Importing of workers from other countries

[Enragé]

The importation of workers* from other countries leads to an increase in the supply of workers/labour force on the market. This means the competitive position of every worker is diminished, and can also be seen as an importation of the unemployed or 'reserve army'. I don't mean that the workers imported are unemployed themselves, but that they push the less profitable segments of the 'native'** working class into unemployment.

Now, this means, that for every worker who does not see the overthrowal of the capitalist system and its nation-states as a possibility, it is in his material interest that the borders are closed. Right?

*i use the phrasing "importation of workers" instead of labour immigration since the latter implies a passivity on the part of the companies or nations involved (i.e the worker from a different country just shows up on the doorstep of the company out of nowhere), whereas in fact its an active policy.
** as in, they were there before the newest wave of importation came along.

[Robocommie]

Wouldn't the same logic apply to immigration policy and the workforce? That is, doesn't this line of thinking lead to promoting an anti-immigrant stance?

[Enragé]

Wouldn't the same logic apply to immigration policy and the workforce? That is, doesn't this line of thinking lead to promoting an anti-immigrant stance?

well yes, thats my whole point. Non-revolutionary workers who realise the impact immigration has on them in a strict economic sense, will (if they act according to their material interests they percieve because of this) adopt an anti-immigrant stance. But we cannot fight this on the grounds that it is not true that immigration undermines his position on the labour market (which leads to decreases in wages, working conditions or even unemployment), because it DOES.

By which i dont mean that revolutionary workers should adopt an anti-immigrant stance (far from it!), but we must take into account and (if prompted) openly acknowledge that immigration undermines the position of the worker-already-there.

[#FF0000]

because it DOES.

I don't think that's true tbh. A worker having a job doesn't mean just one less job. That worker also consumes, pays taxes, and, of course, produces. All of these things stimulate the economy and could potentially create more jobs.

[Enragé]

I don't think that's true tbh. A worker having a job doesn't mean just one less job. That worker also consumes, pays taxes, and, of course, produces. All of these things stimulate the economy and could potentially create more jobs.

True, but the worker always produces more value than he can consume, because he is given less in wage than the total value of what he produces (from which arises surplus, profit). So the rise of the amount of production necessary, because of him being added to the country's population, is less than the amount he/she himself produces. So the level of employment drops, the reserve army grows.

What you say is true from the perspective of the nation state (he pays taxes), the company (he produces), and 'the economy' (he consumes). Ofcourse the imported labourer is profitable to state and capital, that is why he is imported!

It doesn't address the very real fact that workers are forced to accept lower wages because there are ten others in line for the same job - if you dont accept it, someone else will. This, obviously, is very useful to the ruling class and individual companies. Which is why, when there is a "scarcity on the labour market" (or even when there is not) workers are imported. A very telling example of this is the mass importation of morrocan and turkish (and now eastern european, esp polish) workers to the netherlands.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Capital crosses borders freely to be utilised in the exploitation of the proletariat and so should our solidarity and struggle to combat and defeat that exploitation. It's not the fault of migrant workers that capitalists will do everything in their power to drive down wages. It's in the material interests of the working class to overthrow the bourgeoisie, not engage in petty struggle against itself.

[Yazman]

Is it actually "importation" though? Isn't it just immigration? I mean are there actually capitalists deliberately hiring masses of workers from other countries? Enrage gives the example of Turkish, Moroccan, and eastern european workers being "imported" to the Netherlands, but I always got the impression this was just the result of immigration, and with the eastern european workers, the result of demographic change in the EU due to the borderless nature of the EU (and thus a lack of typical immigration law).

[l'Enfermé]

I like the idea of permeating the working class with this consciousness of that "yes, immigration is damaging to our interests, but out of solidarity with the toilers of other countries, we will still continue to support it". This conscious sort of self-sacrifice would do much to increase the moral power and superiority of the fighting proletariat.

[Enragé]

Capital crosses borders freely to be utilised in the exploitation of the proletariat and so should our solidarity and struggle to combat and defeat that exploitation. It's not the fault of migrant workers that capitalists will do everything in their power to drive down wages.

I agree with you on that, where do i claim otherwise?

Migrant workers are (one of) the means by which capital drives down wages, not the reason why wages are driven down ofcourse (they are driven down to increase profit). But they are a means by which this can happen, which is why I say that it is in the material interests of a non-revolutionary worker as he percieves them to close the borders (because he does not see the possibility of an end to state and capital, hence it does not figure in his frame of reference on the basis of which he appraises his material interests, hence the way he percieves his material interests takes into account the existence of nation-state and capital as never-ending, never-changing FACT).


Is it actually "importation" though? Isn't it just immigration? I mean are there actually capitalists deliberately hiring masses of workers from other countries? Enrage gives the example of Turkish, Moroccan, and eastern european workers being "imported" to the Netherlands, but I always got the impression this was just the result of immigration, and with the eastern european workers, the result of demographic change in the EU due to the borderless nature of the EU (and thus a lack of typical immigration law).

In the case of morocco i know for a fact that there were huge lines of aspiring 'guest-labourers' lined up in front of the dutch embassy, who would enter the embassy and then by a guy behind a desk would be judged to be suitable or not to come to the netherlands. Its not like they suddenly showed up in the netherlands, or even suddenly showed up at the embassy to ask to come to the netherlands. No, the call went out that you COULD, probably with all the propaganda about nice wages and living conditions that went with them. I assume something similar happened to turkey (since the turkish were also part of the 'guest-labour' wave).
Also this came at the time of intense strain on the dutch labour market in the late 60's, because of a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge economic boom (years of +10%) after the government relinquished direct control over the setting of wages ("geleide loonpolitiek"), because the bosses asked for it (workers had asked for years) - and they asked for it because they wanted to compete on wages for workers because there was a scarcity of labour.

As for the eastern europeans, at the company i work at masses of polish are imported by temp agencies for a short period, then shipped back to make way for the next load. Only some stay. Ofcourse there is also an active part on the side of the migrant workers (they make the choice to come here), but this is facilitated and my gut feeling is encouraged by these temp agencies (who act on the orders of the company).
In general, the idea of people from other countries just deciding one day to get in a car and drive 500 miles to see if they can get a job strikes me as rather odd (and unrealistic). That is, they already know when they leave if they get a job or not - that is, contact already exists in the country of origin between worker and company - that is, the company has a branch of some sort (or a company working for it like a temp agency) in the country of origin which advertises (openly or by word of mouth) with "come to the netherlands! good wages, nice people! Stock up on money for back home and have the adventure of your life!" or some shit.


I like the idea of permeating the working class with this consciousness of that "yes, immigration is damaging to our interests, but out of solidarity with the toilers of other countries, we will still continue to support it". This conscious sort of self-sacrifice would do much to increase the moral power and superiority of the fighting proletariat.

Well, more like "yes immigration damages our interests, but now that the immigrants are here fighting them would damage our interests even more. They are just a means by which the bosses fuck us - if they didnt come here, someone else would have, or the bosses would have tried something else - and they are fucked by the bosses too. If we want to get higher wages, we should fight with them!" The one problem with this is that it does still include the possibility of going for closing the borders. So yes, the consciousness you speak of is something to aim for (whereas what i just said can be an intermediate step, useful in order to ignite class consciousness in others, and moreover useful in order to keep cohesion between migrant workers already working there and 'native' workers, so as to be united against the boss), but i think it would be rather hard out of the blue.

Especially, which is my whole point, if you as a worker see nation-states and the reign-of-capital as a given. That is, if you are not revolutionary. My 'intermediate step' is closer to their frame of reference - to their material interests as they percieve them in the lack of (faith in) the idea that nation-states and capital can be destroyed.

In general, as revolutionaries, we should be conscious of the immense impact our mere acceptance of a different-world-as-possible has on the way we think, how we understand our interests, what opinions we have. And how this differs us, immensely, from those who do not see the possibility - at all!! - of the end of capitalism. Who accept it as fact, and base their understanding of themselves and others, the choices they make and the attitude they embody at least in part on this fact they percieve. And those workers are, please excuse me from stating the overly obvious, the vast, vast majority.

[helot]

Now, this means, that for every worker who does not see the overthrowal of the capitalist system and its nation-states as a possibility, it is in his material interest that the borders are closed. Right?

I disagree. You identify the non-migrant workers as having a problem due to the employment of migrant workers, namely a reduction in their conditions. Of course, migrant workers are used as a method to reduce conditions however that doesn't make it in the material interests of the non-revolutionary non-migrants to support a closed border. You're trying to create a different material reality for revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries but that's not the case. Regardless of the individual political thoughts of the workers it's in their material interests as proletarians to organise with migrant workers so that they can't be used to push down working conditions. It's not a matter of revolutionary politics but a matter of defending yourself as a worker.

[Myrdin]

I would object to the usage of the word 'importing', as referring to the immigration of individuals and workers as 'imports' would be to put them on the same level as everyday commodities.

Being from your standard European country, with politicians bashing an open door immigration policy at every waking moment, I believe that the idea of closed borders being in anyone's material interest is little more than populism. It is, however, harmful to the workers' interests in general if one were to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of illegal immigrants.

Closing the borders would never be the right way to go, dare I say. The more the merrier. As far as I'm considered, anyone willing to move to a particular country for any reason - ranging from persecution to an attempt to gain better working conditions - should be welcome as long as they are willing to work hard to make their lives in said country work.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the closure of borders, as with all kinds of isolationism, imply a break with proletarian internationalism?

[GerrardWinstanley]

All workers should be allowed to take their labour elsewhere if they are not happy with wages and conditions, full stop. I thought this was elementary. If bosses can freely move or outsource their operations to countries where labour is cheaper, then there is simply no justification for bourgeois governments to restrict economic migration.

And I'm not convinced of the economic benefits of immigration controls anyway. Workers who enter the country, do not just crowd out the supply of labour. They work, contribute their skills, consume and pay taxes. This is especially the case without the phenomenon of "undocumented" and "illegal" workers (illegal because of immigration restrictions), who would actually have rights and be able to demand the same wages as everybody else.

The welfare of the global working class always comes first, especially when it comes to our bargaining position and I think we should resist any attempt whatsoever to set one portion of the working class against another.

[Enragé]

I disagree. You identify the non-migrant workers as having a problem due to the employment of migrant workers, namely a reduction in their conditions. Of course, migrant workers are used as a method to reduce conditions however that doesn't make it in the material interests of the non-revolutionary non-migrants to support a closed border.

Three things:
1. As long as nation-states and capital exist it IS, in the "short run" (that is, as long as nation-states exist), in the material interest of workers not to have an influx of new workers which are prepared to submit to lower wages and worse working conditions - because that means that for the worker-already-there, it is either he accepts these lower wages and worse working conditions or he is replaced. To paraphrase (i think it was) lenin (who was a fucker, but lets not get into that whole deal), you cannot simply wish away the fact that right now nation-states exist.
2. The only way #1 could be circumvented is if the new workers are not prepared to submit to lower wages and worse working conditions, and able to refuse. They are not. For if they were, they would not be imported, and they can "fuck off to their own country" if they are already here (they simply wouldnt get the job). Also, it is not in their direct material interest to refuse, because the working conditions (though worse than before in the country of arrival) and the wages (though lower than before in the country of arrival) are better and higher than in the country of departure. This, by the way, is also the first inroad against xenofobia/hatred to migrant workers on the work floor: "wouldnt you do the same in his position??"
3. Im not saying it is in the material interests of non-revolutionary workers to have the borders closed, period - im saying it is in the material interests of non-revolutionary workers as they percieve them to have closed borders. This because the "short run" in #1, isnt a short run in their frame of reference, because its an ever-lasting given!

I think it was Marx (or if not him some marx-ist), who made the distinction between short term material interests and long term material interests. The latter he saw as part of class consciousness, because in the long term material interests the worker realised that he would be much better off if he got rid of the boss - whereas in short term material interest he just wants to have a promotion/a higher wage/etc. The point is that, for non-revolutionary workers, this long term material interest as realisation that he would be far better off with nation-states and capital does not exist, because he does not see it as possible! And if he does realise it, he will not act on it, because its not possible to him anyway.


You're trying to create a different material reality for revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries but that's not the case.

Haha no :P
Im stating the, i must say, very obvious fact that perceptions of reality differ between revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries. This because perceptions of what-is always stand in the light of what-is-not, and because our actions and opinions are related to the interplay of what-is and what-can-be (but is not, right now). Obviously, the what-can-be aspect is rather different if you believe that a world without bosses and states is possible (whether after a "transitional phase" or not is not the issue here).
Put differently, actions and opinions of revolutionaries always stand in the light of our belief in the possibility of a world without bosses and the state. We constantly compare our imagined secular heaven (post-revolution) to what is now, and whatever that is now does not compute with our secular heaven on earth, we oppose. And rightly so.
But this shouldnt blind us to the obvious fact that most people do not believe in this heaven, and therefore do not oppose all those wretched things which will not be in our heaven, at least not for the same reasons we do. In fact, worst case scenario, they do not see the fucked up things because its "just the way it is". In a way, the problem disappears if there is no solution - not, ofcourse, that the problem is not there, but that you can do fuck all about it so why concern yourself with it? Like so many turn off the tv (and so do i) if there is a documentary about some mass starvation - what the fuck am i gonna do about it?


Regardless of the individual political thoughts of the workers it's in their material interests as proletarians to organise with migrant workers so that they can't be used to push down working conditions.

If there are no migrant workers, can they be used to push down working conditions? No. So if you consider nation-states to be an unchangeable given, closing the borders is just as effective as organising with migrant workers.

Now, ofcourse, we should organise with migrant workers, so that they can't be used to push down working conditions. But in attempting to reach the point at which we can actually do that, revolutionary and non-revolutionary workers together (and probably more of the latter), we as revolutionaries need to openly admit that this is how migrant workers figure into the scheme of capital. Not, then, to plead for closing the borders ofcourse, all im saying is that it is likely that non-revolutionary workers will either be in favour of this or at least susceptible to this idea. And we should accept that fact, to then, and starting from that point, plead to work together with migrant workers so they cant be used to push down working conditions.
All im saying is its harder to do that, perhaps impossible, if we do not accept the truth (that this is how migrants are used by capital) and with that truth understand the susceptibility of non-revolutionary workers to be in favour of closing the borders. Why? Because that IS, also in their material interests, in the exact same way (in their non-revolutionary perception) that organising with migrants is in their material interests: it makes it impossible for the bosses to use the migrants to drive down wages etc. If the borders close, they are simply not there so cannot be used, if we organise with the migrant workers the bosses wont be able to use them.


All workers should be allowed to take their labour elsewhere if they are not happy with wages and conditions, full stop. I thought this was elementary. If bosses can freely move or outsource their operations to countries where labour is cheaper, then there is simply no justification for bourgeois governments to restrict economic migration.

Where do i say otherwise? :P
What im saying is that it is in the material interest of non-revolutionary workers as they percieve them to close the border (or, granted, organise with migrant workers - though this will destroy the incentive for capital to import more labourers as they cant be used to increase profit margins).


Workers who enter the country, do not just crowd out the supply of labour. They work, contribute their skills, consume and pay taxes. This is especially the case without the phenomenon of "undocumented" and "illegal" workers (illegal because of immigration restrictions), who would actually have rights and be able to demand the same wages as everybody else.

I addressed this point earlier in this thread:
"the worker always produces more value than he can consume, because he is given less in wage than the total value of what he produces (from which arises surplus, profit). So the rise of the amount of production necessary, because of him being added to the country's population, is less than the amount he/she himself produces. So the level of employment drops, the reserve army grows.

What you say is true from the perspective of the nation state (he pays taxes), the company (he produces), and 'the economy' (he consumes). Ofcourse the imported labourer is profitable to state and capital, that is why he is imported!"

In addition to this, "being able to demand the same wages as everybody else" by law doesnt mean you are actually practically able to. In addition to this, the whole point is that everybody else's wages go down, because of the increased supply on the labour market (so yes, then the migrant gets the same wage as everybody else, which is lower than everybody else used to get).


The welfare of the global working class always comes first, especially when it comes to our bargaining position and I think we should resist any attempt whatsoever to set one portion of the working class against another.

Err, yes, again, where do i claim otherwise?
The whole point of this thread is exactly to aid revolutionaries in resisting these attempts.

Alot of you seem to be displaying a knee-jerk reaction to what I'm saying, simply because it attempts to ground racist/xenofobic ideas among non-revolutionary workers in their lived experience and explain them from their frames of reference. Explaining something, understanding something does not equal agreeing with it. As if someone were to attack Marx, because he is in favour of capitalism :lol:

[helot]

Three things:
1. As long as nation-states and capital exist it IS, in the "short run" (that is, as long as nation-states exist), in the material interest of workers not to have an influx of new workers which are prepared to submit to lower wages and worse working conditions - because that means that for the worker-already-there, it is either he accepts these lower wages and worse working conditions or he is replaced. To paraphrase (i think it was) lenin (who was a fucker, but lets not get into that whole deal), you cannot simply wish away the fact that right now nation-states exist.
2. The only way #1 could be circumvented is if the new workers are not prepared to submit to lower wages and worse working conditions, and able to refuse. They are not. For if they were, they would not be imported, and they can "fuck off to their own country" if they are already here (they simply wouldnt get the job). Also, it is not in their direct material interest to refuse, because the working conditions (though worse than before in the country of arrival) and the wages (though lower than before in the country of arrival) are better and higher than in the country of departure. This, by the way, is also the first inroad against xenofobia/hatred to migrant workers on the work floor: "wouldnt you do the same in his position??"
3. Im not saying it is in the material interests of non-revolutionary workers to have the borders closed, period - im saying it is in the material interests of non-revolutionary workers as they percieve them to have closed borders. This because the "short run" in #1, isnt a short run in their frame of reference, because its an ever-lasting given!

So, the workers perceive their material interests as supporting a closed border even though they have far less control over the border than they do over their own wages?



I think it was Marx (or if not him some marx-ist), who made the distinction between short term material interests and long term material interests. The latter he saw as part of class consciousness, because in the long term material interests the worker realised that he would be much better off if he got rid of the boss - whereas in short term material interest he just wants to have a promotion/a higher wage/etc. The point is that, for non-revolutionary workers, this long term material interest as realisation that he would be far better off with nation-states and capital does not exist, because he does not see it as possible! And if he does realise it, he will not act on it, because its not possible to him anyway. I've not been talking about revolutions but about how it's in the immediate interest of workers to organise with migrants in order so they cant be used to lower conditions. Hardly long term.




Haha no :P
Im stating the, i must say, very obvious fact that perceptions of reality differ between revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries. This because perceptions of what-is always stand in the light of what-is-not, and because our actions and opinions are related to the interplay of what-is and what-can-be (but is not, right now). Obviously, the what-can-be aspect is rather different if you believe that a world without bosses and states is possible (whether after a "transitional phase" or not is not the issue here).
Put differently, actions and opinions of revolutionaries always stand in the light of our belief in the possibility of a world without bosses and the state. We constantly compare our imagined secular heaven (post-revolution) to what is now, and whatever that is now does not compute with our secular heaven on earth, we oppose. And rightly so.

But this shouldnt blind us to the obvious fact that most people do not believe in this heaven, and therefore do not oppose all those wretched things which will not be in our heaven, at least not for the same reasons we do. In fact, worst case scenario, they do not see the fucked up things because its "just the way it is". In a way, the problem disappears if there is no solution - not, ofcourse, that the problem is not there, but that you can do fuck all about it so why concern yourself with it? Like so many turn off the tv (and so do i) if there is a documentary about some mass starvation - what the fuck am i gonna do about it?

except my views on migrants hadn't changed from before i was a revolutionary. It was the first time i was engaging in an industrial dispute and was eventually victorious that i realised the only solution to migrant labour being organising with migrant workers. I couldn't have constantly compared some imagined wonderland to what is now by your own admission what with not being a revolutionary, hell i didn't even give a toss about politics i just didn't want to get screwed over by my employer.





If there are no migrant workers, can they be used to push down working conditions? No. So if you consider nation-states to be an unchangeable given, closing the borders is just as effective as organising with migrant workers.
Yeah in cloud cuckooland. Closing the borders isn't as effective as organising with migrant workers because the working class doesn't have control over the borders. It doesn't take a revolutionary to see that the workers have no control over immigration policy. How can that be just as effective as workers combining with other workers in industrial action?



Now, ofcourse, we should organise with migrant workers, so that they can't be used to push down working conditions. But in attempting to reach the point at which we can actually do that, revolutionary and non-revolutionary workers together (and probably more of the latter), we as revolutionaries need to openly admit that this is how migrant workers figure into the scheme of capital. Not, then, to plead for closing the borders ofcourse, all im saying is that it is likely that non-revolutionary workers will either be in favour of this or at least susceptible to this idea. And we should accept that fact, to then, and starting from that point, plead to work together with migrant workers so they cant be used to push down working conditions.
All im saying is its harder to do that, perhaps impossible, if we do not accept the truth (that this is how migrants are used by capital) and with that truth understand the susceptibility of non-revolutionary workers to be in favour of closing the borders. Why? Because that IS, also in their material interests, in the exact same way (in their non-revolutionary perception) that organising with migrants is in their material interests: it makes it impossible for the bosses to use the migrants to drive down wages etc. If the borders close, they are simply not there so cannot be used, if we organise with the migrant workers the bosses wont be able to use them.



I'm of course not saying we should turn a blind eye to immigration as it can be used to divide the working class, i think it's the task of revolutionaries to build links between struggles in general and as such it's our job to push for class-based solutions that help build working class strength, organising with migrant workers is vital for this considering how the ruling class uses them against the rest of the workers.

The problem i have is i fail to understand how closing the borders, something which the workers have no real control over, is in their interests when there's another solution that also helps build their strength as a class but is also a hell of alot easier to do.

[Thirsty Crow]

The problem i have is i fail to understand how closing the borders, something which the workers have no real control over, is in their interests when there's another solution that also helps build their strength as a class but is also a hell of alot easier to do.
(playing a bit of a devil's advocate here)

First, it is probable that many of the same workers don't give a shit for "building their strength" as a class.
Secondly, I don't think that it is really accurate to portray the task of organising and actually engaging in struggle, which would probably necessitate going beyond and against the official unions, as easier than simply voting for a populist political party running on the platform of reduction or even elimination of immigration.

That and this brief remark: this debate bear on the often deployed notion of "material interest" and this needs to be clarified a bit. For example, does this interest arise from a conscious attitude of a worker towards here conditions of work and existence or is it somehow objectively given, which would mean that workers only need to realize, understand this (which has obvious implications for tactics)?

That being said, I do not support any kind of a restriction on immigration, but definitely agree with the way OP frames this debate - it is necessary to seriously examine the effects of immigration, and that is not helped by simply denying any rationality to workers concerns over it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Quite a few European nations needs immigrants to sustain their economies. The reason being because they have aging populations, low birthrates and a need to fund pensions, retirements etc into the future (for aforementioned aging populations). Their native workforce won't be able to cut it, not enough of 'em.

Either that or Europeans can just go back to having tons of kids.

[brigadista]

while immigration controls exist and global inequality of income people from all over the world will find a way to come to the wealthier countries to find work by any means regardless:):)

[Jimmie Higgins]

That being said, I do not support any kind of a restriction on immigration, but definitely agree with the way OP frames this debate - it is necessary to seriously examine the effects of immigration, and that is not helped by simply denying any rationality to workers concerns over it.

But many workers are concerned over any number of things, "terrorism" for example. But what does that mean for most workers? Unless convinced of outright xenophobic arguments, it reflects concern about instability and lack of control and safty. Much of this is hype as most people in the US or UK or Spain or India are unlikely to be directly hit by a bombing or whatnot. But the general thing is that we live in a society that creates a lot of frustration in induviduals which results in sort of anonamous or random violence on the one hand, and specifically we live under governments (in the above countries I listed) pushing policies that create anger and resistance. But not accepting the framework and assumptions of "terrorism" concerns isn't being dismissive of working class concerns.

In the same way, immigrantion concerns are ultimately due to what: competition amongst workers in capitalism, general instability for workers, and fear of a real loss of ground for workers in the neoliberal era. Immigration fears certaintly reflect these things, but in reality competition amongst workers and wages/benifits have been increasing and decreasing (respectivly) irregardless of actual immigration rates (at least for the US, I don't know the stats for other countries). So I don't think it's dismissive to argue that immigration is not a problem and is actually a diversion of blame: scapegoating.

The "problems" associated with immigration come from two things:
1) Creation of a second-class labor pool
2) Diverting class anger towards inter-class competition

The discourse around immigration tends to re-inforce the two above problems and so rather than dismissing these arguments, I think they need to be confronted head-on just like concerns over "Arab terrorism" or "black criminality" which are also widely accepted arguments among a lot of workers (in the US).

[Enragé]

So, the workers perceive their material interests as supporting a closed border even though they have far less control over the border than they do over their own wages?

I don't see how this is relevant. This is about positions workers (are likely to) take in discussions, political points of view. Workers also have no control over whether Turkey joins the EU, but some were still discussing this today in the cantine.


I've not been talking about revolutions but about how it's in the immediate interest of workers to organise with migrants in order so they cant be used to lower conditions.

Yes, and in the piece you quoted of an earlier post i made, to which this statement was a reply of yours, i explained that closing the border achieves the same thing: migrants cannot be used to lower working conditions (because they're not there!).
And the rest of my point is that the fact that non-revolutionary workers do not see revolution in the long term as possible/desirable, this makes them think differently regarding migration (and alot of other things too btw) than revolutionary workers.


except my views on migrants hadn't changed from before i was a revolutionary. It was the first time i was engaging in an industrial dispute and was eventually victorious that i realised the only solution to migrant labour being organising with migrant workers. I couldn't have constantly compared some imagined wonderland to what is now by your own admission what with not being a revolutionary, hell i didn't even give a toss about politics i just didn't want to get screwed over by my employer.

im not saying every non-revolutionary worker wants the borders to be closed. Just that its logical, from their standpoint, for the borders to be closed. And we all know people aren't cold surveyors of their material interests, as the rational choice theorists would have it. But the ability to do this does exist in human beings, and as such explains the tendency/susceptibility of non-revolutionary workers to (adopt) arguments favouring the closing of the borders. Cuz it is fact: migrant workers are used to lower wages and working conditions - barely anyone in this thread has disputed this, and the one or two that did i havent seen returning after i explained that what they said didnt add up.

And yes, exactly, you didnt want to get screwed by your employer, and in undertaking action against him you saw that it was useful or even necessary to work together with migrant workers. The problem i am talking about is that of anti-migrant sentiments (on the basis that they are a means by which wages are lowered, which in common parlance just translates to "its because of the migrants that the wages were lowered") being a block to collective action against the employer. My point is that, in order to effectively combat these sentiments, we have to acknowledge that migrants are used like this. Note that this does not mean making it part of our propaganda or anything, just acknowledging it when people bring it up and dont fight it with arguments (because they are flawed).


Yeah in cloud cuckooland. Closing the borders isn't as effective as organising with migrant workers because the working class doesn't have control over the borders. It doesn't take a revolutionary to see that the workers have no control over immigration policy. How can that be just as effective as workers combining with other workers in industrial action?

Again, this is not about actually being able to do anything, but the positions people take in discussions (and their willingness to work together with migrants). In general, workers are not able to do anything (because of lack of organization, because of their position in the hierarchy - at the bottom). Its about how to get to the point of being able to do something, and anti-migrants sentiments (on the basis of "because of the migrants our wages dropped") are a block to this.
Im happy to hear where you work there is organisation. Where i work, there is none. Not even mainstream unions. Not to mention, we're almost all temporary and 'flexible' workers - we can get kicked out without a reason whatsoever. We are completely powerless.


The problem i have is i fail to understand how closing the borders, something which the workers have no real control over, is in their interests when there's another solution that also helps build their strength as a class but is also a hell of alot easier to do.

1. Workers in 'democratic' countries do believe they have a control over whether the border closes or not. For example, by supporting and voting for quasi-fascist parties.
2. Voting, and shouting out loud "THE BORDERS SHOULD BE CLOSED", and not wanting to co-operate with migrants, is a hell of a lot easier than organizing your workplace.
3. From the perspective of alot of workers it is alot more likely that their vote will count than that they will succeed in "building class strength" and organising together with migrant workers. Also, because "building class strength" and organising together with migrant workers is something almost unheard of (especially in those terms).
4. Voting, shouting, not co-operating with certain fellow workers in order to not get fucked by the boss - these are all things i will not get fired for. If the bosses find out someone in a similar position as me (flexible, temporary) is trying to "build class strength" or "organise with migrant workers" he will NEVER work there again.



it is necessary to seriously examine the effects of immigration, and that is not helped by simply denying any rationality to workers concerns over it.

i could not have said it better myself! :)



Quite a few European nations needs immigrants to sustain their economies. The reason being because they have aging populations, low birthrates and a need to fund pensions, retirements etc into the future (for aforementioned aging populations). Their native workforce won't be able to cut it, not enough of 'em.

Nonsense, there's plenty of us. Also to work shit jobs. Just not for current wages, that is, wages that are profitable enough - that is profit margins will become way too small, which is why workers are imported.


I would object to the usage of the word 'importing', as referring to the immigration of individuals and workers as 'imports' would be to put them on the same level as everyday commodities.

I dont reduce people to commodities by calling them commodities - capitalism reduces human beings to commodities by using and treating them like commodities.


Jimmie Higgins, i don't really see the point you're getting at. Ofcourse im not saying we should ourselves accept an anti-immigration framework, just come to grips with the fact that alot of our fellow workers have - and have done so on rational grounds, not because they are deranged or whatever. Wages have dropped 20% where i work "because of the migrants" (not my words, but the words of a colleague).

[Vanguard1917]

'Native' workers migrate, too - i.e. from one part of the country to another, in search of work - and that can also have the initial effect of driving down wages. Movement of labour from within the country (e.g. from the countryside to the towns) is still the more typical form of labour migration in many capitalist countries. It was also the dominant form of labour migration during the development of advanced capitalist countries like Britain.

Migrants from outside the country are different in the sense that, with chauvinist ideology, they're easier to scapegoat for the country's problems than 'national citizens'. So it's important that socialists should not be confused on this matter, and oppose all viewpoints that shift blame for social problems on to migrant workers, whether they're from within or without the country.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Migrants from outside the country are different in the sense that, with chauvinist ideology, they're easier to scapegoat for the country's problems than 'national citizens'. So it's important that socialists should not be confused on this matter, and oppose all viewpoints that shift blame for social problems on to migrant workers, whether they're from within or without the country.

Yes and the two most notable examples of this in the US are black migration from the South to industrial areas (whand there were racist pogroms against blacks by white workers - and before that point, black workers had been played against immigrant and native workforces by the bosses to disorganize strikes - and directly using black workers to scab against the often racist unions of the pre-Depression era) and "Okiee" migration during the dust bowl, where again their desperation was used to drive down wages (ironically to drive down the wages for immigrants).

Struggles of the industrial union movement in the US had to overcome these divisions in order to begin to make gains. The same is true for migrants today.

[Blake's Baby]

I've realised that Comrade Enrage is completely right - these extra workers lower the wages of workers in a particular country. So, I propose that in order to protect these workers, we all kill our children, as new generations also make labour cheaper by increasing the supply of labour. That'll teach the capitalist bastards who want to use new workers to bring down wages.

/sarcasm



Is it actually "importation" though? Isn't it just immigration? I mean are there actually capitalists deliberately hiring masses of workers from other countries? Enrage gives the example of Turkish, Moroccan, and eastern european workers being "imported" to the Netherlands, but I always got the impression this was just the result of immigration, and with the eastern european workers, the result of demographic change in the EU due to the borderless nature of the EU (and thus a lack of typical immigration law).

Actually, it is often a policy of deliberate recruitment of workers from one place to work elsewhere, rather than economic migrants moving in the hope of finding work. The 'gastarbeiter' in Germany are a classic example, where recruitment agents in Britain or Spain or wherever would sign people up to work-gangs. Currently health service in Britain has apparently got a policy of signing up health workers from Malawi and Botswana.

And I don't think borders in the EU are quite as open as you seem to think; the Danish government long ago set limits to immigration from inside the EU and the UK government set limits to immigration from Bulgaria and Romania for example. So even in the EU there isn't the automatic right to work in another country.

[Vanguard1917]

"Okiee" migration during the dust bowl, where again their desperation was used to drive down wages (ironically to drive down the wages for immigrants).

An event immortalised in a certain book by one of your nation's great authors, i believe...

[Jimmie Higgins]

An event immortalised in a certain book by one of your nation's great authors, i believe...Also by one of north america's best folksingers.:)