Marx on immigration ..

[TremulousTetra]

The point I would like to stress is that Marx and Engels were willing to discuss problems associated with immigration. The more advanced political culture of the time meant that there was no talk about what was being insinuated, or what 'they really meant' etc. They meant what they said and it was understood that they meant it.

The language Engels used in the Condition of the Working-Class in England has been far harsher than anything on these boards - and that's even including the fash entrists.

But putting our 21st century obsession with style aside, the content of what Marx and Engels said was pretty clear - perhaps especially because they did not indulge worries about 'causing offence' etc. They had rounded views that were not just simple positives and negatives but while taking that into account they said things that many modern leftists blanche at saying. Firstly immigration can depress wages. Secondly that it can cause conflict within the working class. Thirdly they were willing to support Irish independence partly (but mainly) on the grounds that it would curtail Irish immigration.

look back to the thread, I'm sure we've already covered these topics. Socialist worker has never denied to my knowledge "Firstly immigration can depress wages. Secondly that it can cause conflict within the working class. "

 

[Knotted]

look back to the thread, I'm sure we've already covered these topics. Socialist worker has never denied to my knowledge "Firstly immigration can depress wages. Secondly that it can cause conflict within the working class. "

The debate was actually in the thread about John Cruddas, I had a quick glance through it again yesterday.

Strictly speaking what you say is probably true, but I would contend that Socialist Worker - even if it does not deny these things - does not say them.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The debate was actually in the thread about John Cruddas, I had a quick glance through it again yesterday.

Strictly speaking what you say is probably true, but I would contend that Socialist Worker - even if it does not deny these things - does not say them.

"probably true", there is no probably about it, it is true period. What's more I don't know of any socialist organisation who has denied "Firstly immigration can depress wages. Secondly that it can cause conflict within the working class. ". Do you know of any? I'm pretty certain you don't.

of course Socialist Worker say these things, I just have. Immigration can depress wages. Immigration can cause conflict within the working class. There, I've said it again, (though I'm sure you would accept those statements are simple positive and negatives which really need to be more rounded to accurately reflect the 'truth'. A more rounded truth would go on to describe how immigration is an element rather than the sole cause. And though immigration can be a factor in such manifestations, it can also be a factor in many other manifestations. immigration can have positive effects upon wages and working class unity too.).

the truth is, nobody has denied it, and nobody is frightened of saying it, we just do not agree with the 'solutions', and the oversimplistic and pandering analysis some people are putting on offer. Simple as that.

 

[Knotted]

"probably true", there is no probably about it, it is true period. What's more I don't know of any socialist organisation who has denied "Firstly immigration can depress wages. Secondly that it can cause conflict within the working class. ". Do you know of any? I'm pretty certain you don't.

It would be a pretty obscure thing to say. Basically it means saying that these things can never happen. The SWP and other groups certainly deny that immigration depresses wages and that it causes conflict in the here in now.

of course Socialist Worker say these things, I just have. Immigration can depress wages. Immigration can cause conflict within the working class.

They might have done, but I've never seen it.

There, I've said it again, (though I'm sure you would accept those statements are simple positive and negatives which really need to be more rounded to accurately reflect the 'truth'. A more rounded truth would go on to describe how immigration is an element rather than the sole cause. And though immigration can be a factor in such manifestations, it can also be a factor in many other manifestations. immigration can have positive effects upon wages and working class unity too.).

the truth is, nobody has denied it, and nobody is frightened of saying it, we just do not agree with the 'solutions', and the oversimplistic and pandering analysis some people are putting on offer. Simple as that.

Sure, I think there is broad agreement here.

 

[durruti02]

RM .. i have linked two SW articles further up the thread .. the first is awfull .. opinion and uncontectual qoutes .. and it keeps with the idea that immigration is essentially good as 1) it raises GNP and 2) keeps the NHS going etc .. both these reasons to back the bosses using migrants labour are basically un marxist/socialist/dialectical

the second and most recent shows a subtle change .. i will re read it myself

at the end of the day you may say what you do but we judge SW on what it prints .. and up till now that has been a pretty poor defence of neo liberalism migration policies on this issue ..

where is the front page attack on the bosses for using and abusing immigrants? where i s the front page attack on bosses for cutting wages and employing migrants on less mo ney? where is the attack on the NHS bosses ofr emplying workers from all over the world when kids in this country face a life time of unemployment?

 

[Knotted]

From Socialist Worker:

Simon Basketter debunks the myth that immigrants drive down workers’ wages, and outlines the socialist tradition of fighting for unity against racism and capitalism

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10111

The contents of this article are worth discussing on their own merrit rather than just how they compare to Marx & Engels. But its pretty plain that Socialist Worker on the one hand and M&E on the other had quite different analyses on this question. Of course there is a good 150 year gap which could be used to explain the different circumstances and hence the different analysis, but this article even talks about the 'socialist tradition' as if it had always been this way.

 

[nino_savatte]

The point I would like to stress is that Marx and Engels were willing to discuss problems associated with immigration. The more advanced political culture of the time meant that there was no talk about what was being insinuated, or what 'they really meant' etc. They meant what they said and it was understood that they meant it.

The language Engels used in the Condition of the Working-Class in England has been far harsher than anything on these boards - and that's even including the fash entrists.

But putting our 21st century obsession with style aside, the content of what Marx and Engels said was pretty clear - perhaps especially because they did not indulge worries about 'causing offence' etc. They had rounded views that were not just simple positives and negatives but while taking that into account they said things that many modern leftists blanche at saying. Firstly immigration can depress wages. Secondly that it can cause conflict within the working class. Thirdly they were willing to support Irish independence partly (but mainly) on the grounds that it would curtail Irish immigration.

That may be the case and Engles may have used some racist language but your reading of the Letter to Meyer and Vogt (Marx 1870) is highly selectivised. You obviously missed this bit.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

This echoes exactly what I have been saying on this and other threads vis a vis the role of the media in perpetuating divisions and tensions. My italics btw.

Marx isn't complaining about immigration per se, he is trying to find a way to create a workers movement across the world and he has identified some obstacles: namely the way in which immigrant labour is exploited by capitalist bosses and the way in which the Irish are portrayed in the media and the fear of the Other that has arisen.

The last paragraph reveals his desire for worker's solidarity.

You have wide field in America for work along the same lines. A coalition of the German workers with the Irish workers (and of course also with the English and American workers who are prepared to accede to it) is the greatest achievement you could bring about now. This must be done in the name of the International. The social significance of the Irish question must be made clear.

Please note the emboldened text.

I'll be back.

 

[nino_savatte]

What on earth are you wittering on about again? Who has mentioned immigration controls? Where?

All you have done is complain about language. This sounds like the BNP, that sounds right wing. Usual PC bullshit. The plain language of Marx and Engels is pretty refreshing compared to modern spin and PR. The type of crap language you try to enforce on here.

"Wittering"? No one is "wittering", Knotted...that's just your imagination. You can't resist a smear - can you? You've done it on the the "Too many" thread and you're doing it here.

You have lifted paragraphs from a certain text and disconnected them from the rest of the text. You understand what is meant by the word "contextualisation", don't you? I presume that you went to university, were you not told about citations and how to use quotes?

The title of this thread is "Marx and immigration", it's a narrative and, as I indicated earlier, it only serves to support durutti's 'argument' and nothing else.

 

[nino_savatte]

Your quotation of part of the letter from Engels to Sorge is also somewhat selective. Now you can sit and grumble about "style" but it won't get you off the hook. Though how this supports your overall argument, is anyone's guess.

What appears to be on offer from durutti is not the idea of worker's solidarity across the board but, rather, dividing workers according to their country of origin and the circumstances of their birth.

 

[nino_savatte]

From the "Commercial Crisis" letter

In the meantime starving Ireland is writhing in the most terrible convulsions. The workhouses are overflowing with beggars, the ruined property owners are refusing to pay the Poor Tax, and the hungry people gather in their thousands to ransack the barns and cattle-sheds of the farmers and even of the Catholic priests, who were still sacred to them a short time ago.

These were the conditions that were forced upon the vast majority of Irish peasantry (a situation that was exacerbated by British intransigence), he may be concerned about immigration but he also realises why they have to emigrate. Presumably you know how desperate things were during the Famine? If you were faced with the same privations, what would you do? Stay and suffer or leave and find a better life for you and your family?

 

[Knotted]

That may be the case and Engles may have used some racist language but your reading of the Letter to Meyer and Vogt (Marx 1870) is highly selectivised. You obviously missed this bit.

I don't particularly want to quote the parts of the letter which express points of view that are well known regards Marx and Marxism, plus I don't want to quote the whole text verbatum as this is regarded as obnoxious, so naturally I select the bits which emphasise a point. You do this as well of course.

To deal with the part you selected (its also a favourite quote for the SWP), its important to note for the - sake of context - that Marx says:

"This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers..."

Not something like:

"This antagonism is produced and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers..."

This is a point I have stressed before to RMP3. Marx is not saying that the antagonism is a result of the media of the time, but rather that the media artificially sustain the antagonism.

This echoes exactly what I have been saying on this and other threads vis a vis the role of the media in perpetuating divisions and tensions. My italics btw.

Sure, I agree with you here. However the perpetuation is not the same as the underlying cause.

Marx isn't complaining about immigration per se, he is trying to find a way to create a workers movement across the world and he has identified some obstacles: namely the way in which immigrant labour is exploited by capitalist bosses and the way in which the Irish are portrayed in the media and the fear of the Other that has arisen.

The last paragraph reveals his desire for worker's solidarity.



Please note the emboldened text.

I'll be back.

Absolutely. No disagreement here.

 

[Knotted]

Your quotation of part of the letter from Engels to Sorge is also somewhat selective. Now you can sit and grumble about "style" but it won't get you off the hook. Though how this supports your overall argument, is anyone's guess.

What appears to be on offer from durutti is not the idea of worker's solidarity across the board but, rather, dividing workers according to their country of origin and the circumstances of their birth.

In that case you had better read what has been said more carefully. I will grant that there is not a great emphasis on international solidarity, but that is because it is something that people who post on these thread generally agree with. Debating points of agreement is not particularly useful.

 

[Knotted]

From the "Commercial Crisis" letter



These were the conditions that were forced upon the vast majority of Irish peasantry (a situation that was exacerbated by British intransigence), he may be concerned about immigration but he also realises why they have to emigrate. Presumably you know how desperate things were during the Famine? If you were faced with the same privations, what would you do? Stay and suffer or leave and find a better life for you and your family?

Again I can't help but note a point about style and emphasis. Was Engels really interested in moral questions about blame? That's not my reading. Nor do I think that Engels was concerned about formulating a policy at this point.

I read Engels as making fairly pure analytic points here and in the Conditions of the Working-Class in England (except in the programmatic parts).

I'm possibly wrong, but in any case the analysis is the thing I am most interested in. Engels regarded the increased immigration with alarm. That's not a comment on the causes of the immigration nor is it a comment on what should have been done. However its a point of interest in its own right. Its also the sort of thing that many today would shy away from saying for fear of 'sending out the wrong message' or some such.

By the way, thanks for taking the time.

 

[Knotted]

"Wittering"? No one is "wittering", Knotted...that's just your imagination. You can't resist a smear - can you? You've done it on the the "Too many" thread and you're doing it here.

You have lifted paragraphs from a certain text and disconnected them from the rest of the text. You understand what is meant by the word "contextualisation", don't you? I presume that you went to university, were you not told about citations and how to use quotes?

The title of this thread is "Marx and immigration", it's a narrative and, as I indicated earlier, it only serves to support durutti's 'argument' and nothing else.

I don't understand how you can quote something without taking it out of its context - unless you quote verbatum. But then you can look up the context if need be. If the context is important for understanding the quote then we can talk about this.

The OP was certainly not a narrative. Durrutti emphasised an apparent contradiction in Marx. I believe I've dealt with this earlier in the thread. However, durrutti was emphasising a lack of narrative if anything. As I read him he was interested in how Marxists dealt with the two very different quotes he found. I don't think he was making any particular point nevermind constructing a narrative.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't understand how you can quote something without taking it out of its context -

It's easy, it's called "selectivisation" and it occurs when someone isolates a paragraph or sentence from the rest of the text and presents it as 'evidence'. Another way to describe it is as a "decontextualisation" of the particular bit of text. I've seen it many times and usually those who use this tactic - such as the media - do so in the knowledge that they are engaging in half-truths.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't understand how you can quote something without taking it out of its context - unless you quote verbatum. But then you can look up the context if need be. If the context is important for understanding the quote then we can talk about this.

The OP was certainly not a narrative. Durrutti emphasised an apparent contradiction in Marx. I believe I've dealt with this earlier in the thread. However, durrutti was emphasising a lack of narrative if anything. As I read him he was interested in how Marxists dealt with the two very different quotes he found. I don't think he was making any particular point nevermind constructing a narrative.

Nope, the OP is a narrative. There is no Marxian contradiction aside from the one being made up by durutti.

I remember a nice bit of Situationist graffiti that seems rather apposite.

Don't consume Marx, live him

 

[The Black Hand]

Here is a lot of good articles on Multiculturalism;

http://www.metamute.org/en/Dis-integrating-Multiculturalism

 

[Knotted]

Nope, the OP is a narrative. There is no Marxian contradiction aside from the one being made up by durutti.

Well firstly I said 'apparent contradiction' not 'contradiction'. You will have to pay more attention.

Secondly one of the quotes in the OP was out of context. It was the quote on free trade, not the one on immigration.

Being out of context the free trade quote seemed to mean something that it wasn't saying. This was not true of the immigration quote. The fact that you have talked about the context of the latter illustrates this.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well firstly I said 'apparent contradiction' not 'contradiction'. You will have to pay more attention.

Secondly one of the quotes in the OP was out of context. It was the quote on free trade, not the one on immigration.

Being out of context the free trade quote seemed to mean something that it wasn't saying. This was not true of the immigration quote. The fact that you have talked about the context of the latter illustrates this.

I take it you know of the IWW and its successes in uniting immigrant and 'native' labour in the US? It seems some folk don't want to see this sort of thing happen in today's world. It's much easier to use immigrants as scapegoats.

 

[Knotted]

I take it you know of the IWW and its successes in uniting immigrant and 'native' labour in the US? It seems some folk don't want to see this sort of thing happen in today's world. It's much easier to use immigrants as scapegoats.

Yes I do know about the IWW and yes I would like to see an IWW type organisation today and I'll go much further. I think it would be effective today precisely because of the problems associated with immigration. However it would need an organisational impulse from somewhere - either the left or the immigrants themselves if the left are looking the other way.

Not only are there far too many who think its easy to scapegoat immigrants, there are also far too many who think that there are no conclusions to be drawn about the large increase in immigration in recent years.

 

[durruti02]

thank you for engaging nino

seeing as you are now involved i will say what i think of MnE on immigration .. i think that maybe their position was distorted by racism .. both against the irish and the chinese .. they were very euro centric in a way i think it would be hard to fine anyone on the left today.

That said i think a contradiction remains - between the 'intelectual' marx who sees capital creating processes and a class that will eventually destroy its creator, and the 'political' marx, who saw how capital ships labour to where IT needs it most and at the lowest rate, and the affect this has on class orgnaisation.

re your qoute from the letter to Mayer, .. you missed the equally important next sentance "This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this."

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

what you consistently misunderstand is that i agree with this, and i also agree that there is an antagonism that is kept alive by the press etc. But knotted's pont is crucial here. It is that there is an antagonism. And this is my whole point .. to deal with this antagonism we must be open and honest about it. we must be clear about the processes about why they happen about who benefits, about numbers, about material affect, we must be clear about the affect on housing .. beacuae if we as a left do not then the racist right will and are doing .. and they will and are simply blaming migrants. The left are letting the bosses of the hook on what should be an open goal ...


p.s. p.134 of Engels 'Condition ...' about wages and supply and demand is of relevance

p.s. i mis-referenced my first qoute in the OP .. that "the English bourgeoisie has not only exploited the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen, but it has also divided the proletariat into two hostile camps. The revolutionary fire of the Celtic worker does not go well with the nature of the Anglo-Saxon worker, solid, but slow. On the contrary, in all the big industrial centres in England there is profound antagonism between the Irish proletariat and the English proletariat. The average English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers wages and the standard of life. He feels national and religious antipathies for him. He regards him somewhat like the poor whites of the Southern States of North America regard their black slaves. This antagonism among the proletarians of England is artificially nourished and supported by the bourgeoisie. It knows that this scission is the true secret of maintaining its power." It is from the The Minutes of the General Council of the First International, 1868-70. not from the letter to Meyer

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/national_question2.html

 

[durruti02]

I take it you know of the IWW and its successes in uniting immigrant and 'native' labour in the US? It seems some folk don't want to see this sort of thing happen in today's world. It's much easier to use immigrants as scapegoats.

i hope nino you are now prepared to accept that i am NOT trying to scapegoat any migrants .. indeed i see what i am contributing to, as a process that will make the lives of both migranats and non migrants better .. i am, in a way I see as marxian, trying to help us deal with the antagonims that are both real AND being nourished by the bosses/state. And i will repeat over and over .. if WE as a progressive left do not make the runnning on this issue the far right will

p.s. i think what the iww did was great and always have .. as i have said before though to be against e.g. sweat shops does not make us against those who work in hem ..

p.p.s and out of interest i signed a lithuanian up to the union the other day .. and proably a pole too though he is agency so i am not sure he can afford it ..

 

[durruti02]

Not only are there far too many who think its easy to scapegoat immigrants, there are also far too many who think that there are no conclusions to be drawn about the large increase in immigration in recent years.

spot on ..

 

[Columbine]

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!

Yes, it is to the workers (men and women) of each country to liberate themselves from the tyranny of imperialism and capitalism.

When we take control in this country, we will arm our comrades of all countries, which will lead to the betterment of a future society and a more magnificent future for all of the people of the world.

Working people of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!

 

[audiotech]

spot on ..

Your conclusion would be?

 

[durruti02]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knotted
Not only are there far too many who think its easy to scapegoat immigrants, there are also far too many who think that there are no conclusions to be drawn about the large increase in immigration in recent years.

Originally Posted by Durruti02
spot on ..

Your conclusion would be?

i refer you to what i have written over the last 2 years .. i think you have read some of it ( p.s. a shortened version just for you is ,y conclusion is that this large increase is directly related to neo liberalism and its demand for cheap labour .. what you thought i was going to say VOTE BNP!!

 

[nino_savatte]

what you consistently misunderstand is that i agree with this, and i also agree that there is an antagonism that is kept alive by the press etc. But knotted's pont is crucial here. It is that there is an antagonism. And this is my whole point .. to deal with this antagonism we must be open and honest about it. we must be clear about the processes about why they happen about who benefits, about numbers, about material affect, we must be clear about the affect on housing .. beacuae if we as a left do not then the racist right will and are doing .. and they will and are simply blaming migrants. The left are letting the bosses of the hook on what should be an open goal ...

There is only one problem with this: you risk appeasing the BNP and other far right parties, whose sole aim is to drive a wedge between sections of the working class. I have already stated that this notion that immigrants "take priority over natives" in social housing is a myth, yet you seem unwilling even to look at the evidence and would much rather accept the myth as fact.

 

[nino_savatte]

i hope nino you are now prepared to accept that i am NOT trying to scapegoat any migrants .. indeed i see what i am contributing to, as a process that will make the lives of both migranats and non migrants better .. i am, in a way I see as marxian, trying to help us deal with the antagonims that are both real AND being nourished by the bosses/state. And i will repeat over and over .. if WE as a progressive left do not make the runnning on this issue the far right will

p.s. i think what the iww did was great and always have .. as i have said before though to be against e.g. sweat shops does not make us against those who work in hem ..

p.p.s and out of interest i signed a lithuanian up to the union the other day .. and proably a pole too though he is agency so i am not sure he can afford it ..

Well done for signing up the Lithuanian. Now you need to sign up all the others. If anything, most immigrants would only be too happy to join a union; they don't want to be exploited any more than any of us does.

I overheard a conversation in one of my local pubs yesterday afternoon (I wasn't drinking btw), where this one bloke, who looked as though he'd been there all day, was moaning about Chinese and Japanese (sic) "sneaking into the country". He said "We'll all have to learn their language". There is a great deal of ignorance like this out there, how would you propose to deal with it...or are you prepared to let such people wallow in their ignorance?

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes I do know about the IWW and yes I would like to see an IWW type organisation today and I'll go much further. I think it would be effective today precisely because of the problems associated with immigration. However it would need an organisational impulse from somewhere - either the left or the immigrants themselves if the left are looking the other way.

Not only are there far too many who think its easy to scapegoat immigrants, there are also far too many who think that there are no conclusions to be drawn about the large increase in immigration in recent years.

Do you think today's TUC and the superunions that have emerged in the last 10 years will be effective? Because I see very little willingness to engage properly with the un-unionised migrant workforce.

 

[Knotted]

Do you think today's TUC and the superunions that have emerged in the last 10 years will be effective? Because I see very little willingness to engage properly with the un-unionised migrant workforce.

I think the situation is somewhat comparable to the US in the early 20th century. The AFL had no interest in unionising low skilled workers and even less interest in unionising low skill immigrant workers. But it was in this sort of circumstance that the IWW came about, and was when it was at its most vital.

One thing I want to note is that the IWW had (and indeed have) a syndicalist ideology that I reject. Unions are basically defensive organisations. It took a country like the US where the labour movement was weak to produce the IWW and I would see its formation as a rear-guard action in practice. However there's lot to be learnt from it.

To answer your question, the TUC are hopeless. Good UNISON, GMB etc. branches can work well, but they are few and far between. In my experience.