A timely repost of an article describing the situation in France, but which applies to all countries suffering under Capitalism.
by TheocWulf
"Whoever criticizes capitalism, while
approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had
better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent
about capitalism, should do the same." - Alain de Benoist, Immigration:
The Reserve Army of Capital
In 1973, shortly before his death,
the French President Georges Pompidou admitted to have opened the
floodgates of immigration, at a request of a number of big businessmen,
such as Francis Bouygues, who was eager to take advantage of docile and
cheap labor devoid of class consciousness and of any tradition of social
struggle. This move was meant to exert downward pressure on the wages
of French workers, reduce their protesting zeal, and in addition, break
up the unity of the labor movement. Big bosses, he said, “always want
more.”
Forty years later nothing has changed. At a time when no
political party would dare to ask for further acceleration of the pace
of immigration, only big employers seem to be in favor of it — simply
because it is in their interest. The only difference is that the
affected economic sectors are now more numerous, going beyond the
industrial sector and the hotel and catering service sector — now to
include once “protected” professions, such as engineers and computer
scientists.
France, as we know, starting with the 19th century,
massively reached out to foreign immigrants. The immigrating population
was already 800,000 in 1876, only to reach 1.2 million in 1911. French
industry was the prime center of attraction for Italian and Belgian
immigrants, followed by Polish, Spanish and Portuguese immigrants. “Such
immigration, unskilled and non-unionized, allowed employers to evade
increasing requirements pertaining to the labor law” (François-Laurent
Balssa, « Un choix salarial pour les grandes entreprises » Le Spectacle
du monde, Octobre, 2010).
In 1924, at the initiative of the
Committee for Coalmining and big farmers from the Northeast of France, a
“general agency for immigration” (Société générale d’immigration) was
founded. It opened up employment bureaus in Europe, which operated as
suction pumps. In 1931 there were 2.7 million foreigners in France, that
is, 6.6 % of the total population. At that time France displayed the
highest level of immigration in the world (515 persons on 100,000
inhabitants). “This was a handy way for a large number of big employers
to exert downward pressure on wages. … From then on capitalism entered
the competition of the workforce by reaching out to the reserve armies
of wage earners.”
In the aftermath of World War II, immigrants
began to arrive more and more frequently from Maghreb countries; first
from Algeria, then from Morocco. Trucks chartered by large companies
(especially in the automobile and construction industry) came by the
hundreds to recruit immigrants on the spot. From 1962 to 1974, nearly
two million additional immigrants arrived to France of whom 550,000 were
recruited by the National Immigration Service (ONI), a state-run
agency, yet controlled under the table by big business.
Since then, the wave has continued to grow. François-Laurent Balssa notes that:
when
a workforce shortage in one sector occurs, out of the two possible
choices one must either raise the salary, or one must reach out to
foreign labor. Usually it was the latter option that was favored by the
National Council of French Employers (CNPF) and as of 1998 by its
successor, the Movement of Enterprises (MEDEF). That choice, which bears
witness of the desire for short-term benefits, delayed advancement of
production tools and industrial innovation. During the same period,
however, as the example of Japan demonstrates, the rejection of foreign
immigration and favoring of the domestic workforce enabled Japan to
achieve its technological revolution, well ahead of most of its Western
competitors.
Big Business and the Left; A Holy Alliance
At
the beginning, immigration was a phenomenon linked to big business. It
still continues to be that way. Those who clamor for always more
immigration are big companies. This immigration is in accordance with
the very spirit of capitalism, which aims at the erasure of borders («
laissez faire, laissez passer »). “While obeying the logic of social
dumping, Balssa continues, a “low cost” labor market has thus been
created with the “undocumented” and the “low-skilled,” functioning as
stopgap “jack of all trades.” Thus, big business has reached its hand to
the far-left, the former aiming at dismantling of the welfare state,
considered to be too costly, the latter killing off the nation-state
considered to be too archaic.” This is the reason why the French
Communist Part (PCF) and the French Trade Union (CGT) (which have
radically changed since then) had, until 1981, battled against the
liberal principle of open borders, in the name of the defense of the
working class interests.
For once a well-inspired Catholic liberal-conservative Philippe Nemo, only confirms these observations:
In
Europe there are people in charge of the economy who dream about
bringing to Europe cheap labor. Firstly, to do jobs for which the local
workforce is in short supply; secondly, to exert considerable downward
pressure on the wages of other workers in Europe. These lobbies, which
possess all necessary means to be listened to either by their
governments or by the Commission in Brussels, are, generally speaking,
both in favor of immigration and Europe’s enlargement — which would
considerably facilitate labor migrations. They are right from their
point of view — a view of a purely economic logic [...] The problem,
however, is that one cannot reason about this matter in economic terms
only, given that the inflow of the extra-Europe population has also
severe sociological consequences. If these capitalists pay little
attention to this problem, it is perhaps because they enjoy, by and
large, economic benefits from immigration without however themselves
suffering from its social setbacks. With the money earned by their
companies, whose profitability is ensured in this manner, they can
reside in handsome neighborhoods, leaving their less fortunate
compatriots to cope on their own with alien population in poor suburban
areas. (Philippe Nemo, Le Temps d’y penser, 2010)
According to
official figures, immigrants living in regular households account for 5
million people, which was 8% of the French population in 2008. Children
of immigrants, who are direct descendants of one or two immigrants,
represent 6.5 million people, which is 11% of the population. The number
of illegals is estimated to be between 300,000 to 550,000. (Expulsion
of illegal immigrants cost 232 million Euros annually, i.e., 12,000 euro
per case). For his part, Jean-Paul Gourevitch, estimates the population
of foreign origin living in France in 2009 at 7.7 people million (out
of which 3.4 million are from the Maghreb and 2.4 million from
sub-Saharan Africa), that is, 12.2% of the metropolitan population. In
2006, the immigrating population accounted for 17% of births in France.
France
is today experiencing migrant settlements, which is a direct
consequence of the family reunification policy. However, more than
ever before immigrants represent the reserve army of capital.
In
this sense it is amazing to observe how the networks on behalf of the
“undocumented,” run by the far-left (which seems to have discovered in
immigrants its “substitute proletariat”) serve the interests of big
business. Criminal networks, smugglers of people and goods, big
business, “human rights” activists, and under- the-table employers — all
of them, by virtue of the global free market, have become cheerleaders
for the abolition of frontiers.
For example, it is a revealing
fact that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their books Empire and
Multitude endorse “world citizenship ” when they call for the removal of
borders, which must have as a first goal in developed countries the
accelerated settlement of the masses of low-wage Third World workers.
The fact that most migrants today owe their displacement to outsourcing,
brought about by the endless logic of the global market, and that their
displacement is precisely something capitalism strives for in order to
fit everybody into the market, and finally, that each territorial
attachment could be a part of human motivations — does not bother these
two authors at all. On the contrary, they note with satisfaction that
“capital itself requires increased mobility of labor as well as
continuous migration across national borders.” The world market should
constitute, from their point of view, a natural framework for “world
citizenship.” The market “requires a smooth space of uncoded and
deterritorialized flux,” destined to serve the interests of the
“masses”, because “mobility carries a price tag of capital, which means
the enhanced desire for liberty.”
The trouble with such an
apology of human displacement, seen as a first condition of “liberating
nomadism,” is that it relies on a completely unreal outlook of the
specific situation of migrants and displaced people. As Jacques Guigou
and Jacques Wajnsztejn write, “Hardt and Negri delude themselves with
the capacity of the immigration flows, thought to be a source for new
opportunities for capital valuation, as well as the basis for
opportunity enhancement for the masses. Yet, migrations signify nothing
else but a process of universal competition, whereas migrating has no
more emancipating value than staying at home. A “nomadic” person is no
more inclined to criticism or to revolt than a sedentary person.”
(L’évanescence de la valeur. Une présentation critique du groupe Krisis,
2004).
“As long as people keep abandoning their families, adds
Robert Kurz, and look for work elsewhere, even at the risk of their own
lives — only to be ultimately shredded by the treadmill of capitalism —
they will be less the heralds of emancipation and more the
self-congratulatory agents of the postmodern West. In fact, they only
represent its miserable version.” (Robert Kurz, « L’Empire et ses
théoriciens », 2003).
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while
approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had
better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent
about capitalism, should do the same.
_________________
Take
notice, That England is not a Free People, till the Poor that have no
Land, have a free allowance to dig and labour the Commons, and so live
as Comfortably as the Landlords that live in their Inclosures. For the
People have not laid out their Monies, and shed their Bloud, that their
Landlords, the Norman power, should still have its liberty and freedom
to rule in Tyranny.-
Gerrard Winstanley & 14 others TheTrue Levellers Standard Advanced - April, 1649
