Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:13:05 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: AUT: Putting Negri to the Test (My Response)



Angela,

Yes, here it is with three NZ replies it has prompted.

It was originally intended as a document for
discussion in our anti-imperialist coalition. I am
actually supposed to write a leaflet for the AIC on
open borders in the very near future, so I will
forward that too...

 These comments assume that those reading them have a
commitmemnt to open borders for workers and the
poor...

The protests over Australian detention camps are
obviously becoming a major issue, yet I think they are
unlikely to mobilise large numbers of Australians and
NZers at present. So far, they seem confined to
prisoners themselves and to seasoned activists. The
recent sight of both Howard and Beazley taking a hard
electoral line on the 'refugee' issue surely signals
that a large chunk of the Australian working class
sits on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. 

I think it is up to the radical left to raise demands
and sponsor tactics that make this issue more likely
to mobilise large numbers of working class
Australasians. The prisoners obviously do not have the
ability to do this, and liberal protesters seem to
look to the moral persuasion of politicians rather
than mass class-based action to achieve their ends.

It seems to me that it will be very difficult to make
action on this issue attractive to Australasian
workers because these workers benefit in measurable
ways from the maintenance of the sort of border
controls Howard and Clark uphold. I think that many of
these workers correctly feel that the price their
labour fetches and the social infrastructure they
enjoy would be damaged a good deal by the sort of
influx of foreign workers the abolition or even
liberalisation of border controls would create. 

Now, I don't for a moment want to argue that this fact
makes the demand for open borders for workers a bad
one; nor do I want to deny that the greater objective
interests of Australasian workers lie with their
Indonesian and Afghan cousins, rather than their
Australasian bosses. What I'm suggesting is that we
have to build into the way we campaign for open
borders an awareness of the basis for anti-immigrant
sentiment amongst the Australasians we are trying to
reach. Here are some thoughts to that end:


- We need to argue against the distinction between
'refugee' and 'economic migrant', a distinction which
replicates the liberal distncing of politics from
economics. All those who seek to penetrate borders are
driven ultimately by economic forces - why should
political persecution trump hunger as a reason for
refuge? I understand, as well, that many governments
are tightening the arbitrary distinction between
refugees and economic migrants, to make it even more
difficult for migrants to place themselves in the
former category. 

- We should draw a class line across this issue by
pointedly not supporting the right of capitalists to
make use of open borders. We can back this position by
inverting the bourgeois argument that the rich should
be allowed special travel and immigration privileges -
to buy passports, for instance - because they are
'wealth creators'.

- Opposition to border controls needs to coupled
wherever possible with support for open access for
Australasian workers to countries from which they are
excluded. For instance, we can liken the right of,
say, a Tongan worker to come to NZ and receive
state-funded help assistance s/he needs to the
now-vanished right of a NZ worker to get the same in
Australia.

- We have to target 'immigrant' or 'recently-settled'
communities before the rest of the population, when we
seek to spread the protests. After all, the working
class and poor members of these communities are likely
to lack some of to the anti-immigrant interests that
the wider working class has, or at least to have a
strong subjective opposition to the repression of
migrants which can act as a counter to such interests.



- We should be aware that the demand for open borders
cannot be satisfied within the bounds of capitalism in
Australasia. Arguing for it with 'reasonable' claims
that adapt to capitalist ideology - with the argument
that immigrants are 'good for the economy' for
instance - is useless as well as unprincipled. The
liberals will not come with us on this one.

- We need to concretise the (at the moment) somewhat
abstract open borders demand by linking it to short
term demands like, say, those for the closure of
facilities like Woomera (I suppose this point is
fairly obvious)


Any additions, criticisms to these suggestions?


Cheers
Scott


Scott,

I agree with everything in this post except for this
bit:

>It seems to me that it will be very difficult to make
>action on this issue attractive to Australasian
>workers because these workers benefit in measurable
>ways from the maintenance of the sort of border
>controls Howard and Clark uphold. I think that many
of
>these workers correctly feel that the price their
>labour fetches and the social infrastructure they
>enjoy would be damaged a good deal by the sort of
>influx of foreign workers the abolition or even
>liberalisation of border controls would create.


I would agree that (white) Australasian workers
*think* this, but that it
is not actually true. Actually, open borders would
break down the ability
of employers to use wage differentials in different
countries in this way.
It would help shift the price of labour to an
international average. If
there was a powerful class struggle going on in the
imperilaist world, this
average would tend to be higher than the average wage
right now.

Moreover, I noticed in the 'Press' this morning, that
something like
780,000 people in NZ had an average income of under
$9,500 in 1999-2000.
I'm not sure what the exact size of the labour force
is, but I'm pretty
sure it's somewhere around 1.75 million, so that is
one huge section of the
economically active population. It's especially
difficult to see how they
benefit from closed borders.

In fact, it can also be argued that closed borders act
to keep down wages
in the First World because control over the migration
of labour allows our
ruling classes an additional power over the labour
market. They don't just
rely on the normal operations of the market, supply
and demand and so on -
their control over borders means they can bring in and
exclude labour as
they desire. And, at the same time, they can scapegoat
'foreigners' for
unemployment and social problems.

So I would say that, even in terms of short-term
interest, it is in the
vital class interests of workers in the West to
support open borders.
(Obviously, I agree with you that it is in the
long-term interests of
Western workers to support this too, as it is part of
the process through
which workers start thinking of themselves as an
international class rather
than identifying with their exploiters through seeing
thesmelves as aprt of
individual capitlaist nations.)

I think one of the most important points you make, and
it's one often
lacking in open borders campaigns, is the need to
fight the issue on a
class basis. That is, we don't just argue for
humanitarian politics and
that refugees and migrants shouod get some of the
resources currently going
to the domestic working class; rather but we argue
that 'foreign' workers
are our class brothers and sisters and there is an
urgent need for the
extension of public resources. In other words, the
demand that refugees
and migrants have decent housing has to be accompanied
by a demand for a
quality housing programme for the whole working class
and for a general
massive upgrading of public services.

This also means that an open borders campaign doesn't
seek the support of
Labour MPs and so on, but understands that these
politicians are our
enemies. This includes the 'liberal' ones who want a
more 'humane' policy,
since they can only ever help divide the working
class. They might let in
a few more refugees on a very narrow 'humanitarian'
basis but the refugees
are then forced to compete with NZ and Australian
workers for housing and
health services, so the class ends up fighting amongst
itself.

In other words, the struggle for class unity and *more
resources* is right
at the heart of any genuinely radical campaign for
open borders.

Phil


it's a shame the debate about this has to take place
largely on the 
theoretical plane, although of course that's no
criticism of Scott or 
Phil, just a recognition that open borders to nz has
not been tried. 
(as far as I am aware anyway)
I would raise the following questions in the interest
of debate and 
furthering my understanding of the subject...

I think that many of
> >these workers correctly feel that the price their
> >labour fetches and the social infrastructure they
> >enjoy would be damaged a good deal by the sort of
> >influx of foreign workers the abolition or even
> >liberalisation of border controls would create.
> 
> 
> I would agree that (white) Australasian workers
*think* this, but 
that it
> is not actually true. Actually, open borders would
break down the 
ability
> of employers to use wage differentials in different
countries in 
this way.

But isn't the point that poorer immigrants are likely
to accept lower 
wages? this appears to be the case in places like
California.

It would help shift the price of labour to an
international average. 
If
> there was a powerful class struggle going on in the
imperilaist 
world, this
> average would tend to be higher than the average
wage right now.

Again, if *downward* pressure on wages is what creates
the 
international average then it seems that it isn't to
the benefit of 
Western workers. If there was powerful class struggle
going on in the 
Western countries (which there isn't) presumably it
would be better 
than not having powerful class struggle, but a) I
don't see that it 
*necessarily* will offset all downward pressure, and
b) if 
Western class struggle is (to whatever extent)
offsetting these 
pressures, then it would seem it is still negative
from their economic 
point of view.


In other words, the demand that 
refugees
> and migrants have decent housing has to be
accompanied by a demand 
for a
> quality housing programme for the whole working
class and for a 
general
> massive upgrading of public services.


Sure, but who is going to pay for it? 



> This also means that an open borders campaign
doesn't seek the 
support of
> Labour MPs and so on, but understands that these
politicians are our
> enemies. This includes the 'liberal' ones who want a
more 'humane' 
policy,
> since they can only ever help divide the working
class. They might 
let in
> a few more refugees on a very narrow 'humanitarian'
basis but the 
refugees
> are then forced to compete with NZ and Australian
workers for 
housing and
> health services, so the class ends up fighting
amongst itself.

Right, so that happens when border controls are eased,
but it isn't 
going to happen when they are completely abolished? 

Not that I'm against open borders per se, i'm not, but
I'd be 
interested in response to these questions...

greetings to everyone anyway (forgot to say it at the
beginning :-)

Jonathan

>it's a shame the debate about this has to take place
largely on the
>theoretical plane, although of course that's no
criticism of Scott or
>Phil, just a recognition that open borders to nz has
not been tried.
>(as far as I am aware anyway)
>I would raise the following questions in the interest
of debate and
>furthering my understanding of the subject...


Border controls are actually quite new. They never
really began until
after the French revolution. They grew slowly in the
19th century with the
consolidation of the capitalist nation states they are
designed to protect.
Undermining them is an important part of fighting
against the capitalist
nation state.


Me:
>> I would agree that (white) Australasian workers
*think* this, but
>that it
>> is not actually true. Actually, open borders would
break down the
>ability
>> of employers to use wage differentials in different
countries in
>this way.


Jon:
>But isn't the point that poorer immigrants are likely
to accept lower
>wages? this appears to be the case in places like
California.
>
> It would help shift the price of labour to an
international average.
>If
>> there was a powerful class struggle going on in the
imperilaist
>world, this
>> average would tend to be higher than the average
wage right now.


This was the argument that racists used in the 19th
century to keep Chinese
out of Oz and NZ. In fact, as Andrew Markus' study of
the Chinese in the
cabinet-making industry in Melbourne showed, this was
largely a myth.
Despite coming from an impoverished homeland, the
Chinese were perfectly
capable of fighting for good wages - especially
if/when white workers
included them in a common movement rather than banning
them from union
membership (as happened quite a lot in Australia, but
also in some NZ
unions).


>Again, if *downward* pressure on wages is what
creates the
>international average then it seems that it isn't to
the benefit of
>Western workers.


The international average depends on the class
struggle. If workers in the
West don't fight, they can hardly blame workers in the
Third World for a
low international average wage. We should fight for
*upward pressure* to
establish an international wage, but this in itself is
less important than
fighting for First World workers to act in solidarity
with Third World
workers, since our starting point is not the
preservation of the wage
system but its abolition.



>If there was powerful class struggle going on in the
>Western countries (which there isn't) presumably it
would be better
>than not having powerful class struggle, but a) I
don't see that it
>*necessarily* will offset all downward pressure, and
b) if
>Western class struggle is (to whatever extent)
offsetting these
>pressures, then it would seem it is still negative
from their economic
>point of view.



My original point was simply that migration from the
Third World does not
push down wage levels in the First World. But we
shouldn't get overly hung
up on pressure in relation to wages. We are not
gas-and-water socialists,
or the kind of socialists who are concerned with small
wage increases as if
this is some kind of advance to socialism. We are
interested in promoting
class consciousness as a prerequisite for *effective*
class struggle
*against capitalism*. That means getting workers to
think in global terms
and act in global terms. That is impossible while
workers are attached to
one locality, and defend that patch against
'foreigners'.



>In other words, the demand that
>refugees
>> and migrants have decent housing has to be
accompanied by a demand
>for a
>> quality housing programme for the whole working
class and for a
>general
>> massive upgrading of public services.
>
>
>Sure, but who is going to pay for it?


The ruling class.

But, again, we are not overly concerned with working
out a programme for
how the ruling class might pay for it. It is an
argument *against
capitaism*, not an argument to get the ruling class to
put a bit more
surplus-value aside for public projects.

The point is that in order to foster international
class solidarity it is
necessary to show workers in the West that
solidairising with Third World
workers is not something which makes them worse off
but is something which
is in their class interest as against the global class
of capitalists.
Linking open borders with the question of control of
surplus-value is the
way to do this.



>> This also means that an open borders campaign
doesn't seek the
>support of
>> Labour MPs and so on, but understands that these
politicians are our
>> enemies. This includes the 'liberal' ones who want
a more 'humane'
>policy,
>> since they can only ever help divide the working
class. They might
>let in
>> a few more refugees on a very narrow 'humanitarian'
basis but the
>refugees
>> are then forced to compete with NZ and Australian
workers for
>housing and
>> health services, so the class ends up fighting
amongst itself.


>Right, so that happens when border controls are
eased, but it isn't
>going to happen when they are completely abolished?


Border controls are not going to be abolished under
capitalism. The only
way they can be abolished is with the abolition of
capitalism. Thus the
fight for open borders is part of the fight to abolish
capitalism globally.



Cheers,
Phil



--- rcam <rcollins-AT-netlink.com.au> wrote: > Scott, can
I ask, are you the same Scott who wrote
> something along the lines
> of 'if there's an influx of migrants then working
> conditions and wages will
> decline'?   - I can't seem to find the post in my
> inbox; but it's been doing
> the rounds to a few lists, with a response from (I
> think it was) Peter, or
> maybe Anthony...
> 
> Angela
> _______________
> 
> <end message>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- 

====For "a ruthless criticism of every existing idea":
THR-AT-LL, NZ's class struggle anarchist paper http://www.freespeech.org/thrall/
THIRD EYE, a Kiwi lib left project, at http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/
and 'REVOLUTION' magazine, a Frankfurt-Christchurch production, http://cantua.canterbury.ac.nz/%7Ejho32/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---