Marx on immigration ..

is it possible to state what karl mark's view was on immigration .. if it it is what was it .. to start off see below ..


The NO Borders Marx

'But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade. Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade (1848)'


and the Anti Immigration Marx

who was against the 'chinese rabble' being imported to undercut wages and the irish immigration to Englandallegedly because they want “the right to work on the mainland.”

Writing in March/april to Meyer and Vogt 1870, Marx noted that the English bourgeoisie “exploited the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen.”


"..Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class..."

interestingly the left often reproduces parts of this letter ( below) but not the above sentance ..

"..And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland..."


of course as always is .. what do we do about it all!

and before any one says it ..

yes clearly marx and engels were racist as regards both irish and chinese workers .. but from that wierd progressive angle of the organised working class

which my dad has too ( to a benign extent) .. that the irish in south wales were not union (guess there were a lot of strike breakers at one point in history) and worse .. WERE NOT CAPEL .. were papists and drinkers!

I don't see that complaining that "...the English bourgeoisie exploit(ed) the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen." amounts to racism. It is not blaming the Irish for being Irish.

I suppose the description of the "Chinese rabble" might be seen as derogatory but is this an accurate quote from Marx?

durruti02 said:

and before any one says it ..

yes clearly marx and engels were racist as regards both irish and chinese workers .. but from that wierd progressive angle of the organised working class

which my dad has too ( to a benign extent) .. that the irish in south wales were not union (guess there were a lot of strike breakers at one point in history) and worse .. WERE NOT CAPEL .. were papists and drinkers!

Click to expand...

Its a good job marx or engels are not around now .They would be hounded by The SWP and UAF.

double post

where have all the marxists gone? .. long time passing
where have al the marxists gone? .. long time ago
where have al the marxists gone? .. became liberals every one
when will they ever learn
when will they ever learn



sorry but there are a load of people on U75 who profess to be in groups that call themselves marxist .. and no response ..
and immigration is one of the main issues ( rightly or wrongly) for w/c people in this country

so lets look at what marx said .. we don't have to slavishly follow but .. ..

OK then, as a Marxist, let's look at the quotations.

durruti02 said:

Marx noted that the English bourgeoisie “exploited the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen.”

Click to expand...

Which, as noted above, is not racist.

durruti02 said:

"..Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class..."

Click to expand...

If you left out "and moral", this would again be entirely reasonable. Why would the immigration of Irish workers to England lower the moral position of the English working class? It could be argued that this would be the result of the lowering of their material position. However, if so, this is clumsy and clearly open to racist interpretation.

Marx wasn't a paragon of virtue, and although I believe clearly intending to adopt non-racist positions, he sometimes used phrases which are now outdated, and sometimes seems to have unquestioningly left in minor asides which suggest some accommodation to the racism prevelant in the society of the day. It's rather more surprising that he so often did question this, and called for the unity of the workers of the world.

There's strong evidence that Engels was homophobic, but similarly, this doesn't invalidate their work, rather that - like anything - it should be read critically, taking the many useful insights and debating that which is outdated or incorrect.

the more racist stuff is i think from engels re the irish.. 'dirty immoral backward' etc etc

ok so do we accept that Marx believed immigration pushed down wages and undercut workers organisation and though i can not find all the qoutes, i know he had spoke of this re america, scotland and the north ??

and if so why do marxists now take the opposite position?

an interesting topic, but im not entirely sure one should form their opinion on immigration based on Marx and Engel's personal views, due to the changes that capitalism has undergone. It's like following their organisational views, despite the things we've learned from social-democracy and Bolshevism since.

mattkidd12 said:

an interesting topic, but im not entirely sure one should form their opinion on immigration based on Marx and Engel's personal views, due to the changes that capitalism has undergone. It's like following their organisational views, despite the things we've learned from social-democracy and Bolshevism since.

Click to expand...

you are right matt .. but i think it is not wrong to look at and debate what they have said .. as for others who followed them ..

i know there was a big debate re immigration amongt 'marxists' in north america at the turn of the last century .. though i have not had time to see the ins and outs yet .. essentially pretty similar to now .. complaints about bosses using cheap labour .. etc etc


so what do you think about what they said?

It all makes sense to me. One of the most common arguments against unchecked immigration is the drain on resources. An American poll puts this concern at the top of the reasons why people oppose unchecked immigration (ill find it if you want).

Marx and Engels don't say that English workers 'hate' Irish workers because they are Irish, its because of the competition for jobs. This may have changed now, but I think it made sense in Marx's day. (although immigration from Europe to Latin America helped the growth of anarchism and marxism, so it wasn't all bad!).

Still makes perfect sense if you see the world thru a Marxist lens - leaving aside the comments on Chinamen and the Irish (both 'spirit of the times' comments I'm sure) the essential nature of both divide and rule (Irish vs English proles) AND the need for both capitalists and and the proles to become 'international' and without borders - creating the global conditions for the revolution (which AFAIR is a pre-condition of the rev happening and more to the point, succeeding beyond the immediate aftermath).

Protectionism keeps locals in jobs, creates little or no chance of solidarity with overseas 'brothers'. Free trade and open borders, while harming the w/c in the short term through divide and rule and race to the bottom salaries, competition for welfare resources leading to racial division (see threads passim on why the BNP get votes and how the left are unable to accept some of the key reasons why), is a pre-requisite of achieving a global class consciousness before overthrowing the caps...or something like that.

But Marx would have approved of free borders I reckon. Altho he was flawed in seeing as capitalist a system that is little more than industrial feudalism IMV.

The main relevant letter of Marx's is here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

'And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.'

Bloody hell, bit given to making sweping statements about the inevitability of things happening and clearly a subject of rigourous FP pronuoncements (the English/Irish issue being the prime cause of friction between the two...)

kyser_soze said:

Still makes perfect sense if you see the world thru a Marxist lens - leaving aside the comments on Chinamen and the Irish (both 'spirit of the times' comments I'm sure) the essential nature of both divide and rule (Irish vs English proles) AND the need for both capitalists and and the proles to become 'international' and without borders - creating the global conditions for the revolution (which AFAIR is a pre-condition of the rev happening and more to the point, succeeding beyond the immediate aftermath).

Protectionism keeps locals in jobs, creates little or no chance of solidarity with overseas 'brothers'. Free trade and open borders, while harming the w/c in the short term through divide and rule and race to the bottom salaries, competition for welfare resources leading to racial division (see threads passim on why the BNP get votes and how the left are unable to accept some of the key reasons why), is a pre-requisite of achieving a global class consciousness before overthrowing the caps...or something like that.

But Marx would have approved of free borders I reckon. Altho he was flawed in seeing as capitalist a system that is little more than industrial feudalism IMV.

Click to expand...

i do not agree with this idea that internationalism can only grow when we have all immigrated and emigrated etc etc

as an example the chapels in my dads town .. (all white and protestant) took dozens of basque (catholic) refugees from the facist coup in spain in 1936

i resent the idea that people can not develop political conciousness without travelling the globe .. sounds racist and quasi leninists to me!

deleted .. mistake .. see below

rebel warrior said:

The main relevant letter of Marx's is here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

'And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.'

Click to expand...

well done rebel .. of course i forgot all english ( and welsh) workers are racist!!

i guess you have missed the point of what marx is saying is that

THIS(ABOVE) IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF CAPITALIST IMMIGRATION

durruti- what is your view on immigration/borders then?

mattkidd12 said:

durruti- what is your view on immigration/borders then?

Click to expand...

are you being funny? i thought you had contributed to the long running immigration and thatcherism thread

i am for workers control .. of everything .. be it immigration housing wages or art

I agree with you.

So do you mean English workers control over English borders?

Durruti - who are these 'workers'?

And you haven't understood my point about internationalism either - the only way a truly global international workers movement will ever happen is when all workers around the world realise they are getting a shitty deal EVERYWHERE - at the moment what possible reason would someone who works in a call centre (the modern working classes) have for wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder with their Indian equivalent who is potentially going to take their job.

And this can only happen once industrial feudalism is truly global as well, when it has gone past the point of finding ever cheaper pools of labour (currently China and India, Africa will most likely be next) which will mean that there is little or no wage competition among the w/c - basically as soon as everyone is in the same shitty boat and more importantly can identify with others in the same situation.

not always true


What about in the Welsh valleys with its protected nationalised coal industry, up untill the 1970's/80's you could find many examples of internationalism/workers solidarity: fundraisng for numerous global stuggles/strikes, helping refugees from Chile, support for the Sandinistas, anti -apartheid, i could go on.....

KS said

And you haven't understood my point about internationalism either - the only way a truly global international workers movement will ever happen is when all workers around the world realise they are getting a shitty deal EVERYWHERE - at the moment what possible reason would someone who works in a call centre (the modern working classes) have for wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder with their Indian equivalent who is potentially going to take their job.

Click to expand...

Hmmm yeah, and I wonder how long that solidarity would have lasted if those jobs hadn't been protected? To show support and sympathy from someone from a position of (relative) safety and job security is very different from showing similar support to someone who is competing for the same job as you are.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that many (most) of the miners weren't supportive of these causes, just that without that protection would they have responded in the same way? Ultimately those protected jobs placed them at the top of the tree economicially (when compared to the poor globally)

Until you get to a point where the two call centre workers recognise they are in the same position and unite together you will not see ay kind of significant global change.

durruti02 said:

well done rebel .. of course i forgot all english ( and welsh) workers are racist!!

i guess you have missed the point of what marx is saying is that

THIS(ABOVE) IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF CAPITALIST IMMIGRATION

Click to expand...

no no no! You totally misunderstand. A Marxist analysis, is a dialectical analysis. You cannot cut up and section off immigration in isolation from everything else, and say that immigration causes XYC. There are many other factors which contribute to the above. Such as "the dominant ideas in any society, are those of the ruling class", and the need to win the idea amongst workers that "workers of the world unite, all you have to lose his your chains".

however, Karl Marx does argue that immigration is a factor in the division of workers, and I do not know any Marxists who disagree with this. (A very interesting film on the topic is "the killing floor", a study of the effects of immigration in an American slaughterhouse over a few generations.) this is the constant fallacy of you and Baldy, that Marxist don't understand this. I'm sorry but it is a fallacy.

The dominat ideas of the Left on Imiigartion are those of the ruling class. they have no coherent ideas based on a Class or Internationalist analysis.

Article on the conditions of migrants from Eastern Europe employed as fruit pickers that the big supermarkets gain from.

For England's army of migrant workers, it's not all strawberries and cream.

The pickers are welcomed by the majority of people in Leominster, but there is concern that the migrant labour force is being taken advantage of. This weekend, a straw poll of 50 people working in the tunnels suggested many pickers are as angry as Mrs Salisbury. Those who spoke English said they were being paid less than they expected, that they had to wait for payment, that the accommodation was expensive, that they had paid too much to get there and that the management were unduly profiting from their stay.

Click to expand...

mattkidd12 said:

I agree with you.

So do you mean English workers control over English borders?

Click to expand...

er no ???? workers .. where ever they have previously come from .. it's about workers control mate .. not race .. you seem to keep getting the 2 confused

kyser_soze said:

Durruti - who are these 'workers'?

And you haven't understood my point about internationalism either - the only way a truly global international workers movement will ever happen is when all workers around the world realise they are getting a shitty deal EVERYWHERE - at the moment what possible reason would someone who works in a call centre (the modern working classes) have for wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder with their Indian equivalent who is potentially going to take their job.

And this can only happen once industrial feudalism is truly global as well, when it has gone past the point of finding ever cheaper pools of labour (currently China and India, Africa will most likely be next) which will mean that there is little or no wage competition among the w/c - basically as soon as everyone is in the same shitty boat and more importantly can identify with others in the same situation.

Click to expand...

thats interesting but i think wrong ..

it is like leninists saying that peasants can not make revolution or that revolution is possible only when capitalism has reached its highest stage of development .. when mate ?? when will that be? when will we have mixed and travelled and emigrated enough .. lets start here and now ..at the bottom .. ( where i reside! )

p.s. america is an immgrant nation .. i see less signs of revolution there than elsewhere

durruti02 said:

er no ???? workers .. where ever they have previously come from .. it's about workers control mate .. not race .. you seem to keep getting the 2 confused

Click to expand...

English isn't a race.

I don't understand what you mean by workers control - workers control of their workplaces/communities? What if communities in this country decided to limit immigration into their community?

durruti02 said:

is it possible to state what karl mark's view was on immigration .. if it it is what was it .. to start off see below ..


The NO Borders Marx

'But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade. Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade (1848)'

Click to expand...

Actually if you read the previous paragraph in this speech, Marx assigns a
similar progressive role to protectionism at a different stage of development.
The point is that Marx was talking about the question of free trade in England
in the 1840's not free trade in general. Furthermore he was not advocating
free trade but recognising the relative backwardness of protectionism in
the context. He was opposed to both capitalist policies. He makes an analogy
with his opposition to both free trade and protectionism:
"One may declare oneself an enemy of the constitutional regime without
declaring oneself a friend of the ancient regime."

With respect to the quote "it [free trade] breaks up old nationalities..." I
must admit that this is an odd conclusion. Marx was certainly right to say
that protectionism was a barrier to generalisation of capatalist relations but
free trade most certainly did not break up nationalities. Seventy years on
and Europe was thrown into total war. I tend to think this quote a careless formulation and not central to Marx's argument - Marx advances no
arguments along the lines that free trade is progressive because it tends to
disolve national borders.

durruti02 said:

and the Anti Immigration Marx

who was against the 'chinese rabble' being imported to undercut wages and the irish immigration to Englandallegedly because they want “the right to work on the mainland.”

Writing in March/april to Meyer and Vogt 1870, Marx noted that the English bourgeoisie “exploited the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen.”


"..Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class..."

interestingly the left often reproduces parts of this letter ( below) but not the above sentance ..

"..And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland..."


of course as always is .. what do we do about it all!

Click to expand...

I don't see the contradiction. For a start free trade and immigration are
different questions and Marx never advanced a 'no-borders' line on either.

Immigration has never to my mind generalised capitalist relations. I suspect
it does nothing to develop the forces of production (if an employer has
access to cheap labour then there is less commercial pressure to develop
more productive technology). It doesn't even seem to engender international
working class solidarity - it seems just as likely that the immigrant is
consigned to the fabled 'job that no one else wants to do' and lives in
his own ethnic enclaves thus recreating national divisions within the nation
itself. I would tend to see the globalisation of labour as being more analagous
to protectionism than to free trade.