Is xenophobic hatred of undocumented workers a working class phenomenon?

[Dunk]

After reading a lot of the responses to the AFL-CIO's facebook updates on May Day relating to immigrant workers, whether documented or undocumented, I wanted to ask this question and see what RevLeft has to say. Many of the worker's responses seem to be marginally opposed or ambivalent to showing solidarity with documented workers, and viscerally opposed to expressing solidarity with undocumented workers.

I know some don't have a high opinion on him, but check out what Zizek has to say on a related subject. Fast forward to 36:00 - 37:00.

_GD69Cc20rw

"...don't fall into this trap: The worst favor you can do to real workers is to make them into this kind of a naive, good idiots manipulated by some - you know?"

There are some other thought provoking ideas he puts forward in the video that may be somewhat related to this topic of discussion; I think at some point he mentions how he thinks that it used to be thought that the lower classes were vulgar, but today it is the upper class who is vulgar.

Is it something introduced to and accepted by large amounts of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie? Or is something that synthesizes within the proletariat and is exploited by the bourgeoisie? I ask because I think it's important to understand because I'm betting that the answer would affect the strategy to combat xenophobia.

[jake williams]

There is significant historical and anthropological evidence to suggest that some level of "xenophobia" - not hatred, but what we would call xenophobia - is pretty normal (if not natural) in human history, even outside of the context of class society. Xenophobic sentiments can probably arise spontaneously within the working class, as can anti-xenophobic ones.

But most of the time, the bourgeoisie has a direct interest in fomenting the xenophobic ones and repressing the anti-xenophobic ones. In this context, how does it make sense to talk about it? It is a "working class phenomenon" in the sense that it is occuring in the working class. It is even a "working class phenomenon" in the sense that the working class is to some degree an active participant in the development of the sentiments. But the working class only and always exists in a relationship with the ruling class by defintion. There is no "working class phenomenon" unrelated to the activites of the ruling class, in any society.

The specific problem of xenophobia towards undocumented immigrants is a political problem of class consciousness rather than one of xenophobia per se. A right-wing American labour movement that has for a long time seen its strategic goals as protecting the interests of a narrow stratum of American citizen workers is in some sense naturally xenophobic. Undocumented immigrants, in a narrow sense, really do threaten the class interests of the US working class - in practice, undocumented workers in the US really do undermine American labour standards by skirting minimum wage laws and pushing wages down, at least in some sectors.

Of course, ultimately documented and undocumented workers have the same class interests. It is precisely the repression of undocumented workers and the unwillingness of the bourgeois state to enforce labour laws which really attacks the working class as a whole, documented and undocumented. Undermining this repression both protects the legal gains of the US working class (and thus documented workers), and the undocumented workers against which such repression is supposedly targetted.

[Dunk]

Thank you for your response jammoe, I particularly liked your idea that


There is no "working class phenomenon" unrelated to the activites of the ruling class, in any society.qDJEwfTOGcI

Check out 22:45 - 23:45, Alex Callinicos comments directly on this.

Alex Callinicos claims that anti-immigrant racism is not a result of popular working class racism, and is a poison to working class movements in an era of globalization. I agree with him.

So how do we attack this? Is fighting against this xenophobia on the agenda for groups like ANSWER?

EDIT: Just checked out ANSWER's site, of course it is. They're good people.

Maybe I should ask my comrades in SP-USA how we should go about fighting anti-immigrant racism, both locally and nationally? Is it possible to submit the idea to the party that we should get more involved with groups like ANSWER? Or is there already something the party does to fight anti-immigrant racism in the working class which I'm ignorant of?

[Feodor Augustus]

I don't think it is very pertinent to view this, in a primary sense, as either a working class or ruling class phenomenon, - nor a cultural, social, etc. phenomenon.

First and foremost, it is a phenomena of capitalist relations; and I don't think many Marxists do justice to the structural differences within the 'working class'. They assume a theoretical uniformity that only exists at the most abstract of levels, and thus overlook the documented-undocumented, - alongside employed-unemployed, male-female, young-old, well paid-poorly paid, etc., - divides that themselves provide fertile ground for individual prejudice. In this sense Zizek is right that socialists shouldn't idolise workers, while Callinicos is right that we should work to combat these prejudices (and that the ruling class promote them).

However fundamentally the problem lies in the capitalist division of labour, which affects workers just as it does bosses. My answer to your original question is therefore that it is both: it arises both from the concrete experiences and fears of working class life, and the contextualisation of this (for most) within dominant social, cultural and political norms (which are generally reactionary).

The contradiction between increasingly deregulated liberal economies and increasingly nationalist (in rhetoric at least) governments, that as Callinicos sort of observes is a product of post-Cold War relations of power, has become a powder keg.

It has served to destroy much of the infrastructure of organised labour, and has thus sharpened many of the fractures in the working class that these institutions helped to combat. At the same time much of the ruling class seems completely without sense of direction, and its political figureheads are increasingly demagogic in orientation. Nevertheless both are a reflection of the shifting relations of modern capitalism, and the xenophobia it produces is not exclusive to any one socio-economic group.

[jake williams]

I don't think it is very pertinent to view this, in a primary sense, as either a working class or ruling class phenomenon, - nor a cultural, social, etc. phenomenon.

First and foremost, it is a phenomena of capitalist relations; and I don't think many Marxists do justice to the structural differences within the 'working class'. They assume a theoretical uniformity that only exists at the most abstract of levels, and thus overlook the documented-undocumented, - alongside employed-unemployed, male-female, young-old, well paid-poorly paid, etc., - divides that themselves provide fertile ground for individual prejudice. In this sense Zizek is right that socialists shouldn't idolise workers, while Callinicos is right that we should work to combat these prejudices (and that the ruling class promote them).

However fundamentally the problem lies in the capitalist division of labour, which affects workers just as it does bosses. My answer to your original question is therefore that it is both: it arises both from the concrete experiences and fears of working class life, and the contextualisation of this (for most) within dominant social, cultural and political norms (which are generally reactionary).

The contradiction between increasingly deregulated liberal economies and increasingly nationalist (in rhetoric at least) governments, that as Callinicos sort of observes is a product of post-Cold War relations of power, has become a powder keg.

It has served to destroy much of the infrastructure of organised labour, and has thus sharpened many of the fractures in the working class that these institutions helped to combat. At the same time much of the ruling class seems completely without sense of direction, and its political figureheads are increasingly demagogic in orientation. Nevertheless both are a reflection of the shifting relations of modern capitalism, and the xenophobia it produces is not exclusive to any one socio-economic group.
I agree with one important qualification: where I think a lot of Marxists get accused of ignoring structural differences of power and relative privilege within the working class, they're asserting the common interests within the whole working class. In doing so, they're implicitly asserting that any structural differences within the working class need seriously to be overcome, which I don't think is ignoring them at all.

[Feodor Augustus]

I agree with one important qualification: where I think a lot of Marxists get accused of ignoring structural differences of power and relative privilege within the working class, they're asserting the common interests within the whole working class. In doing so, they're implicitly asserting that any structural differences within the working class need seriously to be overcome, which I don't think is ignoring them at all.

I accept this, but at the same time I would suggest that an action can have more than one consequence: in this instance, they can be 'asserting the common interests within the whole working class', and also 'ignoring structural differences of power and relative privilege'.

By this I mean that common interests of the whole class, to be arrived at in the revolutionary socialist sense, require several layers of justification. Layers that themselves are not necessarily obvious to most workers, particularly when considered from the day-to-day make-ends-meat viewpoint. Thus it seems to me that it is not necessarily or obviously a form of 'false consciousness' for a documented worker to express xenophobic prejudices towards an undocumented one. For all intents and purposes, their personal/family/group interest may well be better served (in the short, medium, and possibly even long term) by such prejudices. It seems to be within the scope of rational responses, whether we like it or not.

This phenomena is fuelled by objective relations of production, and the divisions they furnish; and I think perhaps the ugly way capitalism deforms human relations through atomisation and fragmentation makes naked self-interest seem preferable to common solidarity much of the time. Which for me makes it important to pay attention to the subtle contours of the working classes, alongside the attitudes that they furnish; while common interest perhaps should be demonstrated as much as it is asserted.

The past few decades the organised structures of the Left have hugely degenerated, the connections between concrete struggles day-to-day and theory have been broken, and 'activism' and 'movements' have taken their place. The contours are best understood through common struggle, and that too is how common interest is best expressed. The Left at the moment is very marginalised and isolated, most groups offer very little in terms of a practical programme for working class struggle, and thus expressing the common interest of the class is often very abstracted from any kind of reality.

Basically what I'm saying is that without the socio-political structures capable of expressing the common interests of the working class, and under the shifting economic relations that have helped to compound their decline, the working class has yet to rediscover quite how express organised solidarity. And under these conditions common identity itself can perhaps become something of a false consciousness.

[jake williams]

I accept this, but at the same time I would suggest that an action can have more than one consequence: in this instance, they can be 'asserting the common interests within the whole working class', and also 'ignoring structural differences of power and relative privilege'.

By this I mean that common interests of the whole class, to be arrived at in the revolutionary socialist sense, require several layers of justification. Layers that themselves are not necessarily obvious to most workers, particularly when considered from the day-to-day make-ends-meat viewpoint. Thus it seems to me that it is not necessarily or obviously a form of 'false consciousness' for a documented worker to express xenophobic prejudices towards an undocumented one. For all intents and purposes, their personal/family/group interest may well be better served (in the short, medium, and possibly even long term) by such prejudices. It seems to be within the scope of rational responses, whether we like it or not.

This phenomena is fuelled by objective relations of production, and the divisions they furnish; and I think perhaps the ugly way capitalism deforms human relations through atomisation and fragmentation makes naked self-interest seem preferable to common solidarity much of the time. Which for me makes it important to pay attention to the subtle contours of the working classes, alongside the attitudes that they furnish; while common interest perhaps should be demonstrated as much as it is asserted.

The past few decades the organised structures of the Left have hugely degenerated, the connections between concrete struggles day-to-day and theory have been broken, and 'activism' and 'movements' have taken their place. The contours are best understood through common struggle, and that too is how common interest is best expressed. The Left at the moment is very marginalised and isolated, most groups offer very little in terms of a practical programme for working class struggle, and thus expressing the common interest of the class is often very abstracted from any kind of reality.

Basically what I'm saying is that without the socio-political structures capable of expressing the common interests of the working class, and under the shifting economic relations that have helped to compound their decline, the working class has yet to rediscover quite how express organised solidarity. And under these conditions common identity itself can perhaps become something of a false consciousness.
I'm not exactly clear what it is you're arguing for. Yes, the practical failures of working class organization at several levels make the exercise of class solidarity difficult. But the objective basis of that class solidarity still exists -there's still a reason to do it. And so at the level of theory, arguing that those common interests exist is not arguing that structural differences, which make acting in those common interests difficult, do not exist.

I don't see, for example, the link between "pay[ing] attention to the subtle contours of the working classes" and the reconstruction of the sort of mass organization which you suggest, and which I would agree, is largely missing. The former might be important in the course of the latter, and it may not now be done enough - but I don't see it at all as the solution to the latter. In fact, the former precisely seems to characterize the "'activism' and 'movements'" of diffuse identity politics which does not take seriously the common class interests on which the latter are predicated.

[tachosomoza]

I'm on my iPhone right now, I'll elaborate later. The bourgeoisie played a major role in introducing divisive, harmful constructs to the proletariat in some instances, while in others they simply exploited already internalized prejudices.