Interviews on a Sunday, part 2
Mysteriously didn't show on my f-list first time I posted this, so here goes again: This is the second of two sets of interview questions. I know I owe questions to a number of you; if you wish me to owe interview questions to you as well, say so in the comments.
From grahamsleight:
From grahamsleight:
- Which would you most like back in the BBC archives in its entirety - Evil of ( Read more... )
In response to your point about the resistance to immigration from the east amongst west european politicians. I agree that conspiranoid types are off their trollies, but 'politicians are stupid' is not, in my opinion, an adequate answer to the conspiraloons.
Resistance to eastern immigration is (in my opinion) the result of structural changes in west European societies, changes such as the assault on the welfare state and the increased insecurity neo-liberalism inevitably brings. The political fall-out is a turn towards ethnic (and ethnoreligious) chauvinism by politicians who are not stupid but who are cynical (and it's not a conspiracy because they aren't agreeing to do it in secret, they're just responding to common pressures).
It's the present-day version of the 'socialism of fools' if you will (not that the older version of that particular foolishness has left us either).
Reply
I do think, however, that the anti-immigration policies are stupid as well as lazy; building a immigration wall around Europe will cause damage which cannot easily be put right - increased radicalism of the masses left outside, institutionalised corruption in the process of immigration, labour and skills shortages inside the EU - whereas the process of integrating future immigrants is one which would (if handled properly, or even if left to look after itself without being handled at all) actually boost both the welfare state and social stability in the medium term.
But very few politicians are willing to tell these truths to the voters. Laziness, cowardice, stupidity; take your pick, but I know which I favour.
Who are you, by the way?
Reply
Reply
what if the goal is not to strengthen the welfare state, or stabilise society, but to drive down wages for the benefit of the capitalist class?
Well, at least that wouldn't be stupid, in the way that the current policy is!
Reply
Reply
Yeah, but you have to choose between those two options! They are not compatible!
And winning elections is all very well, and an unavoidable motivator for politicians, but if it is consciously done at the cost (as I said earlier) of increased radicalism of the masses left outside, institutionalised corruption in the process of immigration, labour and skills shortages, it is a false priority; or, as I described it earlier, stupid.
On the DRC stuff, that really is extraordinary. Where do these people think the minerals come from? A hole in the ground? Cornwall?
Reply
Are they really that incompatible, though?
If the new immigrant labour force is kept in a socially and economically position as the result of xenophobic policies which ensure that their status is either semi-legal or illegal, then it will be much harder for them to exercise the rights of labour - trade union organisation, a minimum wage, health and safety conditions, etc.
In the long term there will be, as you say, costs to all that - but then as Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. And in a situation such as the UK, where the economy is geared towards short-term perspectives, it's highly likely those long-term costs will be ignored until it's too late.
Reply
Indeed - that's why I call it stupid!
Reply
I'm not denying it's stupid (from out point of view) am I?
I'm merely saying that, unfortunately, there are structural reasons which are breeding this particular kind of stupidity. It's not merely the result of an individual politicians lack of grey matter, it's a product of the structural condition of today's Western European societies.
I also have the feeling that we've started chasing each other's tails on this, so it may be best to stop here. . .
Reply
Leave a comment