About Immigration

Question:

When was Bukharin a communist when he said to the kulaks 'enrich yourselves'? Just as Bukharins personal and political journey took him to stalinism so yours has taken you from Castros stalinism to globalism...

Answer:

After spending years arguing no immigration is taking place from the third world to the first world, the globalists attacked another central tenet of capitalist economics, that the free movement of capital like the free movement of labour leads to an oversupply of labour and consequently a tendency to lower wages across economies on a world level.

Classical marxism before it was corrupted by stalinism in the form of Imperialism and the World Economy by Bukharin noted how migration affected labour rates.

"If the international movement of commodities expresses the 'mutation process' in the socioeconomic world organism then the international movement of the populations expresses mainly the redistribution of the main factor of economic life, the labour power. Just as within the framework of the 'national economy' the redistribution of the labour power among the various production branches is regulated by the scales of wages which tend to one level, so in the framework of world economy the process of equalising the various wage scales is taking place with the aid of migration. The gigantic reservoir of the capitalist New World absorbs the 'superfluous population of Europe and Asia, from the pauperised peasants who are being driven out of agriculture to the 'reserve army' of the unemployed in the cities. Thus there is being created on a world scale a correspondence between the supply and demand of 'hands' in proportion necessary for capital. An idea of the quantitative side of the process may be gleaned from the following figures:

Number of Immigrants Entering United States: Years 1904 812,870 1905 1,026,499 1906 1,100,735 1907 1,285,349 1914 1,218,480

Number of Foreigners in Germany Years 1880 276,057 1900 778,737 1910 1,259,873

In 1912, 711,446 emigrated from Italy, 467,762 from England and Ireland, 176,567 from Spain (1911), 127,747 from Russia etc. To this number of final emigrants ie of workers who reliquish their fatherland forever and look for a new country, must be added a number of emigrants of a temporary and seasonal character. Russian and Polish workers immigrate into Germany for agricultural work (the so-called Sachsengangerei etc). These ebbs and flows of labour power already from one of the phenomena of the world labour market.

Corresponding to the movement of labour power as one of the poles of capitalist relations is the movement of capital as another pole. As in the former case the movement is regulated by the law of the equalisation of the rates of profit. The movement of capital which from the point of view of the capital exporting country is usually called capital export, has acquired an unrivalled importance in modern economic life so that some economists (like Sartorius von Walterhausen) define modern capitalism as export capitalsm. (p39-40) My underlining

"In the same way as the international movement of commoditites brings the local and 'national' prices to the one and only level of world prices, in the same way as migration tends to bring the nationally different wage scales for hired workers to one level, so the movement of captial tends to bring the 'national' rates of profit to one level, which tendency expresses nothing but one of the most general laws of the capitalist mode of production on a world scale.

Within the framework of world economy the concentration tendencies of capitalist development assume the same organisational forms as are manifest within the framework of 'national economy' - namely there come more strikingly to the foreground tendencies towards limiting free competition by means of forming monopoly enterprises." P.46 My underlining

Finally in dedication to the globalists who believe in a globalist conflict free world future where the transnationals dominate all and sundry using the twin tools of exporting capital and importing labour, a re-hash of Kautsky's ultra-imperialism, ie globalism with a human face, written by Lenin in his introduction to Bukharins book.

"Can one however deny that in the abstract a new face of capitalism to follow imperialism - namely a phase of ultra-imperialism - is thinkable? No. In the abstract one can think of such a phase. In practice, however he who denies the sharp tasks of today in the name of dreams about soft tasks of the future becomes an opportunist. Theoretically it means to fail to base oneself on the developments now going on in real life, to detach oneself from them in the name of dreams. There is no doubt that the development is going in the direction of a single world trust that will swallow up all enterprises and states wthout exception. But the development in this direction is proceeding under such stress, with such tempot with such contradictions conflicts and convulsions - not only economical, but also political national etc etc - that before a single world trust will be reached, before the respective national finance capitals will have formed a world union of 'ultra-imperialism', imperialism will inevitably explode and capitalism will turn into its opposite.

What garbage. The "globalists" (ie., principled Marxists) understand that capitalism's goal is to decrease the costs of labor. That is not our disagreement. It is rather whether socialists should take the position of the Gompers wing of the trade union bureaucracy at best or Enoch Powell at worst and call for the exclusion/expulsion of foreign workers.

Furthermore, you have nothing in common with Bukharin who was a communist. You traded in the hammer-and-sickle for a Union Jack some time ago. It is too bad you don't have the honesty to admit this.

You have only your won opinion to re-read. Bukharin in the tradition of classical marxism before it was perverted by stalinism and now by globalism argues clearly for all who CAN read that immigration lowers labour costs. He never argued nor did any Bolshevik for the globalisation of labour as do SWP/UK, Wokrers Power, AWL, Weekly Worker AND the tradeunion bureacracies politically affiliated to New Labour.

So what? He doesn't draw the conclusion anywhere that the way to prevent this is to prevent the migration of labour. The way to prevent wage cuts is united workers' organisation not immigration controls.

He recognises though the export of capital alongside migration affect labour rates. The globalists including yourself have done more damage to the movement attempting to protray this as a reactionary indeed racist lie. Yet here Bukharin in black and white states the classical marxist position. You may not like it, but tough shit pal.

I have never denied that migration can affect wage rates. I think you're just setting up a straw man in order to knock it down - it still doesn't change the fact that your position is the same as that of the British National Party, the Front National in France or the FPÖ in Austria - all fascist organisations.

I fwages are affected by migration then one has to ask a simpleton, in a downward or an upward spiral. If downwards then by asking for the liberalisation of borders, by calling for an end to immigration controls under im imperialism you are asking for wages to do what precisely? To go upwards I presume?

What happened to Italy? Is it run by a fascist party as you constantly told us regarding Austria? Your position is the same as the one referred to by Bukharin-aiding and abetting globalism...

There are fascists in the government as junior partners in both Austria and Italy. In Italy one of the NA ministers is in charge of teh police, an institution in Italy that is riddled with fascists - as was graphically illustrated during the Genoa protests where arrested protestors were forced by the police to give fascist salutes - and the police were unconditionally supported by their minister.

BTW what's your position on Berlusconi? He seems to be a man after your tastes - after all some members of his government recommend sinking ships carrying illegal immigrants - and leaving them to drown.

Its funny but when I stated a couple of years ago the US is becoming neo-fascist a whole host of characters on apsr, Project, Paris (now Schredder) etc called be mad raving bonkers. Yet when Pilger recently stated the same, he must be same. More to the point, Bushs adventure in Iraq is more historically akin to Mussolini than anyone elses on the political spectrum, bar Blair. Collier indeed mocked me for claiming Blair is to the right of the whole of Europe including Berlusconi. Now you come along to state there are fascists in the Austrian, Italian but not the British and American government.

How convenient, when Italy only has 1,000 personnel in Iraq whilst Britain took part in the invasion etc. You have one yard stick for your own goevernment and one other for everyone elses... I wonder what salutes the Iraquis have to do when nicked by British soldiers?

More related to yours as you voted for his counterpart in Britain as recently pointed out by Ken Loach in a meeting. As for the immigrants this is a game in the world of globalised labour. None of Italys ministers have curbed or stopped immigration, despite electoral promises to the contrary. This is what led Haider to lose votes...

Well, Pilger is wrong but nobody would describe him as bonkers. You, of course, are another question entirely.

Well, the US has been involved in such "adventures" for 200 years. Manifest Destiny, the invasion of Mexico, the Philippines, etc. have nothing to do with fascism.

You sound disappointed. Maybe you could go there and advise them how to set up barbed wire more effectively.

Not all imperialists are fascists - you bandy round the word fascist in such a way taht it loses all its specific meaning and becomes simply a synonym for "nasty right-wingers".

When i use the term fascist I mean something more specific, i.e. teh historic successors of the fascist movements of the 1930s - the BNP in britain which can trace its origins back through various incarnations to Mosley's British Union of Fascists, the NPD and to a lesser extent the Republikaner in Germany, which can be traced back through continuity of cadre and ideology to the NSDAP; the Front national, which can be traced byack in cadre and ideology to organiastions like Croix de Feu; the FPÖ in Austria, which can be traced back in personnel to teh NSDAP and teh Dollfussites; and the Alianza nazionale, which makes no secret of teh fact that it is teh successor party of the MSI, whcih was in turn the open successor to Mussolini's fascist party, as is still proudly proclaimed by his granddaughter, who is a AN MP in the Italian parliament.

I also resent the assertion that the British government is in some way my government, since I'm not British and my family has a long tradition of involvement in the struggle against British imperialism.

Take one step at a time. Apparently you are conceding that immigration serves to level the price of labor power.

Then, the point isn't that anyone favors immigration controls, but that you immigration as a form of asylum, hence affirmatively promoting a measure you admit undermines wages.

CApital tries to undermine wages in all sorts of ways. The way to prevent this is organisation - united organisation. Attacking immigrants - people trying to escape the economic devastation caused by capitalism elsewhere - for decreasing wages promotes the very disunity that makes it easier for the capitalists in their attempt to undermine wages.

This was the case when the Jews were trying to escape the pogroms in Russia by migrating to Britain and America. the response of the british state was to introduce the first immigration controls, the Aliens Act in 1905.

This was also the case when the British and US governments refused to grant many Jews attempting to escape Hitler's Germany entry visas, effectively condemning them to death.

Of course, you and Vangelis would have approved of these measures - at least if you have any consistency.

Let's be fair. Vangelis would have approved of these measures but Diamond would have only found ways to make Vangelis's support plausible in Marxist terms. Frankly, I prefer Vangelis's in-your-face racism to Diamond's mealy-mouthed bullshit.