Bigotry, Immigration & Unemployment

My Dad was a life-long Trade Union militant, and a left-wing socialist. But, like most people, certainly most working class people, his views were not always clear. On some things he was clearly conflicted. For example, he was an engineer, which was an almost exclusively male job at the time, but he worked in a maintenance shop of a tile factory, which like most of the ceramic industry was a mostly female dominated workforce. I can remember him commenting, on many occasions, that their wages were being held back, because the women workers were prepared to accept lower wages, as their earnings were a secondary, not a primary, household income. I don't remember him using the term, that many many men at the time used, who argued against women working, because they were taking away "Men's" jobs, that of working for "pin" money, but that was essentially the argument he was using. Yet, he most certainly did not oppose women working. On the contrary, he was always a bit disappointed that my Mother was never able to go out to work, because she spent so much time looking after me when I was ill as a youngster.

He was certainly not a racist either, but judged by today's standards some of his views would be at least considered patronising. For example, I recall him countering the argument, that someone raised, about "coloured" people having large families, with the reply that British people used to have large families once, but better education had led them to reduce the size. Once "coloured" people had the same benefit of education they would do the same. I can't remember him expressing an opinion about immigration, even though, during the 1960's, it was beginning to be a topic of conversation. He certainly never expressed any strong argument in favour of Immigration Controls, but then, although he was not a Marxist, in the sense I would understand the term, he did always see things, and discuss things, in terms of class and class struggle. Partly, that was from his own experience, partly, I think, because he had a friend who was a CP'er. In fact, I remember when I was about 13 or 14, one night, whilst we were out walking the dog, we were having a discussion during which he expressed the opinion that the British working class wouldn't move until the Red Army marched in. Even then I had to disagree.

But, again, I can remember, at around the same time, having a discussion at school on the question of immigration, and expressing the view that we could not let lots of foreigners into the country, because they would reduce wages by increasing competition for jobs. Yet, I was not a racist. On the contrary, I was already a fan of black music by this time. I also had a school friend who was Romanian, and the antagonism he faced was not from me or any other kids in the school, but was if anything from teachers. In fact, there were lots of people from Eastern Europe who lived in the area. They had come to work in the local collieries before, during and after the war. Both me and my sister had friends who were Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Serb.

Yet, the argument in favour of Immigration Controls IS racist. Just as it is sexist and bigoted, against women, to blame male unemployment on women workers, on the basis that if they didn't have those jobs, men could, so it is a racist argument that blames unemployment on immigrants. It is not immediately apparent that it is so, it requires some thought and consideration to understand why it is a racist argument. I didn't automatically understand that argument, but once I did, I could have no alternative but to reject the idea that immigration could cause unemployment, and to reject Immigration Controls as being racist.

The argument is not at first apparent, and yet it is not that difficult to understand. The idea that unemployment is caused by some group (women, immigrants, disabled people, old people or whoever) having employment that otherwise would go to someone else relies on a number of fallacies, and of course, on a moral judgement that some people, (white, male, young, able bodied) have a better claim to jobs than others!

The claim relies on the notion that there is some fixed number of jobs that can be shared out. Not only is that not true, but even if it were the conclusion that unemployment results, when there are more workers than enough to fill these limited jobs, is clearly also false. Let's assume that there is only a limited number of jobs, does it mean that more workers means unemployment? The Tories, are always keen to refer to household economics to support their ideas. Let's put it in those terms. If we think of some household job such as washing-up, it only requires a certain amount of work to fulfil. But, does that mean that, in a two person household, one of them is redundant? No, of course, it does not. One person COULD do all the washing up, but, in most households, rather than that, the extra person's efforts are seen as a bonus. It means that the work can be shared out, one person washes, the other dries and puts away. Having more workers to do a given amount of work, therefore, does not result in unemployment, but simply results in the available work being shared out, so that each worker benefits by not having to work so long or so hard. What applies here, in relation to household chores, applies to work in general, or would do in a rational economic system.

Suppose that we assume a fixed number of jobs, by which what we mean is that there is a fixed amount of work to be done - just like so much washing-up - then, if currently, this work is done by 10 million workers, working a 10 hour day, it means 100 million hours of work to be done. But, suppose then that 2 million more workers joined the workforce. It could be that 2 million women started work, or 2 million young people left school, or 2 million disabled people started work, or 2 million people migrated to the country and so on. Does the addition of these 2 million people mean that another 2 million people have to be without work? Of course not, just as having two people to do the washing up does not mean that, because the work COULD be done by one of them, the other is redundant! On the contrary, the addition of this 2 million people means that the work could be done by that 12 million people now benefiting from only needing to work an 8.5 hour day rather than a 10 hour day.

Put another way, instead of the Government telling people that they have to work a year longer, the existence of more people to do the work, means that all the work could be done by providing everyone with a job, and allowing people to retire earlier! It means that work could be shared out so that no one has to work so hard or so long. It means that, in Britain, we could begin to enjoy the benefits that many European workers have, of earlier retirement, and better benefits, and of working a 35 hour week. That would be the rational thing to do, it is the way a rational economy would work, sharing out the work amongst a greater number of people so that each could have the benefit of working less hard, less long. Even within the confines of a Capitalist system, much of Europe does that, to some extent. In much of Europe, workers retire earlier than they do in Britain, and have better pensions when they do. Most of Europe is covered by the Working-Time Directive that limits the amount of work bosses can force workers to do. But, Britain has opted out of that, so that British bosses can squeeze more profits out of British workers, rather than allow the work to be shared out amongst them. And most of Europe has more holidays than Britain too. In most of Europe, which has actually had more immigration than has Britain, additional workers have not posed a problem, but a been a benefit, enabling work to be shared out, and thereby made less onerous. We should not see the existence of additional workers - be they immigrants, new young workers, women workers, disabled workers enabled to work, or older workers wanting to continue working - as a problem, but as a bonus, a means by which work can be shared out so that workers in general can work less, whilst all of the production they need to consume is unaffected, just as two people, doing the washing up, means that the same amount of washing-up gets done, but with each person only needing to do half as much as they did before.

In many ways, the argument is the same as that 200 years ago, when workers argued against the introduction of machines, which they said were taking their jobs. Yet, today few people would argue in favour of banning the introduction of new machines on that basis. Although, a new machine might enable one person to do the work that previously 10 people did, this does not mean that 9 people have to lose their job. It simply means that the ten people only need to work a tenth of the time they did before. A rational economic system would do precisely that. Capitalism does not do that for the simple reason that it is only the Capitalist who gets to decide how long he wants workers to work, not the workers themselves. And, for the Capitalist, there would be no benefit in simply allowing the workers to work less. He introduces the machine so that he can save money himself, by only paying one worker, and sacking the other 9, and, in so doing, massively increases his profit. It is not the existence of more workers, or the introduction of machines that causes unemployment, it is the functioning of an irrational Capitalist system, in which the decisions of a tiny minority of people, the Capitalists, determined by their own self-interest, rather than the interest of society, are all that counts, and the interests of the vast majority are subordinated to those interests.

But, in fact, even when they act in what they see as their own self-interest, the Capitalists as a whole, by their actions, undermine themselves too. One capitalist who introduces a labour saving machine, gets a boost to their profits, because their costs are lowered compared to their competitors. But, when their competitors introduce the machine as well, all of their costs are lowered, and the price of the goods made falls, and along with it the profits. Relatively, less capital is required to produce the same amount of goods as before, as well as less workers. Society, gets to consume the same quantity of that good, but at a much reduced price. The saving can be used to consume some other good, and the Capitalists, in search of profits, switch their, now excess, Capital from this good to some other. That is why, from the time of the Industrial Revolution, the introduction of more and more machines, that have massively increased the productivity of each worker, has not resulted in mass unemployment, even though the number of workers has itself increased. Instead, workers have been able to win some of the benefits of more efficient production for themselves in terms of reduced hours, more holidays etc., whilst the Capitalists have been able to concede these improvements, because their profits have increased by an even larger amount, even after they have conceded the improvements. In fact, it has been in the interests of Capital as a whole to make these concessions, because not only has it helped to create a healthier, to some extent happier, workforce - and therefore more productive, less restless - but, rising real wages are needed if workers are to be able to consume the ever growing range of products that the Capitalists want to sell back to them. As Marx says, although each capitalist wants to keep the wages of his own workers to a minimum, they all want the wages of every other worker to be at a maximum so as to create a bigger demand for their products!

But, this also demonstrates another point. The amount of work is by no means fixed. There is not a fixed amount of things to be produced that limits how many workers can be employed in producing it. If that were the case, then the increase in the workforce, over the last 200 years, let alone the effects of introducing all those labour-saving machines, would most certainly have led to mass unemployemt. At its most basic level, the increase in population over the last 200 years has created its own additional demand for products, and with it, its own additional demand for workers to produce them! Let us suppose that an immigrant comes into the country. They need somewhere to live. That creates a demand for a house that previously did not exist. The demand for that house means that a demand is created for bricklayers, plasterers, joiners, plumbers, electricians, painters and so on that did not exist before. Far from that immigrant taking a job away from someone else, they have created the demand for many, many jobs that previously did not exist. But, more than that all of those brickies, plumbers and so on that now have a job, building a house for this immigrant, which they did not have before the immigrant arrived, now have money to spend that they did not have before. When they go to spend that money whether it be for bricks, paint, timber, cable or piping to build the house, or whether it is on fags and booze, clothes for their kids, or a new car and so on, they create a demand for more goods that previously did not exist, and therefore, a demand for workers to produce those goods too, which did not exist before.

I have not even begun to talk about the demands that this new immigrant has for food, clothes, entertainment and so on, which themselves create even more demand for goods and services, that in turn create a demand for new workers to provide those goods and services, and which therefore, INCREASE the amount of work to be done, increase the amount of jobs available for all. And, of course, all of these people, who have now been provided with work, and with additional income, spend that on buying goods and services. In doing so, they create a demand for more workers to produce those goods and services. They may for example, use some of that additional income to make improvements to their own home, including some plumbing work. If our immigrant is himself a Polish plumber, then he can, in return, meet the new demands of these workers by doing that additional plumbing work for them. In fact, just as many British workers have benefited from being able to buy imported Chinese suits, shoes and other goods at a fraction of the price they were formerly sold at, so they might also benefit from being able to get that plumbing work done more cheaply than they would previously have been able to do.

That is the economic reality of immigration as opposed to all the bigotry that surrounds opposition to it. It is why the economic data shows that the British economy has benefited considerably over the last decade from immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe. Of course, those benefits are not immediately apparent to British workers, and indeed, many British workers have not directly benefited. But, that is not thee fault of immigration, and certainly not of the immigrants themselves. Just as workers do not automatically and immediately benefit from the introduction of a labour-saving machine. But, the reason they do not benefit is due solely to the working of an irrational capitalist economic system, not the machine or the immigration, just as the introduction of large numbers of women workers after the second world war, may well have enabled capitalists to pressurise wages downwards, more than they otherwise would have done, did not mean that this consequence was the fault of women workers, was not a reason to demand an end to women being able to work. And, in fact, the existence of those women workers, meant that, after the war, working-class families were able to buy consumer goods that they would not have been able to buy. It meant that they were able to buy houses, cars and a whole host of goods, which in turn meant that a demand for a whole host of new goods was created along with a demand for additional workers to produce them.

The fault for unemployment does not lie with this or that group of workers occupying jobs that would otherwise be occupied by some other group of workers, whether it is women occupying men's jobs, disabled people occupying able bodied people's jobs, old people, staying on in work, depriving younger people of jobs, or immigrants occupying domestic workers jobs. The fault for unemployment resides with an irrational capitalist system, which instead of rationing out work so that all can work less hard, instead of planning ahead to allocate labour and resources to new types of products, so that a smooth transition can be effected, is based solely on what is in the interest of the individual Capitalist, and their need to maximise profits. It is the same drive, which leads those self-same, BRITISH Capitalists to seek out profits overseas where they can obtain cheaper labour.

We should put that blame where it belongs on an irrational, capitalist economic system, and the drive for profits by the individual Capitalists, not on our fellow workers be they women, disabled, old, young, or foreign. All of these other workers are our allies. It is Capital, and the Capitalists that are our enemy, British or not. That enemy has an interest in diverting our attention from their culpability, and scapegoating someone else for it, be it women, the disabled, the old, the young or the foreign. That is why they, and their mass media spend so much time trying to divert our attention on to blaming other workers. To the extent that we fall for that ploy, we do base our ideas on bigotry, and not on fact. That is not our fault. It is the fault of us not having access to the necessary education, and the necessary facts to be able to see through the lies that the Capitalists tell us. But, those views are bigoted, even if we are not necessarily bigots or racists for holding them. That truth has to be spelled out, and those bigoted views confronted as I have tried to do here. Otherwise, the bosses, and their agents, such as the BNP, will once again get away with diverting responsibility for yet another crisis away from themselves and on to workers.