In an unprecedented move within the conservatively bourgeois-liberal Biden campaign, Kamala Harris has managed to upset both claßical-liberal capitalists on the right, and neo-liberal capitalists on the 'left'. What did Harris do to unite the various factions and cliques of the bourgeoisie into condemnation of her?
There are a few precious things which one must not threaten the capitalists with taking away. Private production property is one of these. But without cheap labour to work the above fields and factories, workshops, mines, and mills, how are capitalists to generate capital for competition with each other, and to outpace the ever-falling rate of profit? Where does cheap labour derive from? Harris hit immigration on the head with a border fence, immigration: the fountain of all cheap labour. Opposing immigration at all is the second greatest folly a bourgeois politician like Harris, or Trump, could make.
By announcing this stringent distaste for illegal immigration (by far the cheapest, not only for the emigre, but for their capitalist lords) in an age of liberal pathos, she has joined not only the ranks of Donald Trump and his brave defenders of the fatherland, but as well more interestingly, unexpected ideological company. Fox, CNN, MSNBC may be utterly convinced that it is the 'left' that is outraged, but all three of them are in a liberal cavern, and the bourgeois flame shews them only that which it wants them to see. It is the shadow of the centre which they presume is 'left'. No, Harris is now in the company, or should I say community, of the true left. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin: none of them supported anything akin to open immigration. They forstood that immigration is merely a ploy for the capitalists to increase competition in the labour market, to drive down the cost of domestic wages with reactionary emigres from other lands. This in turn (when all is going to the bourgeoisie's plan) makes the domestic workers more reactionary, focusing their energies on combatting the next batch of imported emigres, rather than the capitalists who masterminded their arrival.
To be anti-immigration, then, when adopted from an economic perspective of supporting domestic labour, is the real critique of a leftist. It is coherent, and rational. However, Harris and Trump did not approach the subject from such a course, their criticisms constructed from neo and claßical liberal pathos. They are only in the company of leftist critique of immigration, they remain far isolated from the circle of leftists themselves. An anti-immigration position whose sole composition is pathos cannot act upon its propositions, and will enventually crumble.
To conclude, some predictions. Why has Vice President Harris, a succeßful bourgeois politician, ruffled the wallets of her capitalist backers? It could, of course, and most stupidly from a political career stance, be her own view. But to say it in such an open, blunt fashion when she has just signed onto the team of as-marketed Status-Quo Joe, is reckleß to say the least. It may be, instead, that the caibnet has compiled economic data which points to an exceß amount of cheap labour, and insofar as it spells trouble for capitalist profit or the capitalist system itself, and she has been selected or has determined herself to be the fall-person to prevent an economic scenario where the bourgeoisie could be in danger of losing its claß rule (a bad outcome for her too). It might also be that a certain faction of the bourgeoisie, not as fond of immigration as the rest, has enlisted her services whether by wealth, future favours, or ideological conviction. What ought not to be forgotten is that this just as well may be a propagandical ploy to appease those former Trump supporters who no longer feel like are represented in the coalition of the labour aristocracy. It shall be interesting to see where exactly this minor controversy goes, and how Biden reacts to it.
Post Scriptum
I feel it would benefit this little work with a brief alternative view of immigration, namely what a socialist United States might do in regards to it. Socialism enables the poßibility of full employment for the entirety of society, but it does not do this by infinitely increasing the number of occupations. Whilst it can duly increase them to a much higher limit than capitalism to be sure, if immigration were to continue on the scale in which it happens under capitalism, then even a planned economy would run out of jobs. Since planned economies do not plan for unemployment as capitalist ones do, this new case of unemployment would cause them not only to foment counter-revolution against the socialist state, but also against the domestic proletariat, who has gained immense economic prosperity from socialism. Another crisis which would eventually stem from constant immigration is poßible under both socialism and capitalism: the crisis of uneven population. A society in harsher conditions requires more labour than in Europe or North America to make it habitable, in a sustained manner. If the members of said society are given relatively easy means of emigrating, and even incentives, then not only will the folc who stay die for want of manpower to exploit resources and institute maß agriculture and industry, but the societies in Europe and North America would implode from too many folc for its leß-so, yet still finite, resources.
Immigration in socialism will be much more controlled than it is now. Domestic arfothers and peasants shall be preferred by default for a job, and with absolutely free education, domestic arfothers will have every opportunity to be able to ready themselves for the job. Immigrants will only be pooled as a last resort, and unleß they do some astounding, additional tasks for socialist society, shall be made to go back once their labour contract is complete, expires, or is violated. Immigration from familiar lands will be more welcomed than from more tense ones. Marxism is a science, not an appealing belief of emotion. Politic will be made subservient to the economic and cultural good of the domestic proletariat, until communism of the advanced stage is reached, at which point the immigration ißue may be revisited in a new light.
Comments