A funny story from the satire outlet Newsthump humorously portrays Jeremy Corbyn in terms of a common British trope: the ‘angry old man’ who doesn’t like ‘foreigners,’ is overly critical of immigration, and is very defensive about the economic interests of British workers. The humor is effective because as a hard-left socialist figure, Corbyn is supposed to be the opposite of a Daily Mail reading working class Tory ‘class traitor.’
Of course, all this will probably sound fairly ridiculous to the notoriously dogmatic and highly strung Corbies, who will undoubtedly have been triggered by some of the funny stories on Glossy News.
But doesa anyone else think there’s actually a grain of truth in this? (Leave your thoughts below!) For after all: a lot of Newsthump stories are woefully centrist, or at least can be plausibly read in that manner.
But as someone who supports radical immigration reform post-Brexit myself, and who advocates moving towards a more meritocratic and more rigorously enforced system, I’m not really sure a ‘socialist internationalist’ is the right person to advocate such a thing.
For those with a lot of time on their hands, there was a ‘Second International’ who were pro local workers, but a lot of ‘international socialism’ has striven to distinguish itself from ‘national socialism,’ even at the expense of local people. Immigration is something that involves conflicts of interest, so let’s have a system that is the least imperfect, most meritocratic system; but let’s not kid ourselves that radical socialists are the right people to bring that about.
There is of course some racism against migrants, which is very sad; but open borders are only going to increase racism. UK people are reasonable, at bottom; keep Darwinian competition for jobs at a low level, and racism will decline over time.
Ultimately, reducing racism, xenophobia and nationalism and having a maximally inclusive immigration system are two goals which are (largely, predominantly, on-the-whole, mutatis mutandi) exclusive and irreconcilable in character.
Post-Brexit, let’s invite the brightest and best from all over the world, instead of just letting white Europeans arrive (as Brussels dictated). But let’s not kid ourselves: it’s going to involve serious conflicts of interest, one way or another.
Don’t blame migrants for following their own individual economic interests, and trying to help their families; but don’t judge UK workers too harshly either. Ultimately, the past few decades have been our ‘Great Leap Forward,’ and if John Stuart Mill has spoken of the necessity of ‘experiments in living,’ let’s not forget that the whole point of an experiment is that it must lead to conclusions. What happened? What didn’t happen? How does this relate to people’s expectations before, during or after the experiment? The ‘freedom of movement’ ideal of Schengen is doomed to go down in history as woefully naive idealism. As with Communism, Nazism or theocratic experiments like Political Islam / Islamism, the stone that the builders refused is human nature; those who stumble upon it will be ground to powder.
Look at Italy, Poland, Hungary; but look at France and Germany as well, the two big bosses of the EU, now the third MVC (Most Valued Country) of the elite triumvirate has gone. Clearly, freedom of movement in Europe is no more possible than strict open borders, i.e. freedom of movement for the whole world.
Human nature is something given and fixed.
It can’t be changed.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to be aware that those who are struggling just won’t accept a system that is not only inhumane, but even inhuman, in the sense that it runs directly contrary to all you or I or anyone else have ever known about human nature. You cannot ‘educate’ people out of human nature; people have tried to do it in Russia or China, but it simply doesn’t work. The only way to eliminate the tendency of low-income UK people to fight for their own individual economic interests is to either imprison us, or to kill us.
Ultimately, the post-Brexit immigration system is going to have to take into account human nature, and the eminently predictable patterns of behaviour among the working class. By this point, the people are more defiant, and less afraid of being called racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes or nationalists. The truly sagely thing, as the Confucians of China have known from time immemorial, is to work with human nature and to work with the times; and never once against.
The new immigration system will have to focus on attracting the most creative and intelligent talent from around the world, while avoiding social dumping. This will improve social harmony, reduce bitterness and resentment, reduce the threat of religious and political extremism, and contain and roll back the swelling tide of violence.
This is the only way the UK can possibly move beyond the Dystopian nightmare of the Little Europers.
Of course, all this will probably sound fairly ridiculous to the notoriously dogmatic and highly strung Corbies, who will undoubtedly have been triggered by some of the funny stories on Glossy News.
But doesa anyone else think there’s actually a grain of truth in this? (Leave your thoughts below!) For after all: a lot of Newsthump stories are woefully centrist, or at least can be plausibly read in that manner.
But as someone who supports radical immigration reform post-Brexit myself, and who advocates moving towards a more meritocratic and more rigorously enforced system, I’m not really sure a ‘socialist internationalist’ is the right person to advocate such a thing.
For those with a lot of time on their hands, there was a ‘Second International’ who were pro local workers, but a lot of ‘international socialism’ has striven to distinguish itself from ‘national socialism,’ even at the expense of local people. Immigration is something that involves conflicts of interest, so let’s have a system that is the least imperfect, most meritocratic system; but let’s not kid ourselves that radical socialists are the right people to bring that about.
There is of course some racism against migrants, which is very sad; but open borders are only going to increase racism. UK people are reasonable, at bottom; keep Darwinian competition for jobs at a low level, and racism will decline over time.
Ultimately, reducing racism, xenophobia and nationalism and having a maximally inclusive immigration system are two goals which are (largely, predominantly, on-the-whole, mutatis mutandi) exclusive and irreconcilable in character.
Post-Brexit, let’s invite the brightest and best from all over the world, instead of just letting white Europeans arrive (as Brussels dictated). But let’s not kid ourselves: it’s going to involve serious conflicts of interest, one way or another.
Don’t blame migrants for following their own individual economic interests, and trying to help their families; but don’t judge UK workers too harshly either. Ultimately, the past few decades have been our ‘Great Leap Forward,’ and if John Stuart Mill has spoken of the necessity of ‘experiments in living,’ let’s not forget that the whole point of an experiment is that it must lead to conclusions. What happened? What didn’t happen? How does this relate to people’s expectations before, during or after the experiment? The ‘freedom of movement’ ideal of Schengen is doomed to go down in history as woefully naive idealism. As with Communism, Nazism or theocratic experiments like Political Islam / Islamism, the stone that the builders refused is human nature; those who stumble upon it will be ground to powder.
Look at Italy, Poland, Hungary; but look at France and Germany as well, the two big bosses of the EU, now the third MVC (Most Valued Country) of the elite triumvirate has gone. Clearly, freedom of movement in Europe is no more possible than strict open borders, i.e. freedom of movement for the whole world.
Human nature is something given and fixed.
It can’t be changed.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to be aware that those who are struggling just won’t accept a system that is not only inhumane, but even inhuman, in the sense that it runs directly contrary to all you or I or anyone else have ever known about human nature. You cannot ‘educate’ people out of human nature; people have tried to do it in Russia or China, but it simply doesn’t work. The only way to eliminate the tendency of low-income UK people to fight for their own individual economic interests is to either imprison us, or to kill us.
Ultimately, the post-Brexit immigration system is going to have to take into account human nature, and the eminently predictable patterns of behaviour among the working class. By this point, the people are more defiant, and less afraid of being called racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes or nationalists. The truly sagely thing, as the Confucians of China have known from time immemorial, is to work with human nature and to work with the times; and never once against.
The new immigration system will have to focus on attracting the most creative and intelligent talent from around the world, while avoiding social dumping. This will improve social harmony, reduce bitterness and resentment, reduce the threat of religious and political extremism, and contain and roll back the swelling tide of violence.
This is the only way the UK can possibly move beyond the Dystopian nightmare of the Little Europers.