"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:
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.
(Source)
Alain de
Benoist is a philosopher residing in France. The above article was first
published in the quarterly Eléments,
“L’immigration; armée de réserve du capital” (April-June 2011, Nr. 139).
See also:
* Money by Alain de Benoist
* The Decay of Modern Society by Alain de Benoist
OFFICIAL LINKS
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Movement Central Group (N-AM)
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Earth & Animal Activism Network
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Permaculture Information Network
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Survivalist and Preparedness Circle
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Spanish Speaking Resistance
* Contacts: N-AM Links