EU immigration row / time to get out

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Dec 2013, 16:51

What if this UK stranger is on benefits, and does not in fact, contribute any thing to taxes? It is well to think things through before abusing someone else, especially when not in possession of all the information relevant to the situation.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Dec 2013, 17:44

clv101 wrote: I don't see anything biffvernon has posted suggesting he care more about those in other countries. It seems very clear that he thinks everyone should have the same opportunities.

That sounds right.

One thing that puzzles me is that Steve and UE claim to be of the left. Now I was brought up in a very left-leaning household, my grandfather was a Labour MP in the post-war government and as a child there was a constant stream of left-wing thinkers from all over the world appearing at the breakfast table. So I've always viewed socialism as calling for greater wealth distribution and equality amongst all peoples of the world and that nationalism was a phase that economies would pass through. International socialism was the thing.

Marx, I think, had something to say about it.

Looking up 'Socialism' on Wikipedia (no, don't mock, this will be a Wikipedia page that has undergone review and revision in the minutest detail with every word argued over, I suspect) I find there is much that I think is spot on.

I'm quite a supporter of communism as in:

In the Marxist theory of historical materialism, it is predicted that further advances in technology and the productive forces will give rise to a more advanced stage of development referred to as communism, a society in which classes and the state are no longer present, and there is access abundance to final goods, and thus distribution is based on to each according to his need.

(my bold)

Marx, of course, was a dreamer and would have been appalled at some of the things done under his name.

I'll include this

In the 20th century socialist economists were heavily influenced by neoclassical economics and its precepts in analytic philosophy. Notable socialists often combined neoclassical economics with Marxian analysis and historical materialism. Bertrand Russell, often considered to be the father of analytic philosophy, was a socialist. Bertrand Russell opposed the class struggle aspects of Marxism, viewing socialism solely as an adjustment of economic relations to accommodate modern machine production to benefit all of humanity through the progressive reduction of necessary work time.

because Russell was an acquaintance of my grandfather and I inherited a collection of his books. They are excellent stuff.

But back to Marx:

From the socialist perspective, freedom is conceived of as a concrete situation as opposed to a purely abstract or moral concept, and is closely related to human creativity and the importance socialists ascribe to creative freedom. Socialists view creativity as an essential aspect of human nature, and define freedom as a state of being where individuals are able to express their creativity unhindered by constraints of both material scarcity and coercive social institutions. Marxists stress the importance of freeing the individual from coercive, exploitative and alienating social relationships they are compelled to partake in merely to survive

and there we have freedom as the important thing, not nationalism.

You won't be surprised to hear I am attracted to the utopian thinkers:

Utopian socialism is a term used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen, which inspired Karl Marx and other early socialists.

But really I side with anarchism:

Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism. Therefore they argue, alternatively, that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not only, the state system. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations

If you have doubts about Anarchism then read David Fleming's account in Lean Logic.

There is a great deal more in the Wikipedia article on Socialism, from the First International of 1864 through to the EU in the 21st century, the subject of this thread:

The objectives of the Party of European Socialists, the European Parliament's socialist bloc, are now "to pursue international aims in respect of the principles on which the European Union is based, namely principles of freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and respect for the Rule of Law." As a result, today, the rallying cry of the French Revolution – "Egalité, Liberté, Fraternité" – which overthrew absolutism and ushered industrialisation into French society, are promoted as essential socialist values.

but nowhere is there a defence of national borders and barriers to migration described as part of socialism's philosophy or history.

I'm quite proud to have built my views on those of an illustrious line of philosophers and political thinkers and know that I am in great company and in tune with much that is going on in international politics today.

Sadly, global warming may make the whole enterprise irrelevant if we don't come to a global legally binding treaty on climate change within the next two years. It may become irrelevant anyway, but that's just the realist in me talking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (I've only sampled a few bits from that excellent article. I have sometimes suggested that PowerSwitch posts should not be above half a dozen lines long, so I have resisted the temptation to go into more detail.)

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 21 Dec 2013, 18:43

stevecook172001 wrote:
There'll be a ******* reckoning coming.

- deleted -

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Dec 2013, 19:31

UndercoverElephant wrote:
The problem is not just limited to Mr Vernon, although he provides a useful example of a very extreme case. Quite a few people on this board ought to be ashamed of themselves.

It's amazing that you hold Biff in such esteem that he is the one person in the country that will facilitate the rise of the far right. It's a two syllable word that sounds rather similar to the devices that hold oars when rowing.

Evil be who evil speak. I hope you are suitably ashamed with your continual vile accusations. You should leave and find a more amenable place to trot your poison.

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 21 Dec 2013, 19:47

I still don't see what your differences are with Griffin et al. After all he is both nationalist and socialist as well.

Post by **clv101** » 21 Dec 2013, 20:25

The BNP has pretty much collapsed, how many councilors do they have left now? EDL is also in disarray after Tommy Robinson quit...

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 21 Dec 2013, 23:09

The previous post has been deleted. Taking part in this discussion turns me into something I don't want to be. I don't want to be like J2M and Nick Griffin. I am just very worried about the effects of even more people coming to this overcrowded little island.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Dec 2013, 23:12

UndercoverElephant wrote:The previous post has been deleted. Taking part in this discussion turns me into something I don't want to be. I don't want to be like J2M and Nick Griffin. I am just very worried about the effects of even more people coming to this overcrowded little island.

i know you don't UE. However, the content of you post was accurate. The far right is on the rise across Europe and in no small measure that is due to the factors you described

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 22 Dec 2013, 07:02

Looks like we have our own devil on our side.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25481859

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 22 Dec 2013, 07:32

He added: "Bulgarian people are raising a lot of questions today about the democratic, tolerant and humane British society. Are we in Great Britain today writing a history of a switch to isolation, nationalism and short-term political approaches?

As if he's not interested in short term political approaches.

It's all very well letting people into the UK, but the UK is already a net importer of food, this means it will need to import even more food.

In any case, I wouldn't trust Clegg as far as I could throw him. Multiculturalism has it's downsides too.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Dec 2013, 08:45

woodburner wrote: It's all very well letting people into the UK, but the UK is already a net importer of food, this means it will need to import even more food.

I'm not sure this is a useful measure in the discussion about migration. The UK has a long history of net food import, (remember the Corn Laws?), and again it's a system boundary thing. London is an importer, Lincolnshire an exporter. South East England an importer, Europe an exporter. Bringing the Ukraine into the EU would massively increase the EU's net food export status.

There are other things that the UK is a net importer of and yet others that she is a net exporter of. Trade would be pretty pointless if this were not the case. From a security perspective it is important that we remain on good terms with our trading partners, isolationism reducing security.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 22 Dec 2013, 09:39

AndySir wrote:I still don't see what your differences are with Griffin et al. After all he is both nationalist and socialist as well.

"Griffin et al" (including J2M) don't like non-white, non-British people. They have been around for a long time and their primary reason for not wanting people to come here is that they prefer the company of people of their own race and their own culture, and they think this is a natural state of affairs. They are unrepentant xenophobes and racists. This is their rule, and the exception is certain others they accept (like J2M liking the Nazis even though they weren't British).

For me this is the other way around. As a rule, I like non-white, non-British people. There are exceptions - I am, for example, very worried about Islam. But on the whole I think the diversity of races and cultures in the UK is a good thing. The only bad thing is the total of number of people.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 22 Dec 2013, 09:54

UndercoverElephant wrote: For me this is the other way around. As a rule, I like non-white, non-British people.

That's just as much racist as you are accusing others of being.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 22 Dec 2013, 10:05

woodburner wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: For me this is the other way around. As a rule, I like non-white, non-British people.
That's just as much racist as you are accusing others of being.

You'll have to explain how that works, because it makes no sense to me. How can saying that I have no general problem with non-white/non-British people be construed as "racist"?

Post by **clv101** » 22 Dec 2013, 10:10

UndercoverElephant wrote:I am just very worried about the effects of even more people coming to this overcrowded little island.

Agreed, I don't think anyone on this thread, or probably on this forum want more people to come to this overcrowded island. I certainly don't and biffvernon has been clear about preferring lower population densities rather than higher.