Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:51:58 +0100 From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-TH: Immigration I wholly endorse Yoshie's point about a marxist position on immigration. The free movement of labour is a right that ought to be defended. Chris and Rob turned this into a reform or revolution question, which seems a bit premature to me. Defending the free movement of labour does not imply that you endorse the free exploitation of labour: only that for so long as capital has the right to move freely across borders, workers need that right too. So in that sense it is completely meliorative. On the other hand emigration controls on the part of a national adminstration trying to build up its resources against the more developed nations, seems pretty piece-meal too. Of course mass emigration can be a real disaster for a society - look at Ireland. It is not an obviously revolutionary demand that people ought to be free to move where they want. As Chris rightly says, all you are doing is faciliating the exploitation of labour. But it does challenge the right of the state to regulate our lives. (Immigration controls are like affirmative action policies in that way) On the point of what is really happening in the world jobs market: 1. The panic over an unprecendented refugee crisis of a few years ago has been put into proportion. The numbers dislocated are higher than they have been for decades, but a close reading of the UN High Commissioner's report shows that most movement is localised between African countries (so European bigots can sleep easily in their beds), a consequence of big political upheavals. I don't think it is true that migration is being caused by 'push factors' - except perhaps that relaxation of political controls makes it easier to emigrate - so we have to look at 'pull factors': accumulation in the metropolitan countries. 2 Their is massive immigration to the US. I was interested in Yoshie's point that immigration at the turn of the century was proportionately larger (it would be good to look at some of the figures). In social terms the 1890-1910 wave of immigration seems much more dramatic: shifting the balance between City and small-town America, massive criminalisation of Italians ('mobsters') and Jews ('radicals'), quota act 1924 and then the election of the Democrats. But Barlett and Steele's figures (unfortunately I've leant my copy of America: Who SOld the Dream? so I can't consult) do seem pretty remarkable: higher immigration numerically, in a much more concentrated period. Surely, there is a spectacular transformation of the US working class in progress? You tell me: How is American capital recruiting again after years of lay-offs? From which sections of the community - from those layed off or from newer layers of younger workers, women or immigrants? At what rates of pay - reduced, increased? In what kinds of work - services, hi-tech, low-tech? Answering those kind of questions would establish what really was happening with immigration, and thereby with class relations. -- James Heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005