Marx on immigration ..

[audiotech]

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.

Interesting point with regard to technology and production, but cheap labour like say fruit picking is unlikely to see major investment in 'productive technology' (seasonal, risk of crops failing, fickle markets).

It seems to me that the reserve army of labour which Marx talked about has now gone beyond national borders.

 

[Knotted]

Interesting point with regard to technology and production, but cheap labour like say fruit picking is unlikely to see major investment in 'productive technology' (seasonal, risk of crops failing, fickle markets).

You're probably right, but there is a deeper point to be made. When
capital has access to a large renewable source of cheap labour, then
labour intensive industries such as fruit picking or cleaning will tend to
be more profitable than highly productive technologically advanced
industries such as car manufacture. I think in Marxist terms this means that
immigration will tend to slow the tendency of the rate of profit to decline
thus blunting the class struggle. I would see this as analgous to
protectionism - it tends to protect the most labour intensive and least
dynamic sections of industry. Plus its a form of economic nationalism in that
it 'keeps British industry competative'.

It seems to me that the reserve army of labour which Marx talked about has now gone beyond national borders.

Absolutely, but at the same time don't forget that the government fiddles
unemployment figures - there is still a large domestic reserve army of labour.

 

[nopassaran]

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 really felt like losing it when I read this - there is nothing at all progressive, wierd or otherwise, about racism - it destroys people's lives and has been the motivating force behind the most obscene and barbaric acts of violence in human history.

You seem to equate all working class organisation as being progressive - well it ain't. Take for example the trade union support for Powellism and the far-right in the 60s and 70s. Trade unions have in the past excluded people from minority ethnic groups from their ranks - which might possibly be the reason why they weren't unionised in the south of wales - although I don't profess to being an authority on this particular locality

You'll also find that support for the far-right - who now have 46 councillors - also comes from the working class.

Marx's critique of capitalism continues to be valid in many ways but he is of limited use when it comes to any serious analysis of racism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkidd12
I agree with you.

So do you mean English workers control over English borders?

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

this sounds interesting. This might give me an insight to what you are really talking about. Could you expand, to explain how workers from other countries should stop immigration to this country? (If that is indeed what you are saying.)

 

[durruti02]

I really felt like losing it when I read this - there is nothing at all progressive, wierd or otherwise, about racism - it destroys people's lives and has been the motivating force behind the most obscene and barbaric acts of violence in human history.

You seem to equate all working class organisation as being progressive - well it ain't. Take for example the trade union support for Powellism and the far-right in the 60s and 70s. Trade unions have in the past excluded people from minority ethnic groups from their ranks - which might possibly be the reason why they weren't unionised in the south of wales - although I don't profess to being an authority on this particular locality

You'll also find that support for the far-right - who now have 46 councillors - also comes from the working class.

Marx's critique of capitalism continues to be valid in many ways but he is of limited use when it comes to any serious analysis of racism.

so how do you change the world? by yourself???
how does the world change?? by moralism solely?

no one no no no one has ever said the trade unions are or ever have been 'politically correct' .. it is their possibilities that matter .. what could happen when people organise together ..

there can be no progress without people organising themselves, and it is typical of our times, sadly, that so many people on urban see the negatives in the unions and not their possibilities

 

[durruti02]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkidd12
I agree with you.

So do you mean English workers control over English borders?

this sounds interesting. This might give me an insight to what you are really talking about. Could you expand, to explain how workers from other countries should stop immigration to this country? (If that is indeed what you are saying.)

RM .. please!! .. why do you use the word english ?? .. half of my colleagues are not 'english' .. i mean workers simple as .. and yes they should have control .. over EVERYTHING .. do you disagree?? isn't that marxism??

and how?? .. as we have talked about before through the closed shop .. through local people deanding control of housing allocation .. thru unions demanding local job seekers be 'positively descriminated' in favour of etc etc

the last bit i did not say or mean .. but i think balders has mantionned before many progressive third world parties and groups have protested at their skilled workers being 'poached' to work in the rich west

p.s. so did you read Taking Control??

 

[nopassaran]

so how do you change the world? by yourself???
how does the world change?? by moralism solely?

no one no no no one has ever said the trade unions are or ever have been 'politically correct' .. it is their possibilities that matter .. what could happen when people organise together ..

there can be no progress without people organising themselves, and it is typical of our times, sadly, that so many people on urban see the negatives in the unions and not their possibilities

I'm sorry have I missed something here....just cos I'm critical of the trade unions in history, doesn't mean to say I'm against them (btw i was an active shop steward for many years and came close to losing my job as a consequence). The point I was making related to your trivialisation of racism....which you seem to have confirmed even more. To be critical and to question oppressive ideologies such as racism is to moralise in the same way as it is to question exploitative employment practices and the very nature of capitalism.

Oh and if you're afraid to tackle issues such as racism for fear of alienating the working class then quite frankly you condone it and are totally disaffected - end of...............

 

[kyser_soze]

thru unions demanding local job seekers be 'positively descriminated' in favour of etc etc

But who are 'local' jobseekers? This is dangerously close to BNP territory here - you are making a very unsound assumption that all 'workers' have the same goals, desires, needs and direction for action as you do and that because they are all 'workers' (a word you still haven't defined - are you talking about a cleaner or a call centre operator? Both? Neither?) that issues such as race can be easily discounted.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RM .. please!! .. why do you use the word english ?? .. half of my colleagues are not 'english' .. i mean workers simple as .. and yes they should have control .. over EVERYTHING .. do you disagree?? isn't that marxism??

and how?? .. as we have talked about before through the closed shop .. through local people deanding control of housing allocation .. thru unions demanding local job seekers be 'positively descriminated' in favour of etc etc

the last bit i did not say or mean .. but i think balders has mantionned before many progressive third world parties and groups have protested at their skilled workers being 'poached' to work in the rich west

p.s. so did you read Taking Control??

you see this is what I usually find, when talking to people like you. I do not think our differences are as big as the debate seems to suggest.

firstly, I didn't say English, that was in a quote from mat, however you have clarified some thing.

I have already suggested myself, the route to dealing with immigrations possibly deleterious consequences is through some kind of "closed shop system". So in the main we agree I believe, there is just one detail. I do not think trade unions/workers organisations should campaign for discrimination, they should campaign for equalisation. The difference is subtle, but important in my opinion. Equalisation between local and migrant workers, will automatically mean that bosses can not draw benefit from employing migrant workers over local workers, which is what you want. It has the added benefit that it unites local and migrant workers. And unity is important, because it is only through unity you can achieve a closed shop system.

as you and Mr Baldwin have spent the last six months explaining, the bosses totally benefit from immigration. They are not going to discriminate in favour of local workers unless you have the power to force them. I believe building the unity in here and now is a prerequisite to that power.

please ponder this before you respond. This is not fundamentally different to what you are saying on immigration. It is just a slight strategy difference.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, but it still relies on someone (unions probly) getting off their arses to actually do something about it...

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeah, but it still relies on someone (unions probly) getting off their arses to actually do something about it...

no! Not from my perspective. As Chris Bambury was explaining the other night, it necessitates an organisation of rank-and-file activists, as existed in the 1970s, and forced the trade unions to do what they're supposed to do, represent workers. The trade unions leader's cannot be trusted.

 

[kyser_soze]

And do we see evidence of this uprising of the rank and file?

 

[Fruitloop]

It's a boiling sea of murderous apathy, actually.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's a boiling sea of murderous apathy, actually.

Yup! just like UK 1909.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, but there was a major war 5 years later to shake everything up a bit...

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeah, but there was a major war 5 years later to shake everything up a bit...

you missed the relevance of the date and the

try a Google search for "The Great Unrest" 1910-14

the future is not bright, the future is dialectical. (To paraphrase a famous mobile phone company).

 

[kyser_soze]

Hmmm...not buying it having read a couple of links, mainly because wage pressures in this country for the majority of workers aren't in the same position and there is a fundamental lack of any kind of mutual class identity between someone working in a call centre and someone working for below minimum wage.

 

[tbaldwin]

But who are 'local' jobseekers? This is dangerously close to BNP territory here - you are making a very unsound assumption that all 'workers' have the same goals, desires, needs and direction for action as you do and that because they are all 'workers' (a word you still haven't defined - are you talking about a cleaner or a call centre operator? Both? Neither?) that issues such as race can be easily discounted.

The majority of Black and Asian people in the UK are against large scale economic migration. Hardly suprisingly when they are in Competition for Jobs and Housing.
The BNP are wankers, they can only use the subject because the Lefts position is so hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Internationalism is not served by saying to skilled workers from poor countries YOUR WELCOME HERE!! The Left need to look seriously at how Economic Migration effect developing countries and also at how Multinationals are free to travel the world in search of the Cheapest Labour.
When i go into Hospitals and see Coke machines when everyone knows what a dodgy company they are and nobody seems to take the issue of workers rights abroad that seriously in the UK.

 

[kyser_soze]

Look it's really easy.

Trawling other countries should be illegal be it government or private company.

Telling an individual where they can and cannot travel to in order to seek work is bollocks, which is what you want.

 

[tbaldwin]

Look it's really easy.

Trawling other countries should be illegal be it government or private company.

Telling an individual where they can and cannot travel to in order to seek work is bollocks, which is what you want.

The trouble with the arguement is that it is complete shite.
The encouragement to come is economic. If skilled people are allowed to come they will. You know that,i know that.
The more who come the worse off the people left behind will be. again you know that i know that.
Its bollocks on one hand to say that trawling other countries is wrong and then saying people should be free to go where they like.
Difficult decisions have to be made in the interest of the majority some people will lose out. Spineless please everybody arguements just impress spineless people.

 

[durruti02]

I'm sorry have I missed something here....just cos I'm critical of the trade unions in history, doesn't mean to say I'm against them (btw i was an active shop steward for many years and came close to losing my job as a consequence). The point I was making related to your trivialisation of racism....which you seem to have confirmed even more. To be critical and to question oppressive ideologies such as racism is to moralise in the same way as it is to question exploitative employment practices and the very nature of capitalism.

Oh and if you're afraid to tackle issues such as racism for fear of alienating the working class then quite frankly you condone it and are totally disaffected - end of...............

??? of course you attack racism!!! you put the balme squarely on the bosses ??? where have i said otherwise??? was ceasr chavez a racist to try to stop the fruit growers importing immigrants from his own mexico??? of course not ..

this is about how you change the world .. and the first thing you do is look at what is going on and then see what that is fundamentally doing and then see what we can do to resist it ..

so how do you get rid of racism ??? you certainly do not do it by refusing to condemn the bosses for using and abusing immigrants as part of neo liberalism??? that just winds it up ..

afaik racism in the w/c stems from dis-empowerment ... to me you get rid of racism by getting power back for people.. and that has to be at the very bottem ..and thru rejecting and fighting capitalist bullshit that uses and abuses immigrants to undercut wages and the unions ..

 

[durruti02]

no! Not from my perspective. As Chris Bambury was explaining the other night, it necessitates an organisation of rank-and-file activists, as existed in the 1970s, and forced the trade unions to do what they're supposed to do, represent workers. The trade unions leader's cannot be trusted.

agree .. the current sell out of public sector pensions is the worst i.ve seen for years ..

 

[durruti02]

you see this is what I usually find, when talking to people like you. I do not think our differences are as big as the debate seems to suggest.


true

firstly, I didn't say English, that was in a quote from mat, however you have clarified some thing.

apologies


I have already suggested myself, the route to dealing with immigrations possibly deleterious consequences is through some kind of "closed shop system". So in the main we agree I believe, there is just one detail. I do not think trade unions/workers organisations should campaign for discrimination, they should campaign for equalisation. The difference is subtle, but important in my opinion. Equalisation between local and migrant workers, will automatically mean that bosses can not draw benefit from employing migrant workers over local workers, which is what you want. It has the added benefit that it unites local and migrant workers. And unity is important, because it is only through unity you can achieve a closed shop system.

equalisation yes .. but why not a demand for local workers?? at proper rates??imagine the boost for unions if they said this ( p.s have you heard about the bnp union .. we should have thread about it actually )[/FONT]

as you and Mr Baldwin have spent the last six months explaining, the bosses totally benefit from immigration. They are not going to discriminate in favour of local workers unless you have the power to force them. I believe building the unity in here and now is a prerequisite to that power.

yes i agree and not sure i have ever done otherwise .. i fully support unionising immigrants who are here .. but in combination with an offensive by the union rnf and left explaining what is going on .. and calling catagorically against racism .. and calling for yes equalisation but also local employment/housing

please ponder this before you respond. This is not fundamentally different to what you are saying on immigration. It is just a slight strategy difference.

......

 

[tbaldwin]

I too support unionsing migrants but that in itself is not enough. the Trade Unions should put pressure on companies to sign up to International Labour rules and activelly pursue boycotts against some of the worst companies.
But for this to happen means people need to think in an Internationalist way and the present state of the left gives precious few indications that this is high up on their agenda.

 

[audiotech]

I too support unionsing migrants but that in itself is not enough. the Trade Unions should put pressure on companies to sign up to International Labour rules and activelly pursue boycotts against some of the worst companies.
But for this to happen means people need to think in an Internationalist way and the present state of the left gives precious few indications that this is high up on their agenda.

There was a massive advert in the press today from the T&G, Amicus etc to boycott Peugeot cars, who are shifting production to Eastern Europe where workers earn £75 per week.

 

[tbaldwin]

There was a massive advert in the press today from the T&G, Amicus etc to boycott Peugeot cars, who are shifting production to Eastern Europe where workers earn £75 per week.

Good i know things like NoSweat do some OK stuff too but it seems that it is not really that high on the lefts agenda.

 

[nopassaran]

??? of course you attack racism!!! you put the balme squarely on the bosses ???

I suspect you're SWP or similar...am I right?

You see the root cause of racism doesn't stem from capitalism and the 'bosses', as you put it. I don't deny the potential for divide and rule on the basis of ethnic difference but racism is far more complex than this and pre-dates capitalism - for example the anti-semitic riots in york in the 12 century.

Capitalism and the competition for scarce resources which results from it, may indeed excerbate the problem but it definitely doesn't cause it. People unfortunately have very tribal instincts as the pitiful site of george crosses festooned all over place clearly show. It's all about people's need for belonging and the national and ethnic identities that this gives rise to - quite simply put the construction of an 'us' can only be sustained by the construction, real or imagined, of a 'them'.

so how do you get rid of racism ??? you certainly do not do it by refusing to condemn the bosses for using and abusing immigrants as part of neo liberalism??? that just winds it up ..

And as for how one gets rid of racism....you challenge it on all fronts like any oppressive ideology. By just blaming it on the state and bosses you are in effect saying that people can't make their own mind up and have been totally duped into a state of 'false consciousness' - this really doesn't wash as how do you account for those that haven't?

afaik racism in the w/c stems from dis-empowerment ... to me you get rid of racism by getting power back for people.. and that has to be at the very bottem ..and thru rejecting and fighting capitalist bullshit that uses and abuses immigrants to undercut wages and the unions ..

No racism is not just about disempowerment, like I said earlier it stems from the need for belonging. There are many different kinds of racism that can vary according to neighbourhood, ethnic group, and historically. For example black people's hostility towards asian people, and inter-ethnic conflict between Hindus and Muslims.
Economic factors definitely play a part but what about the racism that arises during wartime - take for example that directed towrads the small german and italian communities during the second world war - who weren't in competition for jobs.

Racism is an extremely serious issue and requires each and everyone of us to question our own prejudices and the reasons for them, but also to challenge those around as well. If we really do want to change things then the revolution must take place inside ourselves as well as in our daily encounters with other people.

 

[Fong]

I suspect you're SWP or similar...am I right?

You see the root cause of racism doesn't stem from capitalism and the 'bosses', as you put it. I don't deny the potential for divide and rule on the basis of ethnic difference but racism is far more complex than this and pre-dates capitalism - for example the anti-semitic riots in york in the 12 century.

Yeah but aren't you confusing racism with protectionist employment systems in this debate?

You keep banging on about racism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with racism, its just a nice simple argument that makes it difficult to debate against. Just keep shouting racism and racist long enough and surely you will win any debate.

It is about protectionist employment practises, stopping companies like the example given of Peugot of exploiting poorer wages and poorer workers to maximize their profit, not to create cheaper products, not to do better by the customer, but to increase their overall profits.

What has that got to do with racism if someone like me says...that is not right?

Nothing at all.

Racism is a serious issue, but I think confusing it with exploitation and pretending that anyone that is against exploitation whether it be of Migrant workers or of companies that migrate to do it, is just silly.

Was it racist when we all stood up aghast at Nike because they were using child labour in India to make footballs which they were selling for a vast profit?

Clearly by your argument it is racist.

By my argument, it was exploitative and should have been stood up against.

I don't really see how using immigrant labour to bypass the local labour pool or moving a company to a poor country to exploit the local people is any different.

If Peugot were moving to Eastern Europe but paying a similar wage, then I don't think I would have a problem with them moving, yes its tough for the employees they had here, but that is the way of life, perhaps the employees here have to work a little harder to be good employees and perhaps a company moving to Eastern Europe will help Eastern Europe which kinda needs it at the moment.

However, moving the company there to cut the wage bill so you can maximize profit, isn't going to be much of a benefit to Eastern Europe and is detrimental to those employees in this country who just cannot compete given our economy.

What any of this has to do with racism, is anyones guess, I just think that some people want to label anything to do with immigration Racist because it saves them the hassle of actually dealing with the real issues involved, much easier to just hide behind the word racism and pretend that this is the be all and end all of the argument, when race really has nothing to do with it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The majority of Black and Asian people in the UK are against large scale economic migration. Hardly suprisingly when they are in Competition for Jobs and Housing.
The BNP are wankers, they can only use the subject because the Lefts position is so hopelessly out of touch with reality.

the fascists were perfectly capable of having much more support than they have today in the 1970s, we won't even mention the 1930s, which obviously negates your argument that the rise of the fascist today is all the fault of two days left.

Internationalism is not served by saying to skilled workers from poor countries YOUR WELCOME HERE!! The Left need to look seriously at how Economic Migration effect developing countries and also at how Multinationals are free to travel the world in search of the Cheapest Labour.
When i go into Hospitals and see Coke machines when everyone knows what a dodgy company they are and nobody seems to take the issue of workers rights abroad that seriously in the UK.

http://www.labourstart.org/ get stuck in.

 

[nopassaran]

You keep banging on about racism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with racism, its just a nice simple argument that makes it difficult to debate against. Just keep shouting racism and racist long enough and surely you will win any debate..

Keep your eye on the ball dude I was addressing comments made by Durutti02 - or were you feeling a little left out... ahhhhhhh bless!!!!

Oh BTW "racism a simple argument that makes it hard to debate against"?.....sorry I'm finding it hard to keep a straight face!!

If Peugot were moving to Eastern Europe but paying a similar wage, then I don't think I would have a problem with them moving, yes its tough for the employees they had here, but that is the way of life, perhaps the employees here have to work a little harder to be good employees and perhaps a company moving to Eastern Europe will help Eastern Europe which kinda needs it at the moment.
..

Sounds to me as if you're a firm believer in global capitalism or are at least resigned to it....wonder if you'd be feeling the same way if you or someone else close to you was employed by Peugeot and about to lose their job, and weren't gonna benefit from a massive redundancy package????? You're obviously totally unable to empathise with people who are at the sharp edge of capitalism. Or maybe we should equip the foremen with whips so the workforce 'works a little harder' as you so sensitively put it.

What any of this has to do with racism, is anyones guess, I just think that some people want to label anything to do with immigration Racist because it saves them the hassle of actually dealing with the real issues involved, much easier to just hide behind the word racism and pretend that this is the be all and end all of the argument, when race really has nothing to do with it.

I wasn't talking about immigration, if you'd taken the time to actually read what I said, although to isolate immigration from issues relating to 'race' and ethnicity, and the impact it can have on racist sentiments is a complete nonsense - there is a wealth of literature on this - so go read it!