International Workers of the World

The question of immigration has been off limits for the left until fairly recently. The discomfort of left-wing intellectuals at being seen to be racist or unwelcoming has been skilfully manipulated by those whose interests have been well served by the influx of cheap powerless labour.  A worker without papers is a non-person, a person who has no legal rights who can do nothing to defend him or herself against exploitation. Globalisation has weakened the power of unions, as we have forced to compete with the slave-like conditions and wages of workers in China and the other ‘emerging’ economies across the world. The hard political-economy truth is that this process was greatly exacerbated by the desperate movement of illegal workers who travelled the world to chase the flow of goods and capital.

A few renegade intellectuals, notably David Goodhart and Maurice Glasman, have recently broken ranks, arguing that Britain’s white working-class have lost their means of livelihood as well as identity and that this is the root cause of our social malaise. Sadly, Goodhart in particular has failed to match his explanation of the impact of immigration with condemnation of the overtly racist policies of right-wing politicians who are seeking to capitalise on the unease this causes and so has lost much credibility. Glasman is by nature a contrarian and the clear division between his position and that of Labour’s traditional intellectual community has effectively led to the break-up of the ill-fated ‘blue labour’ project.

The target of Goodhart and Glasman were the middle-class intellectuals who adopt a liberal position on immigration without considering its impact on those in more vulnerable situations. Those with more liberal attitudes towards migration tend not to live in the neighbourhoods of our cities where they need to think about what the migration of such people does to the life chances of their children whether in terms of employment, housing or social services. Little surprise, then, that a recent survey of British social attitudes shows negativity to immigration to be closely allied with social class. The Gs might well agree that we are operating with outrageous double standards – exporting our language, companies, TV shows, media stars but objecting when those on the receiving end of this barrage choose to seek its origin personally. But the reality is that the migration of doctors and lecturers and engineers, who travel the world selling their skills, is a world apart from the migration of desperately poor economic and social migrants who sell their bodies and their souls.

If you are beginning to feel a little hot under the collar at this point it is worth wondering whether we have all been duped by this discussion: is it not a classic case of divide and rule being exercised on the commentariat by the corporate elite? Because the question of immigration is not really a question of immigration at all. The political furore caused by the racist vans is just window[1] thrown by the political establishment. The present media and political bombardment creates a huge noise to attack or defend people from other nation-states who have become our neighbours. Such identity politics sucks you in and is a powerful distraction from the main issue, which is the consequences of the internationalisation of labour and the utter failure of those whose political project should be to protect the conditions of working people to make a political response. 

Globalisation is a reality now, albeit a reality I would rather see reversed, for reasons that stem from my concern for the huge energy demand engendered by the movement of both people and goods. If it is here to stay then the rules governing the global capitalist system need to be negotiated by the people of the world: this should be where our energy is focused. Whether in terms of taxation or workers' rights the framework that governs the global market should be negotiated by democratic means and with social and ecological objectives. The failure of this most basic form of justice is why our lives appear more Dickensian every year. In a horrifying global echo, the national degradation that the first round of capitalism left in its wake, represented by the human flotsam of prostitution, drug abuse, gangsterism and cultural decay found in Victorian Britain, now characterises the cities of the world and is fast returning home. We are the International Workers of the World, and we have never been needed more.

Thanks to Chris Hart for some really insightful comments on an earlier draft of this post

---

[1] Wikipedia: a radar counter-measure in which aircraft or other targets spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of alumninium which either appears as a cluster of secondary targets on radar screens or swamps the screen with multiple returns

.

Tweet

Fair shares?

It has been refreshing to hear the calls for nationalisation coming from union leaders in Manchester this week - quite like old times! Even those with no interest at all in socialism must be beginning to see that crucial public institutions such as banks, transport and utility companies, even telecomms and housing, would be better off outside the risky culture of the marketplace.

But we can't have security for our most basic services because it is too expensive. So the argument runs, but let's look at the numbers. In 2007/8 total government spending was £589 billion (see the government's account here). Last Friday alone the Bank of England 'made available' $40bn, which we can guess is around £20bn and the same day the Guardian reported that the banks controlling the world's reserve currencies had together 'injected' $550bn. into the money markets that week. Given an exchange rate of around 2:1 that is equivalent to half of UK public spending in just one week!

Sums like this are beyond the wildest imaginings of the union members running hospitals and schools. They couldn't be trusted to act responsibly with such vast sums. Much safer in the hand of bankers like Sir John Gieve, deputy governer of the Bank of England, who has particular responsibility for financial stability. Back in May he reassured us that 'London's troubled money markets could soon recover' from the disastrous squeeze on credit. 'The most likely path ahead', he said 'is that confidence and risk appetite will return gradually in the coming months.' I'm so glad my money is in the hands of such a prescient economic actor.

It is capitalism's way to privatise the benefits and publicise the costs of the economy. So in the good times corporation taxes remained low for them who paid them at all, and personal taxation of those on moderate incomes paid for public services. Now the bust has come, companies are rushing into the public-sector fold, demanding our money to keep their bonuses paid.

How many people are going to accept this and just carrying on shelling out for those much wealthier than themselves? How many bags of chips do you have to fill to afford a Maserati? As taxes rise over the coming years will the meek of the earth simply run ever harder on the work treadmill to keep capitalism turning? Tweet

What is a Brumaire anyway?

At the risk of sounding like a Marxist I can't help noticing that the struggle between capital and labour over the value in the economy is becoming more pronounced every day.

While the economy was growing, politicians could conceal the fact that, since the heady days of the 1970s, they have responded more and more to the concerns of 'business' and less and less to those of 'ordinary people'. The pie grew larger, the environment was more stressed, but even those who had the smallest slice tended to get a slightly larger slice each year. Inequality was ruled irrelevant, in spite of evidence showing that it is intrinsically very bad for a nation's health. The fact that the labels 'capital' and 'labour' have been replaced by those of 'business' and 'hard-working families' has not changed the essential power dynamic in the economy.

But with the recession, the fighting over the spoils is beginning to intensify. Unusually, although unsurprisingly, it is the leaders of the trade unions who are speaking up (finally) on behalf of their members and asking very reasonable questions. Such as why should energy companies like British Gas see their profits rise by 500% while bills soar and a significant minority of poorer people will struggle to keep themselves warm.

I'm enjoying what the unions are up to just now. Campaigning for a windfall tax on energy profits to be given out as winter fuel payments is a good start. So is there persistent campaigning to close the scandalous loopholes around the tax treatment of private equity companies. Longer term the attempts to build international unions is the only serious political resonse to the globalisation of production and the way this has reduced the power of organised labour in the West.

Once, while I was giving a talk, a woman got terribly excited and clapped her hands together squeaking 'Oh, this is just like the Sixties!' I'm feeling rather that way about the return to the 1970s. Actually they were a grim decade with Glam rock and playing scrabble by candlelight, but at least there was some honesty about the struggle over economic value. Tweet