Reply to: Left vs right - the unfillable gulf

[vetran]

Good question. Difficult to answer, but I wonder whether full employment's necessary for everyone's needs to to be fulfilled. Certainly not for everyone's basic needs of food and shelter, but if we want full employment it would have to involve fulfilling much more than basic needs, without using much more natural resources than we do now.

I probably should clarify

Full employment not including those that choose to be economically inactive.

I would accept a reasonable number of unemployed that are changing jobs.

[Scoobos]

why can't there be full employment?

I did this at Uni years ago. My year thought that there can't be unless you accept 1 or maybe 2 things:

1. Monopolies.
2. Nationalised everything.

[Scoobos]

The left don't live in the real world, or at least not one that exists anymore. Trade Unions' raison d'etre was to improve the appalling conditions in factories, i.e. safety, giving the workers some rights, etc. So essentially, they've already won, and it was a good thing that they did. And the same with socialists in general: we now have the welfare state, free education for all, free health care for all, and their goal of destroying class divisions and improving social mobility has largely been achieved. .

For me, that statement just re-enforces the fact that we need "lefties" to fight for these things. What takes decades to build can be taken away in years. We need these people to defend what's there, from the people who want a USA mkII.

[Mich the Tester]

why can't there be full employment?

Good question. Difficult to answer, but I wonder whether full employment's necessary for everyone's needs to to be fulfilled. Certainly not for everyone's basic needs of food and shelter, but if we want full employment it would have to involve fulfilling much more than basic needs, without using much more natural resources than we do now.

[vetran]

why can't there be full employment?

[Old Greg]

The fundamental gulf is ideological: should power reside in labour or capital?

However, given that power does lie with capital and capital has demonstrated the ability and will to frustrate attempts to overturn the power balance, then the conversations become about pragmatic steps to be undertaken within a capitalist system.

An example is benefits. The welfare state was constructed by consensus (more or less) between Labour and Conservatives to create a safety net to ensure a dignified existence for all in times of near full employment. However, economic restructuring in the '80s and then globalisation led to a situation where full employment is impossible. The right can happily use benefit recipients as a divide and rule tool while decreasing their standards of living, which fits in neatly with personal responsibility. The left really struggles with benefits. The labour movement is founded on ideas around the power and dignity of work. If people do not and cannot all have work, then the only response is to protect them from the worst ravages of rightist policy. Which is a pretty depressing position to be politically.

It will become interesting to see how the Spanish and Greek people react ultimately, as they may take a less reformist position against their plight.

[Mich the Tester]

Human migration is actually a much more powerful force than any nation state can muster. The most succesful attempts at stopping migration have involved building fooking great big walls all over the place, and they've all ended in failure. Right now, North Korea's attempt is the most durable, and even that's failing, although it's arguably because the population are too hungry to walk across a field and climb over a wall. People move, and nowadays they have the means to move faster than ever before. People need to learn to live with that.

[Mich the Tester]

even if organised locally hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving in London would flood the existing services.

We can't even find beds for our rough sleeping ex service guys, once a tin pot African country goes to war we will be lucky if we can hand out potatoes.


Nice idea but in the decades that it takes to settle the world will have ripped itself apart.


Illegal immigration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But regulation is not working and won't unless you're prepared to replicate the Berlin wall on every single national border in Europe, which would be damn near impossible. Look who arrives in Europe in those boats from northern Africa. Do you think they're scared off by whatever long forms have to be filled in or by laws saying ' it is very naughty to be here without a permit' ? Do you think that even half are caught on the way? Does anybody have any idea how many ' illegal immigrants' are here?

[vetran]

Why do social services need to be arranged at a national level, when in the past they have worked at the level of trade guilds, churches, local organisations or unions and might work in the future through newer means like crowdfunding, solidarity funds etc (pretty much how life insurance, building societies and pensions used to work before they were invaded by the MBAs and sold down the river)? I actually think the concept of a huge national system to help the poor is a concept that has run its course and that's why it's a mess.

Oh ,and as for public unrest, there is huge public unrest right now, partly thanks to the freedom of businesses to move around and the lack of freedom for people to do the same; it's just that the huge public unrest is in the countries where businesses go to find cheap labour and corrupt lawmakers, and not in the countries where the cheaply produced goods are consumed.

even if organised locally hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving in London would flood the existing services.

We can't even find beds for our rough sleeping ex service guys, once a tin pot African country goes to war we will be lucky if we can hand out potatoes.


Nice idea but in the decades that it takes to settle the world will have ripped itself apart.


Illegal immigration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mich the Tester]

I admire your generosity, I doubt it would work any displacement event (flood /war etc) would mean a surge to a safer country, once here its unlikely people would return. In the interim the new host country would face social service costs that would need to be funded.

Its a recipe for major public unrest.

Why do social services need to be arranged at a national level, when in the past they have worked at the level of trade guilds, churches, local organisations or unions and might work in the future through newer means like crowdfunding, solidarity funds etc (pretty much how life insurance, building societies and pensions used to work before they were invaded by the MBAs and sold down the river)? I actually think the concept of a huge national system to help the poor is a concept that has run its course and that's why it's a mess.

Oh ,and as for public unrest, there is huge public unrest right now, partly thanks to the freedom of businesses to move around and the lack of freedom for people to do the same; it's just that the huge public unrest is in the countries where businesses go to find cheap labour and corrupt lawmakers, and not in the countries where the cheaply produced goods are consumed.

And anyway, displacement events already lead to surges of migration, mostly within the area of the displacement event, but further afield too. If South East England were to be flooded and 25 million hungry people go looking for somewhere else to live, do you really think they're going to give a tulip about the West Midlands country council's planning department?No, and the same goes for all those millions of people in Eastern Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, Ghana and so on who wanted to save their own arses and really couldn't care less about the passport controls. Regulation isn't working, because it can only be enforced against those people who are law abiding or who aren't desperate enough to break the rules. Ergo, the immigrants who arrive under the current system will largely be criminals or those who are utterly desperate. Some can and do choose where they can go, but the people who can choose aren't the people who are crowding the NHS or the welfare system.

[vetran]

It would, but there are lots of potentially more popular destinations. I'm not saying Britain should open its borders unilaterally, that would be silly, but I think it could start convincing other countries to put an end to the trend toward 'fortress Europe', if that is the British government really does believe in concepts like free markets. I don't believe it does. I think the trend should be toward opening up borders and barriers to migration, just as the trend has been to open up trade. At the moment, that trend seems to be the other way.

I admire your generosity, I doubt it would work any displacement event (flood /war etc) would mean a surge to a safer country, once here its unlikely people would return. In the interim the new host country would face social service costs that would need to be funded.

Its a recipe for major public unrest.

[Mich the Tester]

There are a number of pull factors that would make it a popular destination.

Free Healthcare
not at war seriously affecting the general population.
higher than average lifestyle (we may moan about it but compared to Somalia we life a darn nice life.)
etc.

people are willing to hang on to jet landing gear to get here, why do you think it won't be a popular destination?

It would, but there are lots of potentially more popular destinations. I'm not saying Britain should open its borders unilaterally, that would be silly, but I think it could start convincing other countries to put an end to the trend toward 'fortress Europe', if that is the British government really does believe in concepts like free markets. I don't believe it does. I think the trend should be toward opening up borders and barriers to migration, just as the trend has been to open up trade. At the moment, that trend seems to be the other way.

[vetran]

Why do you think everyone will move to the UK? What makes the UK so special that 7 billion other people would want to live there? Most don't.

Or are you suggesting that markets for goods and services should be restricted just as the market for labour, to prevent 'vultures' moving to another country?

There are a number of pull factors that would make it a popular destination.

Free Healthcare
not at war seriously affecting the general population.
higher than average lifestyle (we may moan about it but compared to Somalia we life a darn nice life.)
etc.

people are willing to hang on to jet landing gear to get here, why do you think it won't be a popular destination?

[xoggoth]

on eBay I can buy goods direct from a chinese supplier, I suspect many are individuals.
That isn't a free market, those goods are subject to import duties that those from a European supplier wouldn't attract.

Those that are not smuggled in or fakes. You don't know a lot about China do you? I might agree with arguments in favour of the free market if it was a reciprocal thing or if all those taking advantage of it were honest people but it isn't and they aren't. The levels of crime associated with the developing world and those from it are enormous. Just look at Chinese counterfeiting:

BBC News - EU reports growth in fake goods from China

An EU report says 64% of fake or pirated goods seized in the 27-nation bloc last year came from China - a 10% increase on 2008.
BBC News - EU reports growth in fake goods from China

PS Seriously I would be very careful what you buy on eBay from any Chinese. Watch the BBC's Fake Britain or take a look at the Electrical Safety Councils product recall pages. All the really dangerous stuff is from China.

http://www.esc.org.uk/recall/

[Mich the Tester]

everyone moving to the UK will just result in wages going through the floor, once they start to raise as they are in India the vultures will move to another country or we will import more. There will be flood & drought alternately.

Why do you think everyone will move to the UK? What makes the UK so special that 7 billion other people would want to live there? Most don't.

Or are you suggesting that markets for goods and services should be restricted just as the market for labour, to prevent 'vultures' moving to another country?