The primary driver of support for the Right, all throughout the West, seems to be opposition to immigration. Within that, there are basically two groups: white supremacists, and people who have been conned into seeing migration, rather than economics, as the fundamental cause of their declining living standards.
It seems like this is a wedge issue that any successful populist left movement would need to confront. I guess what I’m wondering is whether it’s possible to resolve in a way that doesn’t abandon leftist values entirely.
Whilst we on the left regard multiculturalism as an inherent good, the reality is, in a democratic sense, it was something imposed from above - and largely as a means of growing the bullshit neoliberal service economy whilst simultaneously undermining working class power. That it was utilised in this way is partly why so many working class people have been able to be led by the media into blaming immigration, rather than economic policy, for declining living standards.
I’m not sure about the US, but in most Western countries the vast majority of immigrants are not refugees. For example, in the UK only 10% are refugees. It is actually nearly impossible for the poor of the developing world to immigrate to most Western countries.
Would it be possible for leftist parties to advocate for reductions in immigration, if that came within the context of increasing refugee intake? Of course there is no necessity for such a policy, nor is it desirable, nor ethical - I’m talking purely in terms of strategic necessity. Or is any kind of kowtowing to anti-immigrant sentiment too great and too dangerous a betrayal of our values? Would any retreat here only be aiding the resurgence of fascism?
I guess I’m thinking about this lately because of whats happening in France - I feel like most Western countries either are or soon will be following that direction. It seems we’re already running out of time, and still nowhere near ready. And I feel like all this anti-immigrant sentiment is the backbone of it, and yet it’s something that people who aren’t far-right are loathe to address. And maybe they’re right not too, maybe their is no possible compromise here. I really don’t know, so just wondering what other people think
First and foremost leftists should not abandon their positions on internationalism (or any other matter) to appease reactionaries. “Strategically” adopting reactionary positions alienates the actual progressive forces that support our effort and the reactionaries still aren’t going to vote for you anyway (see Jamal Bowman recent loss).
The solution to immigration is to stop systemically impoverishing the global south through militarist or economic means (which forces people immigrate from their homelands) and to raise the labor standards of domestic industries that immigrants predominantly work in which would make domestic labor more attractive.
the good news is there is no western left
I just don’t see how the United States can survive without the use of migrant labor, it really is just an unsolvable contradiction. Obviously these people should be liberated from their horrific working conditions, but the idea that they could all just be thrown out is stupid. My family came here to pick vegetables and dig holes for white people, and frankly if they want to do it themselves then have at it, but I’ve never seen it, so that really tells you all you need to know.
Well you could get rid of the fear of losing your job to lower wage precarious workers if there was a job guarantee & high minimum wage
Capitalism is what makes immigration a “problem”. Under socialism there cannot possibly be enough hands providing value, everyone is needed in whatever way they can contribute, and in return they will get their work’s worth from social goods that society as a whole produces.
Capitalism on the other hand limits production by producing only whatever is profitable for capitalists with as little workforce they can get away with. The reserve army of unemployed and homeless people are a necessity of the system and a natural result of capitalism.
Sending away people who are willing to provide to society based on their origin country has no place under socialism. Everyone is welcome as long as they provide to their ability, and everyone is given the right to work unlike in capitalism.
Yes I agree with all that, I’m just talking about political strategy within the capitalist system, and in terms of the needs of a populist (rather than revolutionary) left
A populist non revolutionary left only works for the capitalists to capture revolutionary tendencies of the people and direct them in a non dangerous (for them) way.
When it ultimately betrays the people, it will only serve to justify neoliberal policies and fascism.
There’s a reason why socdem is the moderate wing of fascism even if it sounds extreme, there is no room for compromise when it comes to being revolutionary or not.
Ultimately I know and agree with this. But the implication frightens me. When I look at the West it seems like the conditions for revolution, - I suppose for a widespread class consciousness - are very distant. Things would have to get much worse before people understand that capitalism can’t be saved. And people will have to lose a lot more before their ready to fight for something new.
And with climate change and all the other ticking time bombs, it will get worse. But fascism is already here. And this wedge issue of immigration won’t go away. Climate change will cause unprecedented movement of peoples. And the West is already primed to blame their economic hardships on immigrants. So fascism is already stronger and more organised than we are, and the conditions it thrives in are only going to increase.
Maybe once boomers depart the stage then this kind of racism and chauvinism will lose some of its momentum. I hope so.
