists despise the Western worker, the class consciousness of the Western worker has reached a significant level that they will no longer accept the brutal exploitation of the 19th century. The immigrant workers' tend to grudgingly accept the exploitation because they have not yet reached the same level of consciousness. A prime example being the Morecambe Bay cockle pickers.As a revolutionary in the US, I generally have to argue against comrades who are trying to say that american workers are too bought-off to develop class-consiousness or fight for revolution. So your arguemnt is a nice change of pace.

Immigrent workers tent to grudgeingly accept exploitation because in the US they have little rights and are afraid of the authorities and feel they have little power to change things (in other words material conditions not that that they can't come up with the right ideas).

19th Century Coal Miners in the US didn't reject their exploitation because they gave up religion, they developed consiousness through struggle and many became radical (aithiest) communists because of these material experiences.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'd say this should tell you not to 1)take a basically theological, atheism as a dogmatic religion, view of politics 2)underestimate working people in most of the world and 3)take Redstar (or anyone) as your guru. 'Cause you're going to end up with conclusions like this which are in total contradiction to observed reality.

Fair criticisms and perhaps reading as many of the Redstar papers as I have over the last few days has influenced my thought process in some way. Maybe when I "underestimate working people" I am badly portraying ideas on material conditions. I'm not intentionally trying to contradict observed reality, though I don't really know what that phrase means.


Immigration has clearly added revolutionary elements to the working class, and tends to break down chauvinism and national divisions. What's more, immigrant workers often bring experience of struggle that enriches the knowledge of our class in this country,
and a militancy that is welcome given the conservative, collaborate-with-the-employer tradition that dominates the labor movement.

Right now, in the U.S., immigrant workers are more likely than the native-born to want to organize unions. Statistically and based on experience. Even the AFL-CIO bureaucracy has recognized this reality and taken stated positions in favor of immigrants' rights.


I don't doubt immigration has helped break down nationalist and racist barriers, however the jist of what I am saying is that "multi cultralism" as a policy which is being followed in Britain. Seems to be segregating the immigrant communities and therefore those barriers are no longer being broken.

For example all the immigrants I know, came to this country pre 1980. Lots of them live on the same street as me. Yet the newer immigrants no longer come into the community this way, there is a whole area in the city I live dominated by immigrants. Therefore the type of barrier breaking is no longer possible as to some extent whole communities are segregated.

This is my point, how can working class unity be developed to any great extent when the working class is segregated? I know material conditions will one day present themselves for revolution, but these material conditions do not just fall out of the air. They are a slow and gradual process and this segregation seems to be blocking this process. I don't know if its different in the US, but where I am it certainly seems we've fallen into some form of cultural segregation.


I could hope that self-described revolutionary leftists could be at least as progressive as the AFL-CIO bureaucracy.

Who are the AFL-CIO?


your conclusion, and from what you said the redstar papers which it is based on, reeks of cultural superiority. and so do some of the comments posted by other members on this thread. you are basically saying that western countries are mostly left-leaning and progressive, and countries from which immigrants arrive are mostly reactionary and deeply religious. firstly, in australia, the majority of immigrants arrive from britain, canada, or america - also, the majority of 'illegal' immigrants are from those countries [not that i think there is such a thing as legal or illegal immigrants - i'm just using the government's rhetoric to highlight how 'illegal western immigrants' are largely overlooked while illegal 'ethnic' immigrants are thrown into detention centres]. this is a pattern which, from my understanding, is emulated in other western nations as well.


I couldn't comment on the immigration patterns of Britain, but from what I observe the majority of immigrants in my small city are from the middle east. Now you can say what I say reeks of "cultural superiority" until your blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that Western countries in general are more culturally advanced than Middle Eastern ones. The same way I would say it is a fact that Middle Eastern countries around the 8th century were culturally superior over European countries.

As I have said development doesn't happen equally, and by chance, luck, God or witchcraft it happens that at this moment in time Western nations are on "top of the pile."


you say that a lot of the countries which immigrants come from are backwards. again, i find this incredibly racist, particularly when considering that a lot of these countries [which i take you mean to be third world or developing countries or countries which are being destroyed by warfare] are in the state that they are because of the continuing economic exploitation of western nations and western multi-nationals of these countries. so not only are you placing the blame of the decline of the revolutionary working class on 'immigrants' from backward countries, you are also effectively blaming them for their backwardness.


I was waiting for this line, "how dare you question the views of the victims?" Well I think it would be wrong of me to not be concerned if reactionary ideas were present in any form of society. If I had said the Western worker held backward views I doubt anyone would have blinked an eyelid, but mention anywhere were people are a different colour and you suddenly becoming a racist pig.

Why can't I criticise certain Muslim cultures that I find offencive, or certain Seikh (how do you spell this?) customs? I can question Christian and Western views, but not Eastern views, why?

I'm not denying the ravaging of the third world, I'm saying that if reactionary customs are brought by immigrants, shouldn't we try to tackle them just as we would tackle the reactionary views of the "native" populace? Or should we just remain quiet for fear of causing offence?


if only i hadn't lost the memory card for my camera; cos then i would take a photo of a badge i have. as it happens, all i can do is post the words on it: "You;re a fucking immigrant too!"

I know I'm an immigrant, I know when my grandfather came to this country. I also know that generation of immigrants integrated into the community a lot better. I also know that some of the customs my Grandfather brought to this country were disgusting, and he was Eastern European. So what I am saying is why are current immigrants intentionally or unintentionally segregating themselves and does this harm the working class as a whole having a whole section of itself segregated?


So it stands to reason that if the secular American worker is being horribly exploited, if the only ideas they hear are those of their post-modernist teachers and their equally post-modernist peers they're going to accept the exploitation to a far greater degree than if they had come into contact with more radical ideas.


Post modernist ideas probably have more in common with revolutionary ideals than religious views.


Seriously, I agree that in general being exposed to ideas is preferable to not. Being urban is preferable to isolation and being rural. But even the most backwards peasants in history have revolted. Even the most religious of slaves in history have rebelled. They rebelled because of the material conditions, not because they adhered to a specific rational worldview beforehand!


True, but did these factors delay their eventual revolt? If we can in any way break down barriers like isolation which lead to delays, then surely we should do this regardless of who we annoy?


As a revolutionary in the US, I generally have to argue against comrades who are trying to say that american workers are too bought-off to develop class-consiousness or fight for revolution. So your arguemnt is a nice change of pace.

The nicest comment I've had in this thread yet.


Immigrent workers tent to grudgeingly accept exploitation because in the US they have little rights and are afraid of the authorities and feel they have little power to change things (in other words material conditions not that that they can't come up with the right ideas).

You probably aired my views better than i have done here. This is exactly my point, immigrant communities are being segregated and then exploited far more. Then to try and stop this we need to break down the barriers.


19th Century Coal Miners in the US didn't reject their exploitation because they gave up religion, they developed consiousness through struggle and many became radical (aithiest) communists because of these material experiences.

True, what I am saying though is that immigrant communities are not getting these experiences. They've got the exploitation alright, but at the moment I think they are not coming into contact with radical ideas. They may develop these ideas on their own, but shouldn't we give them a prod in the right direction?

[John_worldrevolution.info]

Armchair Socialist, if you actually are an armchair socialist, this would explain alot of your comments.

Any activists out here will know very well that when they are running a stall, organising a mass meeting or arranging a protest will know that the people most likely to turn out, or come to your stall and talk about socialism will be the most oppressed sections of society, and in my experience this is muslim women. That muslim women are prepared to get involved in so much activity at the moment is a real achievement when we consider (in general) how oppressed and therefore how lacking in confidence they are.

The left in Britain is making real inroads into these communties despite how crap the left and trade unions are, and as much as I disagree with the SWP's respect project, I can see very much why they focus so much on the Islamic community. It is because they are rapidly becoming the most radicalised section of society.

Now there is a problem in such communities with the 'community leaders' usually being petit bourgeois and attempting to restrict socialist parties undermining their control, but it is happening and leading the way to growth in the leftist movement.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Armchair Socialist, if you actually are an armchair socialist, this would explain alot of your comments.

Any activists out here will know very well that when they are running a stall, organising a mass meeting or arranging a protest will know that the people most likely to turn out, or come to your stall and talk about socialism will be the most oppressed sections of society, and in my experience this is muslim women. That muslim women are prepared to get involved in so much activity at the moment is a real achievement when we consider (in general) how oppressed and therefore how lacking in confidence they are.

The left in Britain is making real inroads into these communties despite how crap the left and trade unions are, and as much as I disagree with the SWP's respect project, I can see very much why they focus so much on the Islamic community. It is because they are rapidly becoming the most radicalised section of society.

Now there is a problem in such communities with the 'community leaders' usually being petit bourgeois and attempting to restrict socialist parties undermining their control, but it is happening and leading the way to growth in the leftist movement.

The left scene is pretty invisible where I am. Theres a couple of Trots who hand out leaflets and a few Greenies who do bugger all. I have yet to meet anyone of my generation where I am, that is interested in radical politics. Small cities are generally shitty places to live.

I'm glad that things like that are happening up your way, but down here theres bugger all happening.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well said, Vanguard1917.

As far as immigrents in particular, I don't see the lack of radical ideas in immigrent communities as being much different from the lack of radical ideas in society in general.


Originally posted by "armchairsocialist"
True, what I am saying though is that immigrant communities are not getting these experiences. They've got the exploitation alright, but at the moment I think they are not coming into contact with radical ideas. They may develop these ideas on their own, but shouldn't we give them a prod in the right direction?

In the US there is just a lack of radical ideas in general. I don't think that US immigrents are all that different than Us workers in generl in that deficit. In the 50s and 60s, the black movement influenced migrent farmworkers in California (who are probably one of the most segregated populations in the US since many lived in small camps near the farm or isolated on the farm itself). Nevertheless, radicalization in the larger society had an impact and workers fought for both civil rights and a union.

Harlem was a segregated community, but the CP was able to have a big following and a great deal of influence in the 30s. Part of the reason that they were sucessful was that unlike american socialist parties of the past which set-up segregated organizations for seperated ethnic or racial minorities (a German-language group, a black group and so on) the CP was intergrated and so black activists and eastern european activists and native-born activists all workerd together.

So I agree in a sense that we should be totally in favor of intergration, but I don't see immigrent communities themselves as a problem because of "not as advanced ideas", but because a united working class is a strong working class.

The AFL-CIO is one of the main unions in the US (although they recently had a split).

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 6 2005, 11:10 PM

Historically speaking (about the united states anyway) immigration has actually helped stoke the flames of revolution. In the mid-late 1800's a large number of immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and Italy arrived. Among these immigrants were many Hegelians, Marxists, and Anarchists. They first made their presence felt in the civil war, they were the ones in the front lines promoting equality, human rights, and the abolishment of slavery.
Afterwards, when wide-spread industrialization began, these immigrant marxists, hegelians, and anarchists inspired, developed, and led the proletarian uprisings across the midwest, like the great strike of 1877.
So in that context, immigrants can be quite helpful and maybe even neccessary to create revolutionary conditions, especially in a place like the US, where the populace has been almost completely cut-off from the leftist ideology found throughout the world.

There is a difference here though, these immigrants came from more advanced countries and therefore had advanced views. Most immigrants today come from very backward countries and their views to some degree show this.

Religion is in my opinion the best measure of just how backward a country is in terms of its views. The more religious a country is, the more reactionary it tends to be.
This is a racist statement. People coming from Northern Africa, Eastern Europe and other parts of the middle east are just as intelligent and capable as people from your so called "advanced countries." Most of the immigrants that came to the US and helped to fuel the revolutionary movement of the early 20th century were dirt poor and came from nothing just like the immigrants you speak of.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Severian+Nov 8 2005, 02:45 AM--> (Severian @ Nov 8 2005, 02:45 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 10:31 AM
Multiculturalism became a perfect way for western governments torationalise the fragmentation that was taking place in their societies. With the demise of the old labour movements, communities were breaking down and old social solidarities no longer existed.
This is wrong, among other reasons, because this "fragmentation" is neither new nor a product of the "demise of the old labour movements".

It's a simple product of mass immigration, and there's no reason to regret it except from a nationalist viewpoint, that the rulers are losing cultural homogeneity which lets them appeal to everyone being part of "one nation." Multiculturalism is a reluctant attempt to adapt to this problem.

OK, it's new to the UK and other European countries, because this kind of mass immigration is new to them. But it's not entirely new in the world.

During past waves of mass immigration to the U.S., immigrant workers actually took longer to "assimilate", learn English, etc. There were all kinds of neighborhoods and even whole towns inhabited by people from one European country - plus Chinatowns and so forth of course. Newspapers, churches, you name it, in a multitude of languages.

And out of this Babel the labor movement, the IWW, the Socialist Party, later the CP, etc., found new strength. That can happen again.

***
And when groups really do fail to assimilate, it's not because of "multiculturalism" or even their own stubbornness, it's because they're not allowed in.

Which is why people brought from Africa to the U.S. are still a distinct community and nationality after centuries, while anyone Irish, Polish, etc., becomes merely "white American" by the next generation if not sooner. [/b]
I think "Vanguard" was speaking about the post-modernist "multi-culteralism" of identity politics which coincided with a retreat by the left from more unified struggles to a view of atomized struggle.


About religion: not only are immigrants from the Third World often more religious than people in the First, but on average workers are more religious than middle-class professionals! Possibly because workers have more need for religious consolation, but in any case it's an observed fact.

So logically then: not only is immigration bad for the prospects for revolution, but so is the working class! The real reason there hasn't been a revolution in the advanced capitalist countries: too many workers.

It's an oberved fact but also backed up by history. By Redstar's formulation, the american civil rights movement never could have happened because religion would have been a barrier from struggle. Many communists were central to the early civil rights struggle but religious people were as well and as the movement became bigger, it lost many of it's earlier religious overtones in favor of more radical ones.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 7 2005, 01:40 AM
Exactly, religious fundamentalists base their ideas on superstition and the romantic practises of the Middle Ages.
You think the practices of the Middle Ages were "romantic"?!? When I said fundamentalists Romanticize the middle ages I mean what they think was going on in the middle ages wasn't actually what was going on in the middle ages. They think things were different & better than they really were. Islamic fundamentalism may be superstition, but its also a modern ideology, not descended from the middle ages. There are substantial differences between the Islamic empires of the middle ages and what Bin Laden & friends envision. Their understanding of history is an incorrect one, used to justify a modern ideology.


Therefore its hardly "racist stereotyping" when one says that people from "backward" countries that have not have had the access to secular ideas and modern technology still hold backward ideas.

This is clearly racist stereotyping because you have zero evidence to support your claim and there's mountains of evidence against it. Marxist-Leninism - a secular philosophy if there ever was one - has been way more popular in so-called "backwards" countries than in the so-called "advanced" countries. All Leninist revolutions occured in "backwards" countries and most that didn't have such revolutions had or have a strong Leninist movement. Before Saddam Hussein came to power the Iraqi Communist Party was the largest political party in the country. Hussein himself promoted a modern secular ideology, basically a variation of fascism, especially in the earlier days of his regime. Even non-western countries that didn't adopt Leninism or fascism often adopted some other secular ideology over the last century, like many variants of social democracy & nationalism. Almost all of Latin America is today ruled by secular neoliberal governments. The countries you consider "backwards" have access to secular ideas & modern technology and even today remain more secular than fundamentalist. Islamic fundamentalism as a movement is not a product of "backwards" countries, it is primarily a product of the "advanced" countries. They nurtured and helped it grow into a movement, so they could use it to undermine the secular movements opposing them like Leninism & nationalism. US support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is the most famous example of this support, but there are others. Islamism was created as a tool to harm workers & support imperialism; a tool that has now partially escaped their control.


Parts of the world are still much like countries in the Middle Ages, this is not stereotyping its a statement of fact.

You have presented zero facts to support your claim at all. Your claim can't be true, because the middle ages were different in different places. Europe, the Middle East, sub-saharan Africa, East Asia & North America all had very different middle ages. I was refering to the Middle Eastern middle ages when discussing Islamic fundamentalism earlier. If you mean the same thing, then there's no where on Earth like that anymore. Many of the countries you consider "backwards" are fully industrialized, and many of the others have a large amount of industry. Some of them have signifigant computer industries. Market capitalism is dominat in almost all of them. All except Somalia & Afghanistan have modern bureaucratic nation-states. That's not like the middle ages at all. Your portrayal of "third world" nations is just based on racist stereotyping of the victims of your ruling class's imperialism, not a real analysis based on facts.


When these places develop, the ideas will cease to exist.

They have already developed, in several cases as a direct result of those secular ideologies. In reality, there are no backwards nations just imperialist nations and non-imperialist nations.


I get the impression that parts of America, particularly the mainland, are very backward. The modern world seems not to have penetrated certain areas of America and therefore its not that surprising the religious movement is so large.

I live in mainland America, it's as capitalist as capitalism can be. Religious fundamentalism was actually weaker 40 years ago than it is today. Its rise is both a result of the defeat of the left and a strategy by the ruling class to control us - much as it is elsewhere. Feudal ruling classes are not the only ones to use superstition as a means of control.


Where the fuck have I promoted chauvinism?

If you think your country is advanced but that other countries are backwards, your'e clearly chauvinist.

[rioters bloc]

so, as i think i've pointed out already, the idea that 'immigrants' are counter-revolutionary is just...racist. since i guess i didn't make myself clear enough before, here's why:


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)
The point is religion is useful to the ruling class to make people accept the status quo. Communism is a complete break with the old order, religion and all. So its not a matter of whether Capitalism is fucking you over, but whether you are willing to accept different ideas and solution. Religion in its nature goes against Communism and therefore religious people are unlikely to become revolutionaries.[/b]

sure. but what has this got to do with immigrants? you seem to be saying that everyone who currently inhabits a country/has been there for at least a coupla generations is areligious and all immigrants are religious.


Where am I justifying racism, I'm asking a serious question here as to the consequences of immigration. I'm not saying we should go out and club immigrants over the head because they may be holding back the revolution, I'm saying that maybe we need to try and work with them promoting Communism.

racism isn't about wanting to kill all ethnic people. it's about discriminating against people on the basis of race, and making sweeping generalisations. which, granted, you don't seem to be doing - you're just discriminating against them because they're immigrants :rolleyes:


I'm saying that things like a religion which help create reactionary views could be detrimental to creating an emancipated proletariat. And been as a lot of immigrants are deeply religious does this in any way delay the revolutionary process?

a LOT of immigrants are DEEPLY religious? where the hell do you get your information? not only are you making generalisations here, but extremely strong ones as well, with no evidence to back you up.


Yes immigration does help to rid native people of reactionary views, however many immigrants bring a whole set of reactionary views with them. In Holland for instance, if I'm not mistaken there has been a huge upsurge of domestic violence in the Muslim communities. Now personally I don't care if your black, white, brown or purple, hitting women is not okay and if your religion or "culture" says it is, then quite frankly its a steaming pile of reactionary shit.

hmmm see, that would imply that the country they were moving to has no reactionary views. but that's not the case, is it? and i take personal offence at you saying that islam promotes domestic violence. not only that, but i take offence at your assumptions that domestic violence is something which is unique to islam, and doesn't exist in 'western' nations. that kinda views is just simply laughable. even ignoring all that, i fail to see the link you are making here - so domestic violence has increased in muslim communities in holland. what has that got to do with immigration? at all? is it just because it's in holland that you're assuming theyre all 'immigrants'?


My point is that perhaps we as Communists, Anarchists etc. need to make an effort to rid reactionary views from all elements of society, no matter where that society is from.

well... yes. and that includes the society you're living in too. selective, aren't you?


However there seems to be a lot of segregation happening at the moment. Different cultures are not mixing like they did and this leads me to wonder if the reactionary views brought into a country will "filter away" like they did in the past.

this could perhaps be because in the past, there was this thing called 'assimilation' where rather than celebrating diversity, it was stifled. now, different cultures are viewed as hostile and are marginalised, are not offered services to integrate into society if they wish. neither is a good way of interacting with immigrants, because both take an extremist stance - one says 'you must become like us to be valued', the other says 'you are not like us, and that makes you our enemy, so we don't want you anyway.'

and how do you know that reactionary views 'filtered away' in the past? what are you basing this on?


How about housing them in locations less ethnically centralised, a more scattered ethnic population. This would allow easier assimilation into the rest of the mainstream beliefs, morals etc.

what's so great abt 'mainstream' beliefs and morals? from what i can see, mainstream morals are sexist, racist, and anti-queer. and places tend to be ethnically centralised because ethnic groups like to feel safe, and feel that they have a place where they can be respected and valued amongst an otherwise racist and alienating society.


Armchair Socialism

There is a difference here though, these immigrants came from more advanced countries and therefore had advanced views. Most immigrants today come from very backward countries and their views to some degree show this.

1. who are you to judge what is 'advanced' and what isn't? 2. don't fucking equate 'backwardness' with revolutionarism. according to you, i migrated from a 'backward' country, yet out of my 'australian' friends im the most revolutionary out of all of them. not only that but most of the people i know from my country are more revolutionary than all of them. and yeah, some of us are religious. and they've more active and progressive than most of my 'australian' friends.


I get the impression that parts of America, particularly the mainland, are very backward. The modern world seems not to have penetrated certain areas of America and therefore its not that surprising the religious movement is so large.

yeah, you get a lot of impressions. how about you back them up? not saying that what you said is incorrect, but everything you say is based on your own somewhat limited worldview, so how am i supposed to believe anything you say?


okay, i can't be bothered going through the rest of the posts because you seem to keep reiterating the same ideas and i cant be fucked repeating myself as well. basically i think you're racist because

1. you lump all immigrants into one category, assume most/all of them are religious, and thus most/all of them are counter-revolutionary.
2. you assert your cutural superiority in the guise of progressive politics. no-one is saying you cannot target religious reactionary values, what i am saying is that you are specifically targeting immgrants with religious reactionary values and saying 'this is a problem!' rather than saying 'religious reactionary values are a problem. let's work together to get rid of them, no matter who holds them.'
3. all 'immigrant countries' [as you keep calling them, what the FUCK does that mean anyway? all countries apart from yours? because immigrants can come from all over the world you know :rolleyes:] are not revolutionary and thus we must 'give them a prod in the right direction' because clearly the country you currently live in is the epitome of radicalism.

[ComradeOm]

I’d just like to note that I doubt whether the religious nature of some immigrants has any relevance on the possibilities of revolution. This is simply because once they enter the proletariat body they are exposed to the same toil and exploitation as every other worker. Capitalism tends to strip away the religious leanings of those who slave for it, replacing religion with revolutionary spirit. The piety of the devout, no matter what their origin, will not last long once capitalism starts to turn the screws again.

The perfect historical example would be the hordes of peasants who formed the first proletariat all those centuries ago. They were every bit as “backward” as any immigrant is today but it didn’t take long for worker consciousnesses to develop.

Far more dangerous is falling into the capitalist trap of refusing to cooperate with someone because of their colour or nationality. One of the more effective ways that capitalism has divided and conquered.


If you think your country is advanced but that other countries are backwards, your'e clearly chauvinist.
Hardly, its simple Marxism. Some countries have developed at a faster pace than others. "Developed" here is a measure of a nations place in proceeding to communism, which is in turn based upon the relations of production. There’s certainly no racist undertones to it, one people or culture are not being held up as "better".

[Amusing Scrotum]

This is a racist statement. People coming from Northern Africa, Eastern Europe and other parts of the middle east are just as intelligent and capable as people from your so called "advanced countries." Most of the immigrants that came to the US and helped to fuel the revolutionary movement of the early 20th century were dirt poor and came from nothing just like the immigrants you speak of.

I'm not saying that these people are not intelligent, I am saying that these countries generally hold far more backward social views. Okay Britain is no paradise, but if we use gay people as an example, then Britain grudgingly or not accepts gay people and has some gay rights. Not nearly enough, but some. Now many third world countries have no gay rights at all, admitting your gay is not just frowned upon, its dangerous.

This has nothing to do with intelligence, after all there have been many intelligent religious fundamentalists, this is about progressive social views which are not a sign of intelligence.


You think the practices of the Middle Ages were "romantic"?!?

Sorry I mis worded my statement, I should have said "Exactly, religious fundamentalists base their ideas on superstition and the romantic notions of practises of the Middle Ages."


This is clearly racist stereotyping because you have zero evidence to support your claim and there's mountains of evidence against it. Marxist-Leninism - a secular philosophy if there ever was one - has been way more popular in so-called "backwards" countries than in the so-called "advanced" countries. All Leninist revolutions occured in "backwards" countries and most that didn't have such revolutions had or have a strong Leninist movement.

A revolutionary vanguard cloaking a liberation struggle in Marxist language does not a workers' revolution make.

You are equating a struggle against imperialism and colonisation with an advanced Marxist social view, you are romanticising. The two are completely different.


The countries you consider "backwards" have access to secular ideas & modern technology and even today remain more secular than fundamentalist.

Iran? Saudi Arabia? India? Pakistan? Various Catholic Latin American countries?

Are these secular? Because what I know of these countries the various religious institutions have a large grip on public opinion and policy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Iran is a modern secular country. Am I misinformed?


Islamic fundamentalism as a movement is not a product of "backwards" countries, it is primarily a product of the "advanced" countries. They nurtured and helped it grow into a movement, so they could use it to undermine the secular movements opposing them like Leninism & nationalism. US support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is the most famous example of this support, but there are others. Islamism was created as a tool to harm workers & support imperialism; a tool that has now partially escaped their control.

From what I know Islamic fundamentalism definitely has its roots in Arab colonial struggle elites. Its intellectual father Said Kutp (bad spelling) developed his theories as opposition to what he saw as Western infiltration in the Arab world through corrupt dictators. The Muslim Brotherhoods' line was based on Kupt's theories and this movement was a direct challenge to Western backed dictators in the Arab world.

True the groups were used by America in Afghanistan, but originally Islamic fundamentalism was developed as a movement against the Western world and its colonisation of the Arab world. And the movement was already huge before Reagan and co. adopted it as a tool against Russia. In fact many arrested Muslim Brotherhood were tortured by Arab governments using CIA taught torture techniques.

Islamic fundamentalism was for a long time a movement against imperialism and is still pretty much an anti imperialist driven ideology.


You have presented zero facts to support your claim at all. Your claim can't be true, because the middle ages were different in different places. Europe, the Middle East, sub-saharan Africa, East Asia & North America all had very different middle ages. I was refering to the Middle Eastern middle ages when discussing Islamic fundamentalism earlier. If you mean the same thing, then there's no where on Earth like that anymore. Many of the countries you consider "backwards" are fully industrialized, and many of the others have a large amount of industry. Some of them have signifigant computer industries. Market capitalism is dominat in almost all of them. All except Somalia & Afghanistan have modern bureaucratic nation-states. That's not like the middle ages at all. Your portrayal of "third world" nations is just based on racist stereotyping of the victims of your ruling class's imperialism, not a real analysis based on facts.


I may be wrong, but the living standards of places like Africa, the disease rates etc. are much closer to the European middle ages than modern European standards.


I live in mainland America, it's as capitalist as capitalism can be. Religious fundamentalism was actually weaker 40 years ago than it is today. Its rise is both a result of the defeat of the left and a strategy by the ruling class to control us - much as it is elsewhere. Feudal ruling classes are not the only ones to use superstition as a means of control.

I was saying that mainland America seems to be regressing in its social views. Why this is happening is another question, but it seems to be following the social views of a few centuries ago.


If you think your country is advanced but that other countries are backwards, your'e clearly chauvinist.

So saying that Britain has access to running water, electricity, heating etc. while other parts of the world don't and attributing this to the fact that Britain has advanced systems for providing these things while other parts of the world don't. Is being a chauvinist?

Perhaps I am also a chauvinist because I think modern society is more advanced than the society of the stone age?


Hardly, its simple Marxism. Some countries have developed at a faster pace than others. "Developed" here is a measure of a nations place in proceeding to communism, which is in turn based upon the relations of production. There’s certainly no racist undertones to it, one people or culture are not being held up as "better".

That was my view on things, but perhaps both you and I are chauvinists by Morpheus' standards?


sure. but what has this got to do with immigrants? you seem to be saying that everyone who currently inhabits a country/has been there for at least a coupla generations is areligious and all immigrants are religious.


The key to this statement of blind idiocy on your part, is that you say that "I seem to be saying" not "I am saying."

You see nowhere am I saying all immigrants are religious and all non immigrants are non religious. I am saying that a higher percentage of immigrants hold religious beliefs than non immigrants. I thought it was common knowledge that belief in "sorcerers in the sky" was in rapid decline in the first world population.


racism isn't about wanting to kill all ethnic people. it's about discriminating against people on the basis of race, and making sweeping generalisations. which, granted, you don't seem to be doing - you're just discriminating against them because they're immigrants

Admittedly I don't have the time, knowledge or resources to conduct a lengthy survey of immigrants and their views. Therefore I do make generalisations, my generalisations however are based on what I see. I take a small sample and apply it across the board. The same way if I were to talk about the British working class I would apply what I have seen of the British working class across the board.

Now if in my observations of different groups of society I see a trend then unless shown evidence to the contry I am going to assume that trend is a norm.

Also I don't see how I am discriminating against immigrants, I have made statements about my observations of immigrants pre 1970 and post 1970 and the way these people integrated into society.

I live in a working class area where there are many immigrant families who came to Britain pre 1970, there are one or two post 1970 immigrants. However most post 1970 immigrants live in one particular area of my society. Therefore after seeing this trend, I conclude that maybe Britain is becoming segregated and therefore working class unity may be being harmed.

Please explain how this thought process is racist in its nature?


a LOT of immigrants are DEEPLY religious? where the hell do you get your information? not only are you making generalisations here, but extremely strong ones as well, with no evidence to back you up.


Again I am simply observing trends I see. Most "native" Britain's I know are either atheist, agnostics or just disinterested, where as just about every post 1970 immigrant I have met holds a belief in one of the various religious doctrines.

True I have not read or done a study of this, I have simply observed what I see as a social trend. You are ranting and raving at me for this observation yet you yourself have not showed any information to debunk my analysis. You too have simply referred to your observations on social trends.


hmmm see, that would imply that the country they were moving to has no reactionary views.

Where have I said this?

You use the word "imply" which to me means you are reading my posts and drawing your own observations from them and not taking them at "face value."


but that's not the case, is it?

Its not and I have not said this is "the case."


and i take personal offence at you saying that islam promotes domestic violence.

Theres a verse of the Koran that justifies it. I could post it for you if you wish.


not only that, but i take offence at your assumptions that domestic violence is something which is unique to islam, and doesn't exist in 'western' nations.

I have not said this. You are drawing some really wild conclusions from my posts.


that kinda views is just simply laughable. even ignoring all that, i fail to see the link you are making here - so domestic violence has increased in muslim communities in holland. what has that got to do with immigration? at all? is it just because it's in holland that you're assuming theyre all 'immigrants'?

From what I know of the situation in Holland, many immigrant Muslim in Holland communities have higher than average levels of domestic violence.

The link I am making is that it appears many immigrant Muslim communities in Holland seem to have "backward" social views with regards women. Are these views unique to Muslim communities, no, but are these views more common in Muslim communities, it seems so.

If I am wrong on this, then correct me.


well... yes. and that includes the society you're living in too. selective, aren't you?


Read the fucking post you quoted -


My point is that perhaps we as Communists, Anarchists etc. need to make an effort to rid reactionary views from all elements of society, no matter where that society is from.

Selective in your reading aren't you?


this could perhaps be because in the past, there was this thing called 'assimilation' where rather than celebrating diversity, it was stifled. now, different cultures are viewed as hostile and are marginalised, are not offered services to integrate into society if they wish. neither is a good way of interacting with immigrants, because both take an extremist stance - one says 'you must become like us to be valued', the other says 'you are not like us, and that makes you our enemy, so we don't want you anyway.'

Stifling diversity? People mixed and diversity was recognised. It just wasn't seen as a diversive thing. People could have different backgrounds but they were still basically the same as every other person.

And "celebrating diversity" what a load of poop. What is so different about an Asian person and I that needs to be "celebrated." We are when it comes down to it the same, human.

Perhaps I should start celebrating the diversity of racists and sexists, because after all they do hold different views and therefore this diversity should be celebrated. Perhaps we can organise a function, the far left honours the cultural diversity of the Ku Klux Klan. Fuck that.


and how do you know that reactionary views 'filtered away' in the past? what are you basing this on?

Again my observations. My Irish Catholic neighbour has told me as a joke how when he first came to Britain he thought all British Protestants were bastards. He know longer holds this view. I know this is not a wide survey, but it is what I have observed on a small scale and then applied to a larger scale.


1. who are you to judge what is 'advanced' and what isn't? 2. don't fucking equate 'backwardness' with revolutionarism. according to you, i migrated from a 'backward' country, yet out of my 'australian' friends im the most revolutionary out of all of them. not only that but most of the people i know from my country are more revolutionary than all of them. and yeah, some of us are religious. and they've more active and progressive than most of my 'australian' friends.

Marx thought the advanced proletariat would be the only type cape of revolution. Now I don't have the definitive explanation on what advanced in this sense means, but in my opinion the Western proletariat seems more advanced for a variety of reasons.

True we don't know what a revolutionary proletariat is, since we've never seen one. Therefore I suppose we won't be able to determine what constitutes advanced until this time occurs. Granted Marx may be wrong, I don't think he is and therefore I try to judge as best I can what is an advanced proletariat.


yeah, you get a lot of impressions. how about you back them up? not saying that what you said is incorrect, but everything you say is based on your own somewhat limited worldview, so how am i supposed to believe anything you say?

So you have an all knowing world view? We all have limited world views, we all have a minute amount of knowledge about the world on which to draw conclusions. No ones supposed to just bow down and accept someone else's view, we need to formulate our own views. Now if you have somehow miraculously been able to gain a complete world view, then I must say I am in complete awe of your brilliance.


okay, i can't be bothered going through the rest of the posts because you seem to keep reiterating the same ideas and i cant be fucked repeating myself as well. basically i think you're racist because

1. you lump all immigrants into one category, assume most/all of them are religious, and thus most/all of them are counter-revolutionary.
2. you assert your cutural superiority in the guise of progressive politics. no-one is saying you cannot target religious reactionary values, what i am saying is that you are specifically targeting immgrants with religious reactionary values and saying 'this is a problem!' rather than saying 'religious reactionary values are a problem. let's work together to get rid of them, no matter who holds them.'
3. all 'immigrant countries' [as you keep calling them, what the FUCK does that mean anyway? all countries apart from yours? because immigrants can come from all over the world you know ] are not revolutionary and thus we must 'give them a prod in the right direction' because clearly the country you currently live in is the epitome of radicalism.

1. Would you prefer me to call every immigrant by name, give their lives history? I simple comment on what trends I observe.

2. The thread is about immigrants. I would be derailing the thread if I talked about subjects which have nothing in common with the thread. If you wish talk about religious reactionary views in general, start a thread on it.

But ask yourself this, if we were discussing the reactionary views of the British working class, would you demand we also talked about the Australian or American working classes reactionary views? Of course not because the thread in question would be dealing with a specific topic, just like this one is.

3. In future I will be more specific. You know I will say the African immigrant community in Sheffield according to my in depth study holds this particular view as a moral truth, where as the Brighton Hindus' hold this particular view as a moral truth except for Mr. so and so who believes this.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

I don't think talking about some countries as 'backward' is racist. It is a term commonly used by Marxists when describing countries which are far behind imperialist powers in terms of an industrial proletariat and technological advancement.

[drain.you]

I dont think theres a direct correlation between a country's state of technological advancements and its social views.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I dont think theres a direct correlation between a country's state of technological advancements and its social views.


Your right theres no law that says if your technological advancements are X then your social views will be Y.

However if you look at the industrial revolution in England, then you will see technological advancements meant people lived in close proximity, this lead to people knowing about and then caring about the welfare of others to a greater extent.

Therefore its no coincidence that during this period of rapid technological we saw a huge amount of Socialist thought, mainly utopian and romantic, but this does show that technological advancement brings about the material conditions in which social views change drastically.

So theres no certainty that technological advances will change social views, but there is some evidence, limited as it may be, that when technological advancements are made at a rapid rate, social views advance too.

EDIT: Bad English. :(

[penisboy\]

So theres no certainty that technological advances will change social views, but there is some evidence, limited as it may be, that when technological advancements are made at a rapid rate, so do social views.

That's complete bullshit. It is clear you have no clue what you're on about.

[penisboy\]

I dont think theres a direct correlation between a country's state of technological advancements and its social views.

That's wrong. Stalin's teachings contradict this in every wa possible. You are not a true communist. Go back to america.

[Amusing Scrotum]

That's complete bullshit. It is clear you have no clue what you're on about.

You see it is the nature of a debating forum that when someone puts forth an argument with which you disagree, you try to deconstruct that argument showing how its wrong.


That's wrong. Stalin's teachings contradict this in every wa possible. You are not a true communist. Go back to america.

Another pearl of wisdom from "penisboy." I wonder what "fannygirl" would say?

[drain.you]

Look at the living history of the Iranian revolution or Algeria and so on! Look at the living merory of Allende, Che, and the Zapatistas. Everywhere that capitalism has touched, there is resistance and so I don't think that in global capitalism, immigration could be a barrier.
Nicely put forward comrade Gravedigger

[rioters bloc]

The key to this statement of blind idiocy on your part, is that you say that "I seem to be saying" not "I am saying."

i say 'seem to be saying' because i'm giving you a chance to defend yourself. i don't like to just make assumptions based on my interpretations. i also don't like to say 'you are saying this' or 'you are saying that' because it's authoritative and elitist and even if i feel that that is what you are saying i'd rather you admit to it then me tell you it. you might call it 'the key to blind idiocy', i call it 'being open-minded'

from now on i will say "you are saying this" if it makes you feel more loved :rolleyes:


You see nowhere am I saying all immigrants are religious and all non immigrants are non religious. I am saying that a higher percentage of immigrants hold religious beliefs than non immigrants. I thought it was common knowledge that belief in "sorcerers in the sky" was in rapid decline in the first world population.

a lie. at least in australia.



Also I don't see how I am discriminating against immigrants, I have made statements about my observations of immigrants pre 1970 and post 1970 and the way these people integrated into society.

I live in a working class area where there are many immigrant families who came to Britain pre 1970, there are one or two post 1970 immigrants. However most post 1970 immigrants live in one particular area of my society. Therefore after seeing this trend, I conclude that maybe Britain is becoming segregated and therefore working class unity may be being harmed.

Please explain how this thought process is racist in its nature?


okay. but keep in mind that i do this in reference to sydney as i have no idea what it was like in the UK, and unlike you i don't like to make judgements on one particular society and apply it to a billion others just because they're similarly 'western' or 'eastern' :rolleyes:

pre 1970 in australia, almost all immigrants were of European background due to WWII. many of them didn't speak english, and many held onto their cultures. they faced racism, and grouped together in communities of people from the same ethnocultural background in order to feel safe and secure. even 50 years on, you can still see that in sydney, eg. in leichhardt there is a huge italian community. those who abandoned their culture/language/etc and tried to become as 'australian' as possible were accepted and welcomed [to an extent, racism still lurked] and those who didn't were shunned. this is called cultural superiority, when one culture [the whole culture, not just the good parts] is placed above another culture [the whole culture, not just the bad parts].

for a few years in the middle under whitlam people were much more accepting and embraced new cultures. but soon, racism emerged once more and continues to flourish. i'm taking it that you yourself are not an immigrant and have no had to experience the kind of racism that me and my family had to when we moved to australia, to a place called geelong where we were one of the only 'coloured' people in the neighbourhood. there are two options that are given to us, basically - either assimilate entirely and pretend that we were 'white', or say, 'we will follow your laws and adopt your culture as best we can, but if it conflicts with our own than our own will prevail.' unfortunately the second attitude can get you into trouble, and so we sought out other people from the same culture around who we could feel safe.

so according to you, my family and i should be blamed for wanting to feel secure and feel as though we had an identity. and according to you, we were 'counter-revolutionary' for not wanting to change just to 'fit in'. rather than looking at what our individual views were, you would prefer to categorise us as 'reactionary immigrants'.


Again I am simply observing trends I see. Most "native" Britain's I know are either atheist, agnostics or just disinterested, where as just about every post 1970 immigrant I have met holds a belief in one of the various religious doctrines.

True I have not read or done a study of this, I have simply observed what I see as a social trend. You are ranting and raving at me for this observation yet you yourself have not showed any information to debunk my analysis. You too have simply referred to your observations on social trends.

actually, you're right. in australia, 17% of people are atheist or agnostic. in the uk, 14% are, in new zealand 11%. and since the majority of immigrants into australia are those originally from nz or the uk, it's true, you're right - immigrants are generally more religious. :rolleyes:





well... yes. and that includes the society you're living in too. selective, aren't you?


Read the fucking post you quoted -


My point is that perhaps we as Communists, Anarchists etc. need to make an effort to rid reactionary views from all elements of society, no matter where that society is from.

Selective in your reading aren't you?

so how about instead of targeting 'immigrants' you target 'all elements of society' , hmmm? why not start a thread on that!



Stifling diversity? People mixed and diversity was recognised. It just wasn't seen as a diversive thing. People could have different backgrounds but they were still basically the same as every other person.

And "celebrating diversity" what a load of poop. What is so different about an Asian person and I that needs to be "celebrated." We are when it comes down to it the same, human.

you're not saying, let's mix all cultures to get a 'human' culture. you're saying 'let's eradicate 'ethnic' cultures, and only have a 'western' one'.


Perhaps I should start celebrating the diversity of racists and sexists, because after all they do hold different views and therefore this diversity should be celebrated. Perhaps we can organise a function, the far left honours the cultural diversity of the Ku Klux Klan. Fuck that.

see, you're the one creating this 'us' and 'them' barrier. by saying that all other cultures are as far apart from your almighty 'western' one as the left is to the klu klux klan.


Again my observations. My Irish Catholic neighbour has told me as a joke how when he first came to Britain he thought all British Protestants were bastards. He know longer holds this view. I know this is not a wide survey, but it is what I have observed on a small scale and then applied to a larger scale.

:lol:


1. Would you prefer me to call every immigrant by name, give their lives history? I simple comment on what trends I observe.

yeah, and your observation of 'trends' [read: one, maybe two people?] has been great so far.


2. The thread is about immigrants. I would be derailing the thread if I talked about subjects which have nothing in common with the thread. If you wish talk about religious reactionary views in general, start a thread on it.

so you do actually have a problem with immigrants, and not just their reactionary views.


But ask yourself this, if we were discussing the reactionary views of the British working class, would you demand we also talked about the Australian or American working classes reactionary views? Of course not because the thread in question would be dealing with a specific topic, just like this one is.

if you were saying, the reactionary views of the british working class derive from the reactionary views of the american or australian working class, then yes, i would demand that we talked about it. since you claim that the problem you have with immigrants are their reactionary religious views, then yes, i demand we talk about it in this thread. otherwise, all you're doing is *****in' about those filthy immigrants, yo.


3. In future I will be more specific. You know I will say the African immigrant community in Sheffield according to my in depth study holds this particular view as a moral truth, where as the Brighton Hindus' hold this particular view as a moral truth except for Mr. so and so who believes this.

cheers.

[Amusing Scrotum]

i say 'seem to be saying' because i'm giving you a chance to defend yourself. i don't like to just make assumptions based on my interpretations. i also don't like to say 'you are saying this' or 'you are saying that' because it's authoritative and elitist and even if i feel that that is what you are saying i'd rather you admit to it then me tell you it. you might call it 'the key to blind idiocy', i call it 'being open-minded'

from now on i will say "you are saying this" if it makes you feel more loved

No you say "I seem to be saying" because you are making assumptions. If what you assume were true, you could just quote my posts instead, but I am not saying what you accuse me of saying and therefore you are just making crap up.


a lie. at least in australia.

What specific part is a lie. There were two statements of mine you quoted and therefore please indicate which one is a lie.


okay. but keep in mind that i do this in reference to sydney as i have no idea what it was like in the UK, and unlike you i don't like to make judgements on one particular society and apply it to a billion others just because they're similarly 'western' or 'eastern'

I apply my judgements to the rest of Britain, been as it follows the same immigration policy. I would expect some things in Britain to be similar to other first world countries, but been as they are different countries I wouldn't expect them to be that similar.


pre 1970 in australia, almost all immigrants were of European background due to WWII. many of them didn't speak english, and many held onto their cultures. they faced racism, and grouped together in communities of people from the same ethnocultural background in order to feel safe and secure. even 50 years on, you can still see that in sydney, eg. in leichhardt there is a huge italian community. those who abandoned their culture/language/etc and tried to become as 'australian' as possible were accepted and welcomed [to an extent, racism still lurked] and those who didn't were shunned. this is called cultural superiority, when one culture [the whole culture, not just the good parts] is placed above another culture [the whole culture, not just the bad parts].

Thats what happened in Australia, not what happened in Britain.


for a few years in the middle under whitlam people were much more accepting and embraced new cultures. but soon, racism emerged once more and continues to flourish. i'm taking it that you yourself are not an immigrant and have no had to experience the kind of racism that me and my family had to when we moved to australia, to a place called geelong where we were one of the only 'coloured' people in the neighbourhood. there are two options that are given to us, basically - either assimilate entirely and pretend that we were 'white', or say, 'we will follow your laws and adopt your culture as best we can, but if it conflicts with our own than our own will prevail.' unfortunately the second attitude can get you into trouble, and so we sought out other people from the same culture around who we could feel safe.

Not that it is of any relevance I am a third generation immigrant who is darker that you. So you can't really claim any moral superiority with regards an immigration debate.

Though your experience is not the kind of assimilation I was talking about in Britain pre 1970.


so according to you, my family and i should be blamed for wanting to feel secure and feel as though we had an identity. and according to you, we were 'counter-revolutionary' for not wanting to change just to 'fit in'. rather than looking at what our individual views were, you would prefer to categorise us as 'reactionary immigrants'

If you actually bothered to read my posts you would see this kind of cultural segregation is exactly what I oppose. I have said that assimilation where "cultural" groups mixed while keeping or adapting parts of the culture is what I support.

In the past "native" Britains adapted their culture and immigrants adapted their culture and therefore they became an assimilated united class.

The whole point of this thread was to say this is not happening now and therefore we are seeing a segregated class which is no longer united.


actually, you're right. in australia, 17% of people are atheist or agnostic. in the uk, 14% are, in new zealand 11%. and since the majority of immigrants into australia are those originally from nz or the uk, it's true, you're right - immigrants are generally more religious.

Therefore you Australians should try to help remove the reactionary parts of the British and New Zealand immigrants if you wish to see a united Australian working class. Especially religion.


so how about instead of targeting 'immigrants' you target 'all elements of society' , hmmm? why not start a thread on that!

Go on then start one. In this thread I wanted to talk about a specific area of society.

Maybe you would be offended if I started a thread about combatting certain reactionary ideas held by men?


you're not saying, let's mix all cultures to get a 'human' culture. you're saying 'let's eradicate 'ethnic' cultures, and only have a 'western' one'.

I'm saying that? .....please point to quote were I've called for everyone to adopt Western culture.


see, you're the one creating this 'us' and 'them' barrier. by saying that all other cultures are as far apart from your almighty 'western' one as the left is to the klu klux klan.

I'm doing no such thing. I don't wish to celebrate "Western" culture and I don't wish to celebrate "Eastern" culture. They're both shit.

I'll start celebrating culture, when theres a proletarian culture.


yeah, and your observation of 'trends' [read: one, maybe two people?] has been great so far.

I was giving an example. :rolleyes:

As I have said I have no conducted a survey and I have not talked to large amounts of people. However I have had personal contact with quite a few immigrants and I have seen how some immigrant communities live.

I would like to now just how your observations are superior? ....have you conducted a survey?


so you do actually have a problem with immigrants, and not just their reactionary views.

How did you get that, from this -


2. The thread is about immigrants. I would be derailing the thread if I talked about subjects which have nothing in common with the thread. If you wish talk about religious reactionary views in general, start a thread on it.

?

This thread was about certain reactionary views held by immigrants, whether they are detremental to a possible revolution and how they could be combatted. It was specific in its subject base, however if you wish to talk about these things in general, start a thread on it.


if you were saying, the reactionary views of the british working class derive from the reactionary views of the american or australian working class, then yes, i would demand that we talked about it. since you claim that the problem you have with immigrants are their reactionary religious views, then yes, i demand we talk about it in this thread. otherwise, all you're doing is *****in' about those filthy immigrants, yo.


Huh? .....that statement makes no sense. Can you re-phrase it please.


cheers.

:rolleyes:

[bombeverything]

:angry: :angry: :angry:


This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don't like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class.

If you don't "like" this conclusion then why are you defending it?


Religion in its nature goes against Communism and therefore religious people are unlikely to become revolutionaries.


Over the last fifty years in Britain there has been more immigration from deeply religious countries

What exactly would you define as a "deeply religious country" (as in its characteristics)? I am assuming that you are referring to countries where religion is openly implemented into their law, part of the political structure, etc. Yet name a country where this isn'tt the case? I would consider the United States to be a "deeply religious country".


It would be interesting to know whether this has happened in other countries and whether that maybe the increase in religious immigrants entering the working class has made the working class of today more like the working class of a century ago.

!

You might not wish to come across as racist but your posts certainly suggest it. This sounds like the old civilized argument to me, viewing immigrants as "backward". Talk about reaction.


Also I don't know if theory is the best forum, it seemed appropriate to me as its an attempt at devising a theory as to whether immigration is harming the chances of creating a revolutionary proletariat.

Scratch it. The answer is no. The working class is just that: the working class. Borders play no role. The implications of this post are a bit of a concern, although if you have addressed some of these issues I apologise as I haven't had time to read the entire post.


Where am I justifying racism, I'm asking a serious question here as to the consequences of immigration. I'm not saying we should go out and club immigrants over the head because they may be holding back the revolution, I'm saying that maybe we need to try and work with them promoting Communism.

No, but you seem to be suggesting that they should "stick with their own" or else you wouldn't have brought up the immigration issue at all.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If you don't "like" this conclusion then why are you defending it?

If I have observed something which I think is true, it would be silly of me not to express this opinion.

Maybe I don't like the earth being round, but I'll still defend that conclusion.


What exactly would you define as a "deeply religious country" (as in its characteristics)? I am assuming that you are referring to countries where religion is openly implemented into their law, part of the political structure, etc. Yet name a country where this isn'tt the case? I would consider the United States to be a "deeply religious country".

True, no country is completely secular, France is probably the most secular country in the world right now.

However this does not mean that all countries have the same amount of religious influence. Europe is more secular than America, America is probably as secular if not more secular than South America and South America is likely more secular than either Africa or the Middle East.

Certain parts of the world, are in my opinion, far more religious than other parts. Are you saying this is not a fair statement?


!

You might not wish to come across as racist but your posts certainly suggest it. This sounds like the old civilized argument to me, viewing immigrants as "backward". Talk about reaction.

Under developed countries tend to have less progressive ideas. I believe there is a direct link between development and progressiveness.

Perhaps I am making the "old civilised" argument, I certainly make it earlier in this thread -


Now you can say what I say reeks of "cultural superiority" until your blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that Western countries in general are more culturally advanced than Middle Eastern ones. The same way I would say it is a fact that Middle Eastern countries around the 8th century were culturally superior over European countries.

As I have said development doesn't happen equally, and by chance, luck, God or witchcraft it happens that at this moment in time Western nations are on "top of the pile."

Though this line of argument seems more like common sense to me.


Scratch it. The answer is no. The working class is just that: the working class. Borders play no role. The implications of this post are a bit of a concern, although if you have addressed some of these issues I apologise as I haven't had time to read the entire post.

I've addressed pretty much all of your points already. Therefore it would be advisable for you to read the whole thread before throwing around terms like racism.


No, but you seem to be suggesting that they should "stick with their own" or else you wouldn't have brought up the immigration issue at all.

What?

I have said for there to be a revolution we need a united working class and at the moment multi culturalism seems to be breeding segregation and therefore is stopping unity.

My point is not whether we should have immigrants or not, rather its how can we best assimilate immigrant communities into society and then the working class movement.

I've explained this countless times in this thread, but people still don't seem to be reading what I am saying. In fact the topic in this thread was answered pretty quickly by the first person who tried to be sensible about this and not just throw demeaning words around.

Ah well, I guess certain things obviously can't be criticised by leftists because that would be "insensitive" of us.

[bombeverything]

If I have observed something which I think is true, it would be silly of me not to express this opinion.

Maybe I don't like the earth being round, but I'll still defend that conclusion

You are acting as if your post was only a suggestion rather than a conclusion. Why wouldn't anyone like the earth being round? Issues dealing with people and society are very different, and much more complex. Hence the opposition to your conclusions.


True, no country is completely secular, France is probably the most secular country in the world right now.

However this does not mean that all countries have the same amount of religious influence. Europe is more secular than America, America is probably as secular if not more secular than South America and South America is likely more secular than either Africa or the Middle East.

I never said that they did. However I feel the issue is irrelevant.


Certain parts of the world, are in my opinion, far more religious than other parts. Are you saying this is not a fair statement?

Yes but deciding how much of this is religion per se, and how much is blatant government control is debatable. The working class face obstacles in every country, yet our economic power remains the same. We share a common history, and creating divisions amongst the working class can only play into the hands of the capitalists.


Under developed countries tend to have less progressive ideas. I believe there is a direct link between development and progressiveness.

Perhaps I am making the "old civilised" argument, I certainly make it earlier in this thread -

Yeah I thought so. I don't believe that is entirely correct, however that is another issue. Western countries such as the United States are often thought of as "civilised" nations, yet I would hardly consider them progressive as such. In fact, it seems that in many underdeveloped countries there is alot of action and revolutionary activity aimed towards radical change.

Though I guess it depends on what you mean by progressive. Some might view what you see as "civilised" as being "uncivilised". Thus objectively there is no such thing. There are only different cultures. Your apparent lack of tolerance is what I am concerned with, and the reason that I responded to your post.


I've addressed pretty much all of your points already. Therefore it would be advisable for you to read the whole thread before throwing around terms like racism.

I read enough. I believe your post is racist.


I have said for there to be a revolution we need a united working class and at the moment multi culturalism seems to be breeding segregation and therefore is stopping unity.

You really believe it is multi-culturalism that is causing segregation and unity? Multi-culturalism doesn't even exist (except maybe in relation to food!?).


My point is not whether we should have immigrants or not, rather its how can we best assimilate immigrant communities into society and then the working class movement.

I am opposed to assimilation as it assumes the superiority of one culture over another. Working class immigrants have the right to live the way that they want to, rather than having it defined by ignorant and dogmatic westerners.


I've explained this countless times in this thread, but people still don't seem to be reading what I am saying. In fact the topic in this thread was answered pretty quickly by the first person who tried to be sensible about this and not just throw demeaning words around.

I have nothing against you, but your post angered me. I do not mean to attack you.


Ah well, I guess certain things obviously can't be criticised by leftists because that would be "insensitive" of us.

You can criticise whatever you want; however you can't simply expect us all to agree with you.

[rioters bloc]

No you say "I seem to be saying" because you are making assumptions. If what you assume were true, you could just quote my posts instead, but I am not saying what you accuse me of saying and therefore you are just making crap up.

the thing is, see, quoting posts and interpreting them are entirely different things. my interpretation may differ from what you intended your post to mean. thus, i am giving you a chance to explain yourself.


What specific part is a lie. There were two statements of mine you quoted and therefore please indicate which one is a lie.

both. in australia, there are approximately the same number of agnostic/atheist immigrants as there are agnostic/atheist non-immigrants. also, in australia, religion is growing, not declining, according to the 1996 census compared to the 2001 one. there'll be another one next year, perhaps it will show different. but for now, that's the most recent trend.


I apply my judgements to the rest of Britain, been as it follows the same immigration policy. I would expect some things in Britain to be similar to other first world countries, but been as they are different countries I wouldn't expect them to be that similar.

perhaps in britain, as it is smaller in land mass, that can be said to be true [although not from what i've heard from people in various parts of britain. but as i don't live there, i'll take what you say to be true.] it seems however that you do expect this trend to apply to other countries as well... and not even just 'first world' as this thread is about immigrants, and immigrants are people who migrate to any country in the world.


Not that it is of any relevance I am a third generation immigrant who is darker that you. So you can't really claim any moral superiority with regards an immigration debate.

Though your experience is not the kind of assimilation I was talking about in Britain pre 1970.

i'm not claiming moral superiority. i'm talking about my experiences, and my family's experiences. since you are third generation, you most likely did not face similar barriers in terms of language and culture, thus you most likely did not experience discrimination or marginalisation to the same extent that we did. i'm not saying this to get sympathy votes, i'm saying this because my opinions are a direct result of my experiences.

what kind of assimilation are you talking about, then? assimilation here has extremely negative connotations i think because of the forced assimilation of indegenous Australians during much of the 20th century.


If you actually bothered to read my posts you would see this kind of cultural segregation is exactly what I oppose. I have said that assimilation where "cultural" groups mixed while keeping or adapting parts of the culture is what I support.

In the past "native" Britains adapted their culture and immigrants adapted their culture and therefore they became an assimilated united class.

The whole point of this thread was to say this is not happening now and therefore we are seeing a segregated class which is no longer united.

for one, i think you have a very idealised and romanticised view of how things were 'in the past'. for another, i have been reading your posts, and i disagree with them. you do not support multi-culturalism. multi-culturalism is 'mixing whilst keeping or adapting parts of their culture'.


Maybe you would be offended if I started a thread about combatting certain reactionary ideas held by men?

i would, if you stereotyped men and pretended that they were one homogenous group and that all men held reactionary ideas.


I'm saying that? .....please point to quote were I've called for everyone to adopt Western culture.


I'm doing no such thing. I don't wish to celebrate "Western" culture and I don't wish to celebrate "Eastern" culture. They're both shit.

I'll start celebrating culture, when theres a proletarian culture.

well, if you say that immigrants are mostly from 'backwards' countries, of which you refer to countries in the middle east, or other 'eastern' countries, or third world countries, and then you say that 'western' countries are much more progressive, and then you say that immigrants should assimilate into western countries and adopt their views, you are saying that they should adopt western culture. because culture is derived from values.

if you want a proletarian culture then say proletarian instead of this 'backwards/progressive' bullshit.


I would like to now just how your observations are superior? ....have you conducted a survey?

not personally. but i am currently doing a degree in 'social inquiry' which is based in surveys and investigations into societal trends, and we analyse a lot of these investigations in class. that's where i get my information.



[b]if you were saying, the reactionary views of the british working class derive from the reactionary views of the american or australian working class, then yes, i would demand that we talked about it. since you claim that the problem you have with immigrants are their reactionary religious views, then yes, i demand we talk about it in this thread. otherwise, all you're doing is *****in' about those filthy immigrants, yo.


Huh? .....that statement makes no sense. Can you re-phrase it please.

you said



But ask yourself this, if we were discussing the reactionary views of the British working class, would you demand we also talked about the Australian or American working classes reactionary views? Of course not because the thread in question would be dealing with a specific topic, just like this one is.

you are saying that the problem with immigrants, is their reactionary views. thus, i say that if we are to talk about 'the problem with immigrants', we cannot simply discuss them as immigrants, but specifically about 'immigrants with reactionary views'. not all immigrants.

hence, if you were to say that the problem with 'reactionary british views' was that they originated from reactionary australian/american views, then yes, i would demand that we talk about british views in relation to the latter, as it is then clear that reactionary british views do not exist in a vacuum, but are the result of something else.

[Amusing Scrotum]

to bombeverything -


You are acting as if your post was only a suggestion rather than a conclusion. Why wouldn't anyone like the earth being round? Issues dealing with people and society are very different, and much more complex. Hence the opposition to your conclusions.

Well I suppose my post is a conclusion of sorts. Though I've said that this conclusion is based on no more than my observations. All I've done is observed certain trends that are happening where I live and commented on them. I have not claimed that my observations are an objective truth.

As for why people wouldn't like the earth being round, well, I was just using that as an example, though I suspect some people would prefer an oval or square world.


I never said that they did. However I feel the issue is irrelevant.

How is this irrelevant, you said -


What exactly would you define as a "deeply religious country" (as in its characteristics)? I am assuming that you are referring to countries where religion is openly implemented into their law, part of the political structure, etc. Yet name a country where this isn'tt the case? I would consider the United States to be a "deeply religious country".

To which I responded -


True, no country is completely secular, France is probably the most secular country in the world right now.

However this does not mean that all countries have the same amount of religious influence. Europe is more secular than America, America is probably as secular if not more secular than South America and South America is likely more secular than either Africa or the Middle East.

Certain parts of the world, are in my opinion, far more religious than other parts. Are you saying this is not a fair statement?


I was just trying to tell you what I considered deeply religious countries and continents and what I considered more secular countries and continents. Something you requested I do.


Yes but deciding how much of this is religion per se, and how much is blatant government control is debatable. The working class face obstacles in every country, yet our economic power remains the same. We share a common history, and creating divisions amongst the working class can only play into the hands of the capitalists.

How am I creating divisions between the working class? .....I have said repeatedly in this thread that I absolutely oppose things that are obstacles to working class unity, namely cultural segregation.

Therefore all I am saying is that if immigrants bring cultural traditions which oppose working class unity, we should oppose these cultural traditions just like we would oppose the cultural traditions of the "native" working class that hinder working class unity.


Yeah I thought so. I don't believe that is entirely correct, however that is another issue. Western countries such as the United States are often thought of as "civilised" nations, yet I would hardly consider them progressive as such. In fact, it seems that in many underdeveloped countries there is alot of action and revolutionary activity aimed towards radical change.

If you were to ask me which country, America or Iran, was more progressive and civilised, I would say America. That doesn't mean America is either progressive or civilised, it just means its more so than Iran. Now development is obviously a factor in this, a huge one in my opinion.

As for revolutionary activity in the underdeveloped world, well of course in oppressed nations there are going to be liberation struggles, bourgeois revolutions if you want their correct term.

However you shouldn't automatically consider them to be socially progressive just because they oppose foreign capital. Sure they are economically progressive, but they are generally not more socially progressive than the first world.

An example of this would be China post revolution, it was economically progressive, yet it was pretty backward socially. For instance being gay was considered a mental problem until 2001 and gay people were put in prison. Cuba also had a similar policy up until about 1979. Therefore for all the economic progressiveness these countries had, compared to the developed world, socially they were less progressive.


Though I guess it depends on what you mean by progressive. Some might view what you see as "civilised" as being "uncivilised". Thus objectively there is no such thing. There are only different cultures. Your apparent lack of tolerance is what I am concerned with, and the reason that I responded to your post.

Yes I am intolerant when it comes to cultures that promote wife beating and sexism or female circumcision. These are things I consider incredibly un civilised and not progressive at all.

Now that does not mean these things are not present in "western" culture, however these things happen less frequently because at this point in history the "west" is more progressive than the "east." It hasn't always been this way and in the future it will probably change again, but at this point in time "western" culture in general is more progressive.

Of course if the Bible bashers get their way, wife beating, gay bashing etc. will all make a huge comeback. Therefore I am just as intolerant of these Bible bashing evangelical fucks, as I am any other who promotes these things.

Would you prefer me to promote these things in the name of cultural diversity and tolerance?


I read enough. I believe your post is racist.

If it is racist, then report it. If you really are anti-racist, then surely you would challenge and report what you see as racism, or do you prefer to tolerate racism?

I sure as fuck don't think we should tolerate racism nor do I think that any other reactionary "ism" should be tolerated.


You really believe it is multi-culturalism that is causing segregation and unity? Multi-culturalism doesn't even exist (except maybe in relation to food!?).

How can you possibly have segregation and unity at the same time?

Multi culturalism as is being followed as an immigration policy in Britain is creating segregation. Not just between the "native" working class and immigrants, but in immigrant communities as well. Recently in Birmingham, if memory serves me correctly, there were riots between the African-Caribbean community and the Muslim community.

Why is this happening? .....well perhaps because both communities are segregated from each other?

If people don't mix, then they are more likely to think less of "cultures" with which they have no experience. For instance, pre 1970 whenever Oswald Mosley and his Fascist Party turned up, they would be met with opposition from both the black and white working class, a united front.

Why did this happen?.....maybe because both black and white people lived in the same community and therefore when he said "all black people are horrible and inferior." The white working class person having lived near and met black people would think "what a load of shit" and protest against it. Really the only support Mosley ever got was from the middle class which generally never met with any black people, never mind becoming friends with black people.

However in present day Britain the BNP is getting huge support from parts of the working class, because less immigrants are living in white working class communities, instead they are living in separate segregated communities. So now when Nick Griffin (BNP leader) says "all immigrants are scroungers who are getting rich off the taxpayers money." The white working class man having rarely encountered immigrants, will not think "hang on, my immigrant neighbour is just as poor as me." Instead, he will believe the BNP's lies.

Do you get where I am coming from now? ....because in my opinion there has to be a reason why the British racists are now getting more support than ever from the "native" working class.


I am opposed to assimilation as it assumes the superiority of one culture over another. Working class immigrants have the right to live the way that they want to, rather than having it defined by ignorant and dogmatic westerners.

Proper assimilation does not promote superiority, it promotes co-operation and co-existence between different cultures. This often means that both cultures improve and become more progressive. It also means the more reactionary aspects of either culture are binned.

You seem to propose segregation because it lets people keep complete "cultural independence." I don't like your form of tolerance because it breeds intolerance between different cultures.

You see for people to co-exist, certain reactionary beliefs have be challenged and eradicated on both sides. Which can be an unpleasant thing. However the result is that these reactionary views go away, though you seem to disapprove of this process because it is "intolerant." However I believe that there should be no tolerance for reactionary views, whether they are part of someones "culture" or not.


I have nothing against you, but your post angered me. I do not mean to attack you.


So saying that my post is racist and therefore by extension that I'm a racist, you are not attacking me?


You can criticise whatever you want; however you can't simply expect us all to agree with you.

Of course I expect people to disagree with me, but thats not what you are doing. You are just throwing around demeaning tags and not actually offering an sensible opinion on the subject.

If you support multi culturalism (segregation in a nicer package) then explain why you support it. Calling me names does not make for a constructive debate.

To rioters bloc -


the thing is, see, quoting posts and interpreting them are entirely different things. my interpretation may differ from what you intended your post to mean. thus, i am giving you a chance to explain yourself.

True there is a degree of interpretation involved in everything. However I have explained in numerous posts what I mean and still you make baseless accusations. At some point you have to point to evidence, which in this case comes in the form of posts, to explain your accusations. So far you have not pointed to any evidence that supports your claims of racism, because there isn't any.


both. in australia, there are approximately the same number of agnostic/atheist immigrants as there are agnostic/atheist non-immigrants. also, in australia, religion is growing, not declining, according to the 1996 census compared to the 2001 one. there'll be another one next year, perhaps it will show different. but for now, that's the most recent trend.

Okay that statement does not apply to Australia. Though as far as I know it does apply to the first world in general and it was meant to apply to the first world in general.


perhaps in britain, as it is smaller in land mass, that can be said to be true [although not from what i've heard from people in various parts of britain. but as i don't live there, i'll take what you say to be true.] it seems however that you do expect this trend to apply to other countries as well... and not even just 'first world' as this thread is about immigrants, and immigrants are people who migrate to any country in the world.

I suppose I expect that this trend may well be similar to trends in Europe and possibly Australia and America. Though I don't think I've said anywhere that I expect the situation in Britain to be exactly the same as every other country in the world.

Actually my first post in this thread deals with what you just said. Here it is -


Now these things seem a very good basis on which to build a Communist society. However it occurred to that more and more of the Western proletariat is being made up of immigrants. I don't know the exact figures but I'd guess that there are far more immigrants in the working class than the middle and upper class. And a lot of these immigrants come from countries, if I borrow another Redstar phrase, "That are closer to the 11th century than the 21st."

This leads me to a conclusion that I myself don't like, that immigration may be detrimental to creating a revolutionary working class. Over the last fifty years in Britain there has been more immigration from deeply religious countries and there has also been a reduction in labour movements. This is probably more a coincidence than a trend, but it would be interesting to know whether this has happened in other countries and whether that maybe the increase in religious immigrants entering the working class has made the working class of today more like the working class of a century ago.

Again your interpretation, is completely at odds with the evidence.


i'm not claiming moral superiority. i'm talking about my experiences, and my family's experiences. since you are third generation, you most likely did not face similar barriers in terms of language and culture, thus you most likely did not experience discrimination or marginalisation to the same extent that we did. i'm not saying this to get sympathy votes, i'm saying this because my opinions are a direct result of my experiences.

Fair enough. Obviously language is a barrier, but what exactly is so different about your culture that makes bog standard integration impossible?


what kind of assimilation are you talking about, then? assimilation here has extremely negative connotations i think because of the forced assimilation of indegenous Australians during much of the 20th century.

You're thinking of forced assimilation, I'm thinking of the kind of assimilation where integration and co-existence happen.

Actually I just looked up assimilation in the on line dictionary -


assimilation.

4. The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assimilation)

This isn't actually what I thought the definition of the word was. In light of this discovery, I believe integration is a better term for what I propose and what I think happened in Britain pre 1970.


integration.

2. The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=integration)


for one, i think you have a very idealised and romanticised view of how things were 'in the past'. for another, i have been reading your posts, and i disagree with them. you do not support multi-culturalism. multi-culturalism is 'mixing whilst keeping or adapting parts of their culture'.

Perhaps I do have a "romanticised" view of the past, but from what I've seen and read integration by immigrants seemed to happen a lot better in the past.

As for not supporting "multi culturalism." I have same plenty of times that I don't support the policy of multi culturalism which promotes segregation. I support co-existence, which generally means all sides have to adapt parts of their culture.


i would, if you stereotyped men and pretended that they were one homogenous group and that all men held reactionary ideas.

Very well then, but I have not stereotyped immigrants in this thread. I've been reasonably specific in that I've talked about immigrants from under developed countries that hold deeply religious views.


well, if you say that immigrants are mostly from 'backwards' countries, of which you refer to countries in the middle east, or other 'eastern' countries, or third world countries, and then you say that 'western' countries are much more progressive, and then you say that immigrants should assimilate into western countries and adopt their views, you are [by deductive reasoning] saying that they should adopt western culture. because culture is derived from values.

I suppose I am saying that immigrants should adopt the more progressive parts of Western culture. It is at the moment slightly more progressive than Eastern culture.

That does not mean that I believe all immigrants should start watching the football or betting on the horses, it means that the areas of western culture that are more progressive, womens rights, gay rights, should be accepted.

Immigrants from under developed countries can keep their customs, as long as these customs don't contradict certain western customs that are more progressive than the customs from the countries they come from.

For instance, an Iranian immigrant can choose not to drink for all I care, but if he starts thinking that the extreme elements of the Qu'ran, the sexism, the homophobia etc. can be upheld in Britain like they are upheld in Iran, then I'm going to have a huge problem. The religious nut jobs have been dead and bured in most of Europe for a long time, and I don't want to see their barbaric cutoms reappear under any banner, be it Christianity, Islam or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


if you want a proletarian culture then say proletarian instead of this 'backwards/progressive' bullshit.

Personally I believe western culture as it is now, is closer to proletarian culture than present day eastern culture. In future this could change. However been as proletarian culture is tremendously progressive, it stands to reason what we have now in the west is closer to it, because western culture is slightly more progressive than eastern culture.

What is it you so despise about the words "progressive" and "backwards"?


not personally. but i am currently doing a degree in 'social inquiry' which is based in surveys and investigations into societal trends, and we analyse a lot of these investigations in class. that's where i get my information.

Well you've only pointed to the census so far, so you're obviously not making the most of your "superior" knowledge. You have just made observations, just like I have.


you are saying that the problem with immigrants, is their reactionary views. thus, i say that if we are to talk about 'the problem with immigrants', we cannot simply discuss them as immigrants, but specifically about 'immigrants with reactionary views'. not all immigrants.

I have said that immigrants who have come from deeply religious countries, will likely hold deeply religious views, which are inherently reactionary.

If you assume this applies to every immigrant, then that is your problem not mine.


hence, if you were to say that the problem with 'reactionary british views' was that they originated from reactionary australian/american views, then yes, i would demand that we talk about british views in relation to the latter, as it is then clear that reactionary british views do not exist in a vacuum, but are the result of something else.

I still don't understand what you are saying here.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm not saying that these people are not intelligent, I am saying that these countries generally hold far more backward social views. Okay Britain is no paradise, but if we use gay people as an example, then Britain grudgingly or not accepts gay people and has some gay rights. Not nearly enough, but some. Now many third world countries have no gay rights at all, admitting your gay is not just frowned upon, its dangerous.

This has nothing to do with intelligence, after all there have been many intelligent religious fundamentalists, this is about progressive social views which are not a sign of intelligence.


Or a bout stereo typing people. There are plenty of religious people with the same demeanor as any islamist in so called "advanced countries" last time I checked the US was full of people who don't accept gay rights either.

[tatu]

Armchair Socialism, you seem to be insinuating that religious immigrants might be a hurdle or some sort of buffer that may add some slow down to the revolution, when the time eventually comes, which it will. You say that “they will need to be atheists”, but when exactly will they need to become atheists? I’m sure if you have a flag flying in support of Cuba you will surely realise that some Religious Cubans hold Che to be one of their saints, almost, they hold Che dear to their hearts. Do they have a problem with the Cuban revolution?

As Lenin states in Socialism and Religion:

"It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods."

We need to understand that religious tendencies cannot be eradicated by simply telling people that they shouldn’t be religious! The more you seek to dictate to religious folk the more you throw petrol on their flames of belief!

"Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church." - Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[Amusing Scrotum]

Or a bout stereo typing people. There are plenty of religious people with the same demeanor as any islamist in so called "advanced countries" last time I checked the US was full of people who don't accept gay rights either.

I don't dispute that there are religious crackpots in the advanced world. However they are less in number (certainly in Europe) and don't get what they want a lot of the time.

The evangelicals have denounced even Bush a few times, if this were to happen in some countries, Bush would have been executed.

Do you disagree with this?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Armchair Socialism, you seem to be insinuating that religious immigrants might be a hurdle or some sort of buffer that may add some slow down to the revolution, when the time eventually comes, which it will. You say that “they will need to be atheists”, but when exactly will they need to become atheists?

Well been as "the time" has not yet come, we have no idea what a revolutionary proletariat will "look like." I suspect they will need to be Communists and atheism is a pretty important part of Communism.

Obviously a Leninist like yourself has pretty much given up on the proletariat becoming revolutionary, all you want is for them to accept the professional revolutionaries. For this task the proletariat wouldn't need to become Communists, because the "Leninist way" will never create Communism.


I’m sure if you have a flag flying in support of Cuba you will surely realise that some Religious Cubans hold Che to be one of their saints, almost, they hold Che dear to their hearts. Do they have a problem with the Cuban revolution?

Is this what you want the revolution to become? .....the creation of new Gods and new religions. This is certainly not what I want the revolution to be about and if I did meet a Cuban or anyone who thought of Che as a Saint, I would tell them that they were being fucking stupid.


As Lenin states in Socialism and Religion:

'Cause Lenin said it, it's gotta' be true. :rolleyes:


"It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods."

True, but good propaganda, no science actually and development can go along way to dispel silly superstitions. When the earth was proven to be round, people stopped believing it was flat.


We need to understand that religious tendencies cannot be eradicated by simply telling people that they shouldn’t be religious! The more you seek to dictate to religious folk the more you throw petrol on their flames of belief!

Of course belief is a difficult thing to eradicate. However at one point in time people believed they could keep slaves, this was eradicated. So why can't we hope to eradicate idiotic ideas about "sorcerers in the sky" too?


Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule.

Well if Lenin wants everyone to become Socialists, surely we can't allow people to keep their religion private. We need to challenge it, because as Lenin himself says "to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule." I mean what is the point in creating a Socialist or even a Communist society if people aren't Socialists?


Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church.

You see to stop the crimes of religion, you need to get rid of religion. Rip down the Mosques, burn down the Churches, put the Priests on trial for their crimes against humanity. If you want to get rid of something, you can't tolerate it.

Obviously Lenin wasn't to fussed about religion and therefore chose not to deal with it. Look where it got him, after World War Two the state rebuilt the Churches, the Pope played a huge part in solidarity and Gorbachev was a Christian.

Great policy Lenin puts forward here. :lol:


Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

I demand complete destruction of both the state and the Church and I am part of the Socialist proletariat.

Anyway, how exactly can the Church become "modern." ......install the internet? :lol:

I'll tell you what Lenin did manage to create, Leninism, a new religion and your posting of scripture here as if its going to change my opinion is hilarious. I guess I've committed an act of blasphemy by challenging Lenin's immortal words. :o :lol:

[bombeverything]

Well I suppose my post is a conclusion of sorts.

Ok, I thought so.


How is this irrelevant, you said -

Sorry I meant the whole "immigration being a threat to the working class" argument. All reactionary views are a threat to the working class?


I was just trying to tell you what I considered deeply religious countries and continents and what I considered more secular countries and continents. Something you requested I do.

Ok, but how do these things inhibit the revolutionary potential of the workers in the less secular country any more than other ruling class ideology would inhibit those in secular countries? Patriotism is just as powerful as religion.


How am I creating divisions between the working class? .....I have said repeatedly in this thread that I absolutely oppose things that are obstacles to working class unity, namely cultural segregation.

Your promoting assimilation, which I believe focuses way too much on curbing, rather than embracing difference. Yet you do not concern yourself with this in relation to other “differences” such as gender, sexuality, age, etc. You seem to be blaming people for wanting to preserve minority cultures in the face of western imperialism.


Therefore all I am saying is that if immigrants bring cultural traditions which oppose working class unity, we should oppose these cultural traditions just like we would oppose the cultural traditions of the "native" working class that hinder working class unity.

But who would decide which of these traditions are related to religious dogma, state control, capitalism itself, or culture? These things are all interrelated. Focusing on cultural differences will result in exclusion of those who are seen as being culturally inferior. We need to learn from each other, rather than assuming cultural superiority of any kind


If you were to ask me which country, America or Iran, was more progressive and civilised, I would say America.

See, I would disagree with that. Your idea of the United States as more progressive and civilised than Iran is based on a westernised view of what constitutes basic human rights. I am not suggesting that Iran is progressive at all, or that I am not opposed to these practices, however I recognise that a persons idea of civilization is itself shaped by their social environment. We are both addressing these issues from a western point of view -- something which cannot simply be ignored.


However you shouldn't automatically consider them to be socially progressive just because they oppose foreign capital. Sure they are economically progressive, but they are generally not more socially progressive than the first world.

Yes, but I would argue that they are not much more economically progressive either. As you mentioned they are bourgeois revolutions, which ultimately leave the class system untouched. I would argue that social and economic progression are interrelated, as one cannot really exist without the other (you seem to be suggesting this as well). The issue is what we believe to be the cause of the problem. You seem to see culture as the problem, rather than the divisive wage system itself.


If it is racist, then report it. If you really are anti-racist, then surely you would challenge and report what you see as racism, or do you prefer to tolerate racism?

I sure as fuck don't think we should tolerate racism nor do I think that any other reactionary "ism" should be tolerated.

Obviously I don't think that you are really a racist. Focusing on cultural issues, however, seems to me to be merely a step up from a focus on so-called "racial" issues. But maybe I am overreacting?


Why is this happening? .....well perhaps because both communities are segregated from each other?

The whole policy is itself reactionary, not just the British version of it. When did I say I supported multiculturalism?


You seem to propose segregation because it lets people keep complete "cultural independence." I don't like your form of tolerance because it breeds intolerance between different cultures.

Not at all as I do not believe that this is possible, let alone desirable. However I do believe in preserving diversity, which you seem to want to eliminate. I do not view debate and difference as a negative thing. In fact, conflict is necessary for progress.

And I believe I am once again in an argument over terminology, however.

:sigh:


You see for people to co-exist, certain reactionary beliefs have be challenged and eradicated on both sides. Which can be an unpleasant thing. However the result is that these reactionary views go away, though you seem to disapprove of this process because it is "intolerant." However I believe that there should be no tolerance for reactionary views, whether they are part of someones "culture" or not.

I don't disapprove of this process as this would obviously happen "naturally" as people have to make decisions as a group. It is your focus on culture that I have an issue with, not the process.


So saying that my post is racist and therefore by extension that I'm a racist, you are not attacking me?

Yeah sorry about that.


If you support multi culturalism (segregation in a nicer package) then explain why you support it. Calling me names does not make for a constructive debate.

I don't support multiculturalism or assimilation. I just disagree that immigration is a threat to international working class.

[tatu]

Is this what you want the revolution to become?

No, not at all. I am merely stating that if communists are true to themselves, and to the people, and fulfil their revolutionary duties to proles, then whether the proles are religious or not then they will not be any type of obstacle for us to be concerned about. Aslong as people can see that you're fighting for what is right then surely we communists have nothing to tremble about.


True, but good propaganda, no science actually and development can go along way to dispel silly superstitions. When the earth was proven to be round, people stopped believing it was flat.

What? Instantly? NO, I’m sure that took quite some convincing.

Okay, I understand that you aren't tolerant of religious practices whatsoever. But, please, and I do say please, tell me how you or anyone else is going to relieve the billions of people from their religious beliefs? Beat it out of them? Religion, faith and belief are powerful things. Lenin was not saying that we must be tolerant of religion for all time but that we must progressively ease it out if history starting with our party, the Communist party.

As for Lenin issue.. I’ll leave that for another thread.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Sorry I meant the whole "immigration being a threat to the working class" argument. All reactionary views are a threat to the working class?

I'm not saying that all reactionary views aren't a threat to working class unity. I am saying that it seems to me that little attention is payed to the reactionary views that some immigrants hold. Theres seems to be an un written rule that says western leftists can't comment on reactionary views within eastern culture. This is a kind of "reverse racism" and is not conducive to stopping reactionary views.


Ok, but how do these things inhibit the revolutionary potential of the workers in the less secular country any more than other ruling class ideology would inhibit those in secular countries? Patriotism is just as powerful as religion.

Surely you understand that for someone to even start thinking like a Communist they need to abandon all forms of superstition. We don't want to replace "belief in religion" with "belief in Communism." We need to destroy belief before we can possibly hope to create a revolutionary proletariat.

Therefore it stands to reason a largely atheist working class is half way towards becoming revolutionary and secular countries tend to produce more atheists.

As for patriotism, well thats an easier thing to combat. There are mountains of proof discrediting the idea that one country is particularly unique and special, which become more effective when said country is "fucking up."

Religion however is a whole other kind of belief, even more irrational than patriotism and much harder to destroy.


Your promoting assimilation, which I believe focuses way too much on curbing, rather than embracing difference. Yet you do not concern yourself with this in relation to other “differences” such as gender, sexuality, age, etc. You seem to be blaming people for wanting to preserve minority cultures in the face of western imperialism.

I actually found in an earlier post that "assimilation" is not what I am promoting, a better word for what I propose is integration.


integration

2. The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=integration)

As for the idea that I don't wish to "embrace difference" well that is probably true. "Cultural diversity" is on the whole not a great thing and promoting it is promoting superiority and will only end up dividing those we wish to unite.

Though I don't get what you mean when you say "Yet you do not concern yourself with this in relation to other “differences” such as gender, sexuality, age, etc." Could you explain what you meant here?

As for your comment "You seem to be blaming people for wanting to preserve minority cultures in the face of western imperialism." Well I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "western imperialism" in this context.

If you mean that there are people who wish to avoid the "decadent aspects of western culture" and that this is a good thing. I suggest you are very wrong, because here you are implying that somehow if the under developed parts of the word had developed Capitalism first, they would have made a different version, nicer and cleaner. This is a silly line of thought, as modern Capitalism whether it was developed by the "east" or the "west" would be almost exactly the same, minor a few cosmetic differences.

Therefore if you are suggesting that we should encourage people to keep "feudal practises" you are really delaying the speed with which the third world will develop modern Capitalism. Because whether you like it or not, puritanical morals have no place in modern Capitalism and therefore if a country is ever to reach Communism it must first develop modern Capitalism and all the "decadence" that goes with it.

In short a few McDonald's, sex shops and pubs in the third world are a good thing. They constitute progress and whether you, they or anyone else likes it, progress will happen and *****ing about it and trying to stop it is pointless.


But who would decide which of these traditions are related to religious dogma, state control, capitalism itself, or culture? These things are all interrelated. Focusing on cultural differences will result in exclusion of those who are seen as being culturally inferior. We need to learn from each other, rather than assuming cultural superiority of any kind

Most of the really reactionary parts of any culture come from Religion and therefore its pretty safe to assume religious dogma is a major culprit.

Also people tend to know which reactionary parts are religious in nature because they're written in the "holy books" for everyone to see.

As for the reactionary elements that stem from Capitalism, well, been as most of the "under developed" world has not reached modern Capitalism and some parts are actually feudal in nature. Its also pretty safe to assume that modern Capitalism is not to blame and would actually improve many existing cultures, because Capitalism like every other social order before it is an advancement on the previous social order and is therefore more progressive.

This may be "cultural superiority" of sorts, but I think its a given that greater development brings with it more progressive social views and I don't really think thats open to dispute.


See, I would disagree with that. Your idea of the United States as more progressive and civilised than Iran is based on a westernised view of what constitutes basic human rights. I am not suggesting that Iran is progressive at all, or that I am not opposed to these practises, however I recognise that a persons idea of civilization is itself shaped by their social environment. We are both addressing these issues from a western point of view -- something which cannot simply be ignored.

Addressing things from a western point of view? ....bullcrap.

We are addressing things from the point of view that we live in modern Capitalist societies where as Iran is a proto Capitalist, maybe even feudal society. Therefore it stands to reason that been as our societies are more developed, we have more progressive views in general.

Therefore what an average "westerner" considers basic human rights is more progressive than what an average Iranian considers basic human rights. The same way that if Iran was Communist their average citizens view of basic human rights would be far superior to the views of an average person in a Capitalist society.

Development brings with it more progressive social views and the idea that its an east west thing is liberal nonsense.


Yes, but I would argue that they are not much more economically progressive either. As you mentioned they are bourgeois revolutions, which ultimately leave the class system untouched. I would argue that social and economic progression are interrelated, as one cannot really exist without the other (you seem to be suggesting this as well). The issue is what we believe to be the cause of the problem. You seem to see culture as the problem, rather than the divisive wage system itself.

They're economically progressive in that they create a native bourgeois which can better develop modern Capitalism. In many cases they even destroy the previous feudal class structure of the country. Thats relatively progressive economically.

I also don't think "culture" is the problem in itself. Its what kind of development that culture has arisen out of. A culture born in a feudal society will be pretty barbaric, a modern Capitalist societies culture will be relatively progressive and the culture that will be born out of a Communist society will be tremendous.

You are assuming that because I say cultures that have arisen from feudal and proto Capitalist societies, (which at the moment means mainly eastern countries bar India, China and a few others,) are pretty "backward." That I am saying that "eastern" culture is to blame. What I am actually saying is that cultures that arise from less developed social orders are less progressive than ones that come from more advanced social orders.

I've already used the example and I'll use it again. If a European was to go to the middle east at around the 8th century, European culture would have been viewed as "backward." Not because European culture was "backward" by its self, but because Europe at that time was less developed and less socially progressive and therefore the culture that came from this social order would be similarly "backward."

You seem to choose to not link "culture" with social orders and development, I am of the opinion that it is these things that make a "culture" and therefore any "culture" that comes from an under developed country will likely stink when compared to the culture of a more developed society.

You can not view culture and development as separate entities, they are intrinsically linked.


Obviously I don't think that you are really a racist. Focusing on cultural issues, however, seems to me to be merely a step up from a focus on so-called "racial" issues. But maybe I am overreacting?

I hope this post will help you understand more clearly what I am saying.


The whole policy is itself reactionary, not just the British version of it. When did I say I supported multiculturalism?

Well you seem to have an issue with me for not supporting it, and therefore this implies that you have some liking for the policy.


Not at all as I do not believe that this is possible, let alone desirable. However I do believe in preserving diversity, which you seem to want to eliminate. I do not view debate and difference as a negative thing. In fact, conflict is necessary for progress.

Of course conflict is necessary for progress. However throughout this thread I have been criticised for saying that the cultures of every social group, various immigrant groups included, should be debated. I have been called all sorts of names for even suggesting that a single reactionary view of an immigrant should be challenged.

Yet no one has yet said why a reactionary view held by an immigrant should not be challenged. It seems there are people here who will accept racism, sexism and homophobia if it is expressed by an immigrant. No one has explained why this double standard exists.


And I believe I am once again in an argument over terminology, however.

:sigh:

I suspect it probably is. :(


I don't disapprove of this process as this would obviously happen "naturally" as people have to make decisions as a group. It is your focus on culture that I have an issue with, not the process.

As I have said I am not really focusing on "culture," just the reactionary views that seem to be being justified by it.


I don't support multiculturalism or assimilation. I just disagree that immigration is a threat to international working class.

I haven't said that immigration on its own is a "threat." I have said immigration when combined with segregation as is currently happening now in Britain is a "threat" to creating a united working class.

[Amusing Scrotum]

No, not at all. I am merely stating that if communists are true to themselves, and to the people, and fulfil their revolutionary duties to proles, then whether the proles are religious or not then they will not be any type of obstacle for us to be concerned about. Aslong as people can see that you're fighting for what is right then surely we communists have nothing to tremble about.

See this is the difference between you and I. You believe we have to conduct the revolution on behalf of the proletariat, "fulfil their revolutionary duties to proles." Where as I believe it is only the proletariat themselves who can make the revolution.

You just want the proletariat to be helpful or supportive, maybe just impartial, where as I want the proletariat to be the revolutionaries, not the cheerleaders.

Only the proletariat itself can liberate itself.


What? Instantly? NO, I’m sure that took quite some convincing.

Yeah but it was worth it in the end. You've gotta' be willing to wage war to win a war and pussy footing around religion is never going to "make it go away." You have to attack it for what it is, an idiotic superstition.


Okay, I understand that you aren't tolerant of religious practices whatsoever. But, please, and I do say please, tell me how you or anyone else is going to relieve the billions of people from their religious beliefs? Beat it out of them? Religion, faith and belief are powerful things. Lenin was not saying that we must be tolerant of religion for all time but that we must progressively ease it out if history starting with our party, the Communist party.

For a start a post revolutionary society could rip down all the Churches, imprison all the Priests and declare that religion,just like wage slavery is completely forbidden.

You'll surprised how many people will abandon religion because not that many people take it seriously any more. If they were "real" believers then they would be out killing homosexuals, beating women and blowing up abortion clinics. Thats their "religious duty" and unsurprisingly in this day and age not many people are willing to do these things.


As for Lenin issue.. I’ll leave that for another thread.

If I were you I'd "leave" it altogether.

[tatu]

Concerning “revolutionary duties to proles”, I think that we do have revolutionary duties to fulfil for the proles. We being the vanguard, the most advanced of all proles, have a very important task to complete in regards to educating the masses in regards to communism, Marxist theory and materialism etc.. You have taken my previous post completely out of context. And I DON’T think that “we have to conduct the revolution on behalf of the proletariat”.

Do not tell me what I am thinking. I have limited time in which I can type up a post. It’s hard enough for me to get my point across as it is without you being a cocky twat. I’ll tell you one thing for free, comrade, I prefer to be chatting with people face to face as opposed to winging on the net about fanny arsed, so-called Trotskyites, skin heads etc.

Every breathing day should be day that we wake up and think of bringing the masses closer and closer to communism.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."

- Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte :cuba: :marx:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Concerning “revolutionary duties to proles”, I think that we do have revolutionary duties to fulfil for the proles. We being the vanguard, the most advanced of all proles, have a very important task to complete in regards to educating the masses in regards to communism, Marxist theory and materialism etc.. You have taken my previous post completely out of context. And I DON’T think that “we have to conduct the revolution on behalf of the proletariat”.

If the only job of the vanguard is "educate" the masses pre revolution, then why is a vanguard needed? .....it seems to me "informing" and educating" the proletariat could be done just as easily through normal activism, writing articles etc. Why do we need a vanguard for this duty?


Do not tell me what I am thinking. I have limited time in which I can type up a post. It’s hard enough for me to get my point across as it is without you being a cocky twat. I’ll tell you one thing for free, comrade, I prefer to be chatting with people face to face as opposed to winging on the net about fanny arsed, so-called Trotskyites, skin heads etc.

Very well then, but remember this site receives thousands of hits from "ordinary people" and therefore posting a message on this board is more likely to receive a larger audience.

Therefore a weeks worth of posting is likely going to reach the same amount of people as 6 months of activism.


Every breathing day should be day that we wake up and think of bringing the masses closer and closer to communism.

I post every day and therefore I'm doing my "bit" for the struggle.


"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."

- Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Are you able to create the circumstances for men to "make their own history" any better than I?

[tatu]

Why do you keep taking my posts out of context? I think it's because you would prefer that this argument continued until I eventually capitulate to your tired out posts.

I never said "the only job of the vanguard is "educate" the masses pre revolution", did I? IT IS ONE OF THE MANY TASKS! In regards to being a vanguard, I'm putting it in the context of communists, in the current age, being the group who will "bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat", I am not insinuating that we "set up any sectarian principles of our own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement". I am merely stating that we, being "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country", are more aware of the class war situation. Therefore we have a duty to point out our "common interests of the entire proletariat".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Why do you keep taking my posts out of context? I think it's because you would prefer that this argument continued until I eventually capitulate to your tired out posts.

You posted a piece by Lenin on religion and I then posted my opinion of that piece. This is how debate works.


I never said "the only job of the vanguard is "educate" the masses pre revolution", did I? IT IS ONE OF THE MANY TASKS!


I think that we do have revolutionary duties to fulfil for the proles. We being the vanguard, the most advanced of all proles, have a very important task to complete in regards to educating the masses in regards to communism, Marxist theory and materialism etc.. You have taken my previous post completely out of context. And I DON’T think that “we have to conduct the revolution on behalf of the proletariat”.

You are saying here that the most important thing the vanguard does is to "educate" the masses about Marxist theory. I simply stated that -


If the only job of the vanguard is "educate" the masses pre revolution, then why is a vanguard needed? .....it seems to me "informing" and educating" the proletariat could be done just as easily through normal activism, writing articles etc. Why do we need a vanguard for this duty?

Based on the information you provided with regards your view of the vanguard, I am merely asking a question about the relevance of said vanguard.


In regards to being a vanguard, I'm putting it in the context of communists, in the current age, being the group who will "bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat", I am not insinuating that we "set up any sectarian principles of our own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement". I am merely stating that we, being "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country", are more aware of the class war situation. Therefore we have a duty to point out our "common interests of the entire proletariat".

So your view of the vanguard is not the same as the Leninist view. From what you have written it seems to me you think the vanguard should basically be an education organisation which spreads propaganda. This to me does not sound like the average vanguard, it sounds more like ordinary activism.

[tatu]

Again, you have taken my post out of context.

OKAY:

Therefore we have a duty, which is ONE OF MANY DUTIES that we must undertake, to point out our "common interests of the entire proletariat".

[bombeverything]

I'm not saying that all reactionary views aren't a threat to working class unity. I am saying that it seems to me that little attention is payed to the reactionary views that some immigrants hold. Theres seems to be an un written rule that says western leftists can't comment on reactionary views within eastern culture. This is a kind of "reverse racism" and is not conducive to stopping reactionary views.

I understand what you are saying, but I still have to disagree with you. Little attention is paid to the issue because a number of people hold reactionary views. Their cultural background is irrelevant. Singling out and focusing on immigrants is counterproductive.

Also, how is this "reverse racism"?


Surely you understand that for someone to even start thinking like a Communist they need to abandon all forms of superstition. We don't want to replace "belief in religion" with "belief in Communism." We need to destroy belief before we can possibly hope to create a revolutionary proletariat.

I was using the example with the aim of highlighting how your argument that the west is “more progressive” is problematic.


Religion however is a whole other kind of belief, even more irrational than patriotism and much harder to destroy.

But it has the same aim: linking the state with the nation through shared rituals. In this way they are quite similar.


I actually found in an earlier post that "assimilation" is not what I am promoting, a better word for what I propose is integration.


integration

2. The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.

It still sounds like the aim is to deny difference, as if it is something that is in itself a threat to the revolution.


As for the idea that I don't wish to "embrace difference" well that is probably true. "Cultural diversity" is on the whole not a great thing and promoting it is promoting superiority and will only end up dividing those we wish to unite.

How does it promote superiority?


Though I don't get what you mean when you say "Yet you do not concern yourself with this in relation to other “differences” such as gender, sexuality, age, etc." Could you explain what you meant here?

You already answered what I was trying to say here so it doesn’t matter.


If you mean that there are people who wish to avoid the "decadent aspects of western culture" and that this is a good thing

No I am referring to resistance to cultural domination by people who want to practice their traditional culture.

A question for you. You said that you advocate “integration”. Just say an immigrant visits Australia for instance. Should they be forced accept “Australian values”? Your belief in “integration” ignores power differentials between different social groups. Clearly the white Australian culture is dominant here and reflects the interests of the ruling class. Thus “integration” will not work in this example as people are not “equal” to begin with. I never said a thing about decadence.


Therefore if you are suggesting that we should encourage people to keep "feudal practises" you are really delaying the speed with which the third world will develop modern Capitalism. Because whether you like it or not, puritanical morals have no place in modern Capitalism and therefore if a country is ever to reach Communism it must first develop modern Capitalism and all the "decadence" that goes with it.

No I was noting that people are obviously going to resist when other people try to tell them how to live their lives. I also disagree that the developing world needs to develop modern capitalism first, but that is probably another issue.


In short a few McDonald's, sex shops and pubs in the third world are a good thing. They constitute progress and whether you, they or anyone else likes it, progress will happen and *****ing about it and trying to stop it is pointless.

That isn't progress at all.


Its also pretty safe to assume that modern Capitalism is not to blame and would actually improve many existing cultures, because Capitalism like every other social order before it is an advancement on the previous social order and is therefore more progressive.

Marxist dogma.


This may be "cultural superiority" of sorts, but I think its a given that greater development brings with it more progressive social views and I don't really think thats open to dispute.

If you consider progressive views to be covert racism, sexism and homophobia as opposed to overt state-sanctioned discrimination?


Addressing things from a western point of view? ....bullcrap.

:rolleyes:


Therefore what an average "westerner" considers basic human rights is more progressive than what an average Iranian considers basic human rights. The same way that if Iran was Communist their average citizens view of basic human rights would be far superior to the views of an average person in a Capitalist society.

Wrong. An unquestioned belief in "human rights" results in divisive practices. Even Marx considered the concept of rights and the moral justification of them to be bourgeois products of capitalist society designed to maintain and extend the preeminent position of the dominant class. The idea arose from the French and American revolutions, alongside the rise of liberal political philosophy and the apparent "right" to property.

Contrary to your argument, there were views in both ancient and modern times that people had natural rights. Human rights were central to traditional Islamic, African and Asian cultures. However an official doctrine of ‘universal human rights’ emerged much later. Thus the idea of ‘universal human rights’ is primarily a western philosophy. It is this that you seem to be supporting without question.

What I am trying to say, and have been trying to say throughout the whole post is that a person’s idea of what constitutes human rights is shaped by their own understanding of the world. Thus it is subjective. In the east, for example, ideas about rights were evidently quite different to those in the west as they were focused more on communal or collective rights rather than individual rights. The western view of human rights however preaches individual expression and freedom from coercion, rather than having any duty to the welfare and needs of the community. While the eastern emphasis was on social, economic and cultural rights, the west undoubtedly gave priority to civil and political rights. Progress? You seem to see such rights as ends in themselves.

The main problems with the implementation of ‘universal human rights’ is that the idea is not itself universal, it ignores religious and cultural difference, and the focus is on civil and political rights rather than social and economic rights. For human rights to be realized, people need to have as much control as possible over their own affairs, and the freedom to decide for themselves what their “rights” are.


Yet no one has yet said why a reactionary view held by an immigrant should not be challenged. It seems there are people here who will accept racism, sexism and homophobia if it is expressed by an immigrant. No one has explained why this double standard exists.

ALL reactionary views should be challenged. I don't care who has them.


What I am actually saying is that cultures that arise from less developed social orders are less progressive than ones that come from more advanced social orders.

But what do you actually mean by "progressive" and "advanced"?


You seem to choose to not link "culture" with social orders and development, I am of the opinion that it is these things that make a "culture" and therefore any "culture" that comes from an under developed country will likely stink when compared to the culture of a more developed society.

No I just see culture as something that is more complex than merely focusing on whether it is "advanced" or "backward".


You can not view culture and development as separate entities, they are intrinsically linked.

I don't.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I understand what you are saying, but I still have to disagree with you. Little attention is paid to the issue because a number of people hold reactionary views. Their cultural background is irrelevant. Singling out and focusing on immigrants is counterproductive.

If you look at this forum, you will see hundreds of threads attacking Christian fundamentalism, western imperialism and of course everyones favourite Israel. How many threads are there attacking Muslim, Seikh (bad spelling), or Hindu fundamentalism, eastern imperialism and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Burma? ...the answer is very few.

The same applies to the amount of threads attacking the "reactionary" western "native" working class, especially the American working class.

For instance in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42479&st=75) as Redstar2000 has pointed out, an RCPer has made some incredibly derogatory remarks about the American working class. This person has actually said the king of things I have been accused of saying about immigrants.

Yet funnily enough, I don't see you, rioters bloc or anyone else who has made baseless remarks about my views in this thread making the same remarks in that thread.

Is this not a double standard?

You see all I have said in this thread is that the reactionary views of all elements of society should be challenged, with no group given a free ride.


Also, how is this "reverse racism"?

It is a "kind" of "reverse racism" because we are not applying the same standards of criticism to people of a different colour. As I pointed out above, it is fair game to attack anything "western" and "white" in extremely reactionary language. Yet when someone even mentions a slight criticism of anything "eastern," they get jumped on and called all kinds of disgusting things.


I was using the example with the aim of highlighting how your argument that the west is “more progressive” is problematic.

Simple question, do you think the "west" is more or less progressive than the "east"?


But it has the same aim: linking the state with the nation through shared rituals. In this way they are quite similar.

True, but as I said "patriotism" is more easily overcome than religion. The belief in ones country being great, is not nearly as strong as the belief in an all powerful God.


It still sounds like the aim is to deny difference, as if it is something that is in itself a threat to the revolution.

Do you not like the idea of an equal egalitarian society? .....because as you can see, the definition of "integration" is "The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation."

A united revolutionary working class, will be colour blind, it will not see any "difference" between one worker and another. The only difference it will see is between itself and the bourgeois.

Why do you wish to promote "difference" within the working class? ....do you not see that "difference" will not create unity?


How does it promote superiority?

If you say to group A, your culture is very special and can not be challenged. They will assume that their culture is obviously superior because it is above criticism.

Then when the same thing is said to the people from group B and C, they will think the same and all the groups will also start to look down on the other groups because they think they are superior because they are above criticism.

This will and does lead to racism.


You already answered what I was trying to say here so it doesn’t matter.

:)


No I am referring to resistance to cultural domination by people who want to practice their traditional culture.

Well what is this "traditional" culture you want people to practise? .....because nearly all "traditional" cultures are tremendously reactionary and barbaric.


A question for you. You said that you advocate “integration”. Just say an immigrant visits Australia for instance. Should they be forced accept “Australian values”? Your belief in “integration” ignores power differentials between different social groups. Clearly the white Australian culture is dominant here and reflects the interests of the ruling class. Thus “integration” will not work in this example as people are not “equal” to begin with. I never said a thing about decadence.

What part of Australian culture are you talking about? .....even in modern Capitalist nations there are "cultural" and "moral" differences between the working class, the petite bourgeois and the bourgeois.

Each of these classes have some relatively distinct differences.

Though I suspect you are talking about an immigrant coming into the white Australian working class. So let me ask you, what is so "bad" about white Australian working class "values" that makes it so horrible to propose someone adopts them?


No I was noting that people are obviously going to resist when other people try to tell them how to live their lives. I also disagree that the developing world needs to develop modern capitalism first, but that is probably another issue.

No one is "forcing" or "telling" them how to live their lives. I am merely suggesting that no one should segregate themselves under the cloak of culture. It is perfectly possible to be a Muslim, a Seikh, (bad spelling?) a Hindu or anything else for that matter, whilst living in a white working class area of Britain.

Though its somewhat understandable that this debate is happening in this manner, as the two people debating with me seem to have rejected Marxism and as an extension materialism. In favour of Anarchist or Leninist idealism.

If you base your politics on "idealism," you are basically another "believer" and therefore even someone with bags more intelligence than me, is not going to convince you of material reality, which is what my argument is based on, because whatever observation is made, you will simply reject it if it contradicts your "belief."


That isn't progress at all.

The businesses proposed were metaphors for sexual and social liberation/advancement. Do you reject the ideas of sexual and social liberation/advancement?


Marxist dogma.

I'll take "Marxist dogma" over your "idealism" any day.


If you consider progressive views to be covert racism, sexism and homophobia as opposed to overt state-sanctioned discrimination?

If you notice I said "more progressive," not progressive and while "western" countries still have reactionary elements, they are not nearly as influential, strong and powerful as the reactionary views present in other countries.

It seems obvious to me, that you seem to think that Britain is more racist, sexist and homophobic than a place like Iran. This is a baffling view.

Do you think a "westerner" could live more easily and receive less racial prejudice in Iran than an "easterner" could in Britain? .....that a woman can express her opinions, do what she likes and wear what she wants more easily in Iran than Britain? .....that a gay man or woman can express their sexuality more easily and openly in Iran than they could in Britain?

Being a "westerner" in Iran cannot be a pleasant experience, and a woman expressing her opinion or a gay person coming out can result in death. Funnily enough, Britain's "covert" discrimination isn't likely to be anywhere near as horrendous as Iran's blatant discrimination.


Wrong. An unquestioned belief in "human rights" results in divisive practices. Even Marx considered the concept of rights and the moral justification of them to be bourgeois products of capitalist society designed to maintain and extend the preeminent position of the dominant class. The idea arose from the French and American revolutions, alongside the rise of liberal political philosophy and the apparent "right" to property.

It doesn't matter you "produced" the idea. Most people still have an opinion as to what they consider a human right. Though I highly doubt people have only been thinking about the concept of basic human rights since the French and American revolutions.

People have always held views about what they think should be a human right.


Contrary to your argument, there were views in both ancient and modern times that people had natural rights. Human rights were central to traditional Islamic, African and Asian cultures. However an official doctrine of ‘universal human rights’ emerged much later. Thus the idea of ‘universal human rights’ is primarily a western philosophy. It is this that you seem to be supporting without question.

Its a Capitalist philosophy, not a "western" one. Do you honestly believe that if the "east" had developed modern Capitalism first, the differences would be anything other than cosmetic?


What I am trying to say, and have been trying to say throughout the whole post is that a person’s idea of what constitutes human rights is shaped by their own understanding of the world. Thus it is subjective. In the east, for example, ideas about rights were evidently quite different to those in the west as they were focused more on communal or collective rights rather than individual rights. The western view of human rights however preaches individual expression and freedom from coercion, rather than having any duty to the welfare and needs of the community. While the eastern emphasis was on social, economic and cultural rights, the west undoubtedly gave priority to civil and political rights. Progress? You seem to see such rights as ends in themselves.

A persons view of human rights is shaped by their view of the world, you are right on this count. However you seem to think the things that shape these views are not class or economically based, rather that they are "culturally" based. This is plain wrong.

Someones views on society are directly correlated with their economic situation and their class. If you are a peasant you will have a peasants view of the world, regardless of whether you are from the "east" or the "west." The same would apply if you were a King, an Emperor, or a prole.

You seem to hold some romantic notion that "culture" is the crucial factor in someones viewpoint and amazingly you seem to think "eastern" "culture" is somehow more beautiful. Its not.

The Qu'ran is every bit as disgusting as the Bible, it promotes the same barbaric practises as the Bible and history shows us that all the "eastern" empire have been just as vile and repulsive as "western" empires.


The main problems with the implementation of ‘universal human rights’ is that the idea is not itself universal, it ignores religious and cultural difference, and the focus is on civil and political rights rather than social and economic rights. For human rights to be realized, people need to have as much control as possible over their own affairs, and the freedom to decide for themselves what their “rights” are.

The idea of "universal human rights" seems to work pretty well as a philosophy in modern Capitalist nations. The reason it does not work in countries that are not modern Capitalist nations, is not because of "cultural" differences. Rather its because these countries are not modern Capitalist nations and therefore the philosophy doesn't "fit."


ALL reactionary views should be challenged. I don't care who has them.

Well why are you "voicing your disgust" with regards me challenging the reactionary views of immigrants?


But what do you actually mean by "progressive" and "advanced"?

Modern advanced Capitalism vs. proto or semi feudal Capitalism, in some cases Feudalism.


No I just see culture as something that is more complex than merely focusing on whether it is "advanced" or "backward".

Well its not some separate entity. Someones material perspective (culture) is directly based on their class in a specific social order and their economic situation.


I don't.

You certainly seem to view "culture" as a completely different entity, which is not effected by development.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just to point out what seems to me a certain degree of hypocrisy on the part of some peoples view on "culture." In this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42257&st=25), this comment was made -



There is value and worth in traditional culture and , I feel, that it must be maintained in this age of mass cultural extinction.

Of course there is, but there is also a lot of shit, outmoded, reactionary stuff, precisely because it is anicent culture!

Now this comment is regarding "white" "culture." White Scottish "culture" if I was being specific.

Now the person standing up for "white" "culture" in that thread was later restricted.

Now regardless of the individual characteristics of that case and the reasons for the restriction. It does bring up some interesting questions that I think all you defenders of "culture" should address.

Do you think defending "white" "culture" is appropriate or justified? ....and if you do think it is appropriate, what is your view about someone saying "there is also a lot of shit, outmoded, reactionary stuff, precisely because it is anicent culture" about a persons "culture"? .....I was certainly more tactful than this.

[TheComrade]

Isn't an atheist as dangerous as a Christian? They often both let there 'religion' or lack of religion affect their politics. Say for example there is an issue about religion and the state - the atheist will have as strong an opinion about it than a relgious one - perhaps an even stronger opinion! It is arguable that someone who holds deeply religious views will have stronger related opinions on things but wouldn't an atheist also relate many things to their lack of God? (This point is in relation to the increase in immigration from more religious countries)

Just a thought...

[bombeverything]

Sorry I took so long to reply.


If you look at this forum, you will see hundreds of threads attacking Christian fundamentalism, western imperialism and of course everyones favourite Israel. How many threads are there attacking Muslim, Seikh (bad spelling), or Hindu fundamentalism, eastern imperialism and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Burma? ...the answer is very few.

The same applies to the amount of threads attacking the "reactionary" western "native" working class, especially the American working class.

I guess people focus on what they feel is most important. We usually attack our most powerful enemies first. Why criticise something that is merely the result of capitalist expansionism? Also people from these backgrounds living in the west are minority groups -- and thus insulting them even more only contributes to their subjection. They have enough other people to do that for them.


You see all I have said in this thread is that the reactionary views of all elements of society should be challenged, with no group given a free ride.

It is not about a "free ride". Immigration is simply the migration of people from areas of the world where land and labor are exploited by the capitalists to areas of the world where capitalists own powerful governments whose laws and military forces protect them and their wealth and do their bidding. Focusing on the immigrants as a group separates them from their social and political contexts. Your focusing on the symptom rather than the problem.


Yet funnily enough, I don't see you, rioters bloc or anyone else who has made baseless remarks about my views in this thread making the same remarks in that thread.

I haven't read it.


It is a "kind" of "reverse racism" because we are not applying the same standards of criticism to people of a different colour. As I pointed out above, it is fair game to attack anything "western" and "white" in extremely reactionary language. Yet when someone even mentions a slight criticism of anything "eastern," they get jumped on and called all kinds of disgusting things.

As I said before, we attack those that we view as our main enemies. If you are a white middle class male you are generally part of a privileged elite. There is a structural difference between the west and the east, with a clear inequality in favour of the west. Are you suggesting that this would have nothing to do with the growth of such views?


Simple question, do you think the "west" is more or less progressive than the "east"?

I never said that one was more or less progressive than the other.


True, but as I said "patriotism" is more easily overcome than religion. The belief in ones country being great, is not nearly as strong as the belief in an all powerful God.

Yeah but they often go together, in fact they usually go together.


Why do you wish to promote "difference" within the working class? ....do you not see that "difference" will not create unity?

I disagree. Difference is necessary for progress. When I talk about difference, I am not suggesting that these differences cannot be overcome, but rather that conflict is a positive and necessary element for development.


If you say to group A, your culture is very special and can not be challenged. They will assume that their culture is obviously superior because it is above criticism.

Then when the same thing is said to the people from group B and C, they will think the same and all the groups will also start to look down on the other groups because they think they are superior because they are above criticism.

This will and does lead to racism.

I never said any culture was "superior".


Well what is this "traditional" culture you want people to practise? .....because nearly all "traditional" cultures are tremendously reactionary and barbaric.

There are plenty of examples of traditional cultures that were very organised and "civilised". For instance the indigenous people of Australia practiced their own form of primitive communism, with their own system of law and respect for the land.


So let me ask you, what is so "bad" about white Australian working class "values" that makes it so horrible to propose someone adopts them?

It is not the issue of what is "good" or "bad" about the values. The issue is whether immigrants should be forced to adopt these values. Besides, there isn't really such thing as working class values.


No one is "forcing" or "telling" them how to live their lives. I am merely suggesting that no one should segregate themselves under the cloak of culture. It is perfectly possible to be a Muslim, a Seikh, (bad spelling?) a Hindu or anything else for that matter, whilst living in a white working class area of Britain.

Yes but racism exists, making it difficult for people to simply "fit in".


If you base your politics on "idealism," you are basically another "believer" and therefore even someone with bags more intelligence than me, is not going to convince you of material reality, which is what my argument is based on, because whatever observation is made, you will simply reject it if it contradicts your "belief."

I am an anarchist and claiming that we are religious once again signifies a lack of understanding of anarchism. Anarchists are materialists meaning that they believe that the ideas in people’s heads are shaped by the social and economic conditions in which we live. This is the opposite of idealism.


It seems obvious to me, that you seem to think that Britain is more racist, sexist and homophobic than a place like Iran. This is a baffling view.

I never said this.


It doesn't matter you "produced" the idea. Most people still have an opinion as to what they consider a human right. Though I highly doubt people have only been thinking about the concept of basic human rights since the French and American revolutions.

People have always held views about what they think should be a human right.

Yes it does because human rights are not neutral. I am not suggesting that the term should be rejected, but simply notinh that it should be questioned and used with some caution.


A persons view of human rights is shaped by their view of the world, you are right on this count. However you seem to think the things that shape these views are not class or economically based, rather that they are "culturally" based. This is plain wrong.

I did not mean this, I meant that it was the result of imperialism -- which is clearly class based.


You seem to hold some romantic notion that "culture" is the crucial factor in someones viewpoint and amazingly you seem to think "eastern" "culture" is somehow more beautiful. Its not.

I have never said anything of the sort!


The Qu'ran is every bit as disgusting as the Bible, it promotes the same barbaric practises as the Bible and history shows us that all the "eastern" empire have been just as vile and repulsive as "western" empires.

Yeah. Your point?


Well why are you "voicing your disgust" with regards me challenging the reactionary views of immigrants?

It is your focus that I have trouble with. I have mentioned this a number of times.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Sorry I took so long to reply.

Personally, I have forgot most of what was said in this thread. So if my answers seem slightly "out of context" it's because I've completely forgot the context in which most statements were made.


I guess people focus on what they feel is most important. We usually attack our most powerful enemies first. Why criticise something that is merely the result of capitalist expansionism? Also people from these backgrounds living in the west are minority groups -- and thus insulting them even more only contributes to their subjection. They have enough other people to do that for them.

True we do "focus" on what is most important.

However what is deemed most important is often of little relevance. Israel is a perfect example of such an irrelevant topic that gets mountains of attention.

One thread on immigration and I have committed a "holy sin." Hundreds of threads on a country with a population of, what 9 million people with a human rights record which is actually better than a lot of other countries, and this is thought of as reasonable "focus?" :huh:

As for "criticising something that is merely the result of capitalist expansionism."

Well if we followed this logic we would be unable to criticise nearly everything. We wouldn't be able to criticise religion and the religious because they are a "result of capitalist expansionism." We wouldn't be able to criticise racism or nationalism and so on and so on.

We should be able to criticise everything that is worthy of criticism. Why should we tolerate anything reactionary?


It is not about a "free ride". Immigration is simply the migration of people from areas of the world where land and labor are exploited by the capitalists to areas of the world where capitalists own powerful governments whose laws and military forces protect them and their wealth and do their bidding. Focusing on the immigrants as a group separates them from their social and political contexts. Your focusing on the symptom rather than the problem.

How am I focusing on "the symptom rather than the problem"?

If you notice the thread is about the effect immigration has on creating a revolutionary proletariat. A revolution is the "solution" to the "problem."


I haven't read it.

Well theres nothing stopping you. I've already posted the link, though I'll post it again - The RCP, Something needs to be done! (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42479&st=75) - All I am asking you is to apply the same standards that you applied in this thread.


As I said before, we attack those that we view as our main enemies. If you are a white middle class male you are generally part of a privileged elite. There is a structural difference between the west and the east, with a clear inequality in favour of the west. Are you suggesting that this would have nothing to do with the growth of such views?

I am not a "white middle class male." Therefore it's in my self interest as a working class man to help create a united proletariat. So why should I accept anything that potentially stands "in the way" of such a goal.

And segregation of immigrant communities does stand in the way of creating a united proletariat.


I never said that one was more or less progressive than the other.

No you didn't, that's why I asked the question.

Therefore in the interests of this debate I will ask the question again - do you think the "west" is more or less progressive than the "east"?


I disagree. Difference is necessary for progress. When I talk about difference, I am not suggesting that these differences cannot be overcome, but rather that conflict is a positive and necessary element for development.

That sounds like an argument from the Capitalist FAQ. Competition is absolutely vital for human society to progress.

Needless to say, I don't "buy it."


I never said any culture was "superior".

Did I say you thought any "culture" was superior? ....no.

I said what you promoted will create superiority.


There are plenty of examples of traditional cultures that were very organised and "civilised". For instance the indigenous people of Australia practiced their own form of primitive communism, with their own system of law and respect for the land.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Aborigine women had a "great time."

There are generally good reasons that human civilisation progressed from "tribal" societies. Many because despite the "romantic gloss" added to these former social orders, they were very oppressive and barbaric.


It is not the issue of what is "good" or "bad" about the values. The issue is whether immigrants should be forced to adopt these values.

Did I say they should be forced to accept these values? ....no. I asked you was is so terrible about these "values" that means parts of them can't be adopted?


Besides, there isn't really such thing as working class values.

:huh:

Do you accept the basic principles of class?


Yes but racism exists, making it difficult for people to simply "fit in".

You seem to have a strange view on what working class communities are like. They are not hotbeds of racism, sexism and all kinds of other reactionary things.

They are decent places with decent people, who, con-try to what the ruling class and large portions of the left would have you believe, are not huge reactionaries who would club a person of colour to death if they saw them.


I am an anarchist and claiming that we are religious once again signifies a lack of understanding of anarchism. Anarchists are materialists meaning that they believe that the ideas in people’s heads are shaped by the social and economic conditions in which we live. This is the opposite of idealism.

Some Anarchists are materialists. This comment - I also disagree that the developing world needs to develop modern capitalism first, but that is probably another issue. - Suggests you are anything but a materialist.


Yes it does because human rights are not neutral. I am not suggesting that the term should be rejected, but simply notinh that it should be questioned and used with some caution.

Could you elaborate on this?


I did not mean this, I meant that it was the result of imperialism -- which is clearly class based.

However is imperialism "class based?" ....it is nation based.


Yeah. Your point?

That it should be opposed just as strongly.


It is your focus that I have trouble with. I have mentioned this a number of times.

What is wrong with my "focus." I thought of something which could form the basis of a debate and I posted it. The same way I created topics on "the Construction Industry," "Mental Labour," and "Children's Liberation" in this forum. The subject interested me and I posted about to see if it interested anyone else.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

To be honest, this debate has lost all meaning. I would be more than willing to just leave "dead dogs lie." Agree? :)

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 26 2005, 01:08 AM
To be honest, this debate has lost all meaning. I would be more than willing to just leave "dead dogs lie." Agree? :)

Agreed. I wanted to stop the debate for the same reason but couldn't admit it.

:lol:

[DisIllusion]

I agree with the idea that immigration may slow down the path to Communism, as they bring in a lot of different ideas and opinions. But remember that right now, most immigrants are poor and working class people, basically the definition of a proletarian. If we were to spend some time and energy appealing to these people with the ideals of Marxism. Though immigration might slow down the possibility of a revolution, it is still worth our time and efforts to show them that Communism is in their best interest, and the more support you have for the revolution, the better off you are.

[Vanguard1917]

I agree with the idea that immigration may slow down the path to Communism, as they bring in a lot of different ideas and opinions.

In what way? Different ideas and opinions would exist in society without immigration.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:55 AM

I agree with the idea that immigration may slow down the path to Communism, as they bring in a lot of different ideas and opinions.

In what way? Different ideas and opinions would exist in society without immigration.
Yeah, but in say America, most people believe in Christianity, so you can target that. Immigration can bring in a bunch of different beliefs, like neo-nazism, fascism, among other things, but given a good amount of time, we can be able to teach and convert them to Marxism, which means that immigration is actually a proponent to Communism in the long-run.

[Vanguard1917]

Immigration can bring in a bunch of different beliefs, like neo-nazism, fascism, among other things

Which immigrants are you talking about?

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:12 PM

Immigration can bring in a bunch of different beliefs, like neo-nazism, fascism, among other things

Which immigrants are you talking about?
It doesn't matter what country they are from, it's just their ideals that matter. The bourgeoisie doesn't really care what color people are working in their sweatshops as long as they get the money that is rolling in. Petty differences such as race mean nothing to the proletariat, we are united against the bourgeoisie.