Of Sergio Cabras
Source: The neo-peasant alternative
Karl Marx saw the colonization of India by English capitalism as a positive event, as a necessary step for those peoples - like the European ones before them - to free themselves from a medieval social system and an economy centered on the land and find the conditions (albeit in exploitation) which would have triggered the historical mechanisms from which class consciousness and class struggle would arise, then directing them necessarily, as we know, towards communism.
As we know, however, it wasn't like that, and we also know what happened where, Instead, those historical mechanisms reached us up until communism. Nonetheless we still have those, rereading the speech in an updated way, proposes a similar vision of the paths that History would be destined to follow. In my book (“The neo-peasant alternative“) I dedicated part of a chapter to commenting on some passages of Toni Negri's well-known essay (written together with M. Hardt) Empirein which it is hypothesized that the system of advanced capitalism in its current globalized version, now constituted in “Empire”, demolishing in fact - and gradually also in law - every border, state, but also normative and cultural, will end up having as a collateral effect that of uniting the masses of the exploited and excluded, configuring a global "multitude" that will rebel on a planetary scale and re-establish a humanity (new, as always in this type of theory) of equals. This in a really extreme summary (I refer to the work of Negri and Hardt for further information, wanting, also to my book for those interested in my criticism on the matter).
But, in addition to the shareable humanitarian reasons, It may also be from this perspective that the Left is so clearly aligned in favor of an openness to migratory phenomena with such a clear conviction that it often goes beyond human solidarity and seems to border on ideological do-goodism., uncritical, which does not take into account the real causes of the phenomenon? I want to clarify immediately - because in this era of fast and virtual communications it is easy to see labels attached to each other - that I am not a sovereignist and even less so a nationalist: Frankly, I feel more like an inhabitant of the world than an Italian or a European, nor do I care at all whether I have white skin or not; my wife is Nepalese and when I could I helped foreign friends and relatives look for a better future in countries other than theirs of origin. On a human level, towards those we find ourselves in front of, a helping hand must be given to those in difficulty: we live in an unjust world and if we were luckier than others to be born in a rich country it is not thanks to us - on the contrary, if we look at why historically ours is rich and others are poor, rather than non-merit, we should talk about responsibility, if not of guilt, at least as a people.
So it is very clear to me that the attitude of the Right towards migrants shows that, as often happens, this political party expresses the worst aspects, more selfish and sometimes even inhumane than society, in the face of other people's tragedies. But at least he does it clearly, claiming to be what it is, and perhaps for this reason it often convinces more people.
The Left, Indeed, on the topic of migration seems to find, with his (hypocritical) do-good attitude, the final contradiction that calls into question its very reason for being in this historical phase.
Making some considerations on the current migratory phenomena, one cannot help but notice that they are in contradiction - let's not talk about the effects that should have been expected (according to the liberal creed) from decades of international development cooperation, structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and IMF, overall global GDP growth…., but also – with the historical trend that, according to Marx (ed, Alas, a Negri) it should have resulted from the spread of industrialization and development throughout the world: that is, masses of industrial workers, and in any case salaried workers, even in the "Third World" they would gradually become aware and fight for their rights until they obtained living conditions and salaries increasingly equal to those in force in the oldest industrialized countries. Whether through progressive general enrichment or through class struggle, it wasn't this one, of the rest, the promise win-win of Development? And this partly happened, but, things being often more complex than they tell us, where development has taken a democratic-liberal form, economic-commercial opening has allowed foreign multinationals to colonize local markets and governments first, rather than a local economy to structure itself to its own specifications, while where we wanted to prevent this drift it had to be done with centralized political institutions, authoritarian, which – whether it was true or not – were soon vilified, by the so-called "international community", of being contrary to human rights and democracy and therefore overthrown militarily or economically (or both) leaving chaos in their place, civil wars, hunger and rubble; while other states equally disrespectful of human rights and pluralism continue to be protected and supported as long as they have friends and accomplices of the planet's powerful in government.
Al punto in cui siamo oggi la gente dei paesi poveri che spera di cambiare la propria condizione di vita, rather than internal political struggle, he prefers to orient himself abroad: to emigration (you see, as an example only, this article). This is extremely convenient – ​​almost a paradise – for capitalists and especially for multinationals: in many countries still rich in raw materials, what increasingly populates them are a small elite of privileged people conniving with the interests of capital and a mass of desperate people - those who didn't even have the resources to run away - available by necessity to any working condition, with the lowest level of education and ability to organize politically, divided by tribal conflicts and that in any case, under the given conditions, they could not have been transformed into interesting new consumers; and who therefore still essentially serve as producers (when they are needed): People still live there as they did at the time Marx wrote.
On the other hand, with emigration, potential new consumers found in the migrants' countries of origin are not lost, On the contrary, once inserted into the host countries they become even more interesting and the remittances they send home still allow them to increase the level of consumption of their families and therefore of the local populations, without necessarily giving rise and structure to a self-centered economy in "developing" countries: indeed, making many there "pure" consumers whose money comes entirely or almost entirely from emigrant relatives. It goes without saying the degree of economic dependence that results, not just for families, but for the nations.
At the same time, immigration flows into rich countries make their workers increasingly blackmailable and willing to accept lower employment conditions and wages, fewer protections and - thanks also to artfully managed economic-financial crises and "innovative" labor policies - chronic precariousness. The destructuring of the world of work and that of the social class system that defined our societies until thirty years ago, together with the multi-ethnic and multicultural origins of workers and subordinate classes in general, to workplace policies, to regulations that complicate and limit the possibility of small-scale autonomous production activities, to the blackmail of ever new arrivals of people who are worse off (or who was already here but sees his condition worsening) make it extremely unlikely that what characterized some of them in the first post-war decades will be created again in developed countries, that is, strong and aggressive grassroots political and trade union movements (Italy itself is an excellent example) in defense of poor people.
If popular rebellions today we can expect, these could more likely be populist-fascist in nature and completely impromptu, devoid of conscience and political planning, that is, easy prey of dangerous people who can be exploited by those who already exploit the entire process from above and who already today have a good hand in using the threat of these same dangerous tendencies to maintain the status quo. Similarly, in poor countries and especially in those already reduced to chaos by previous military interventions by the great powers (essentially by the USA and its allies, at this point) the only outlet for revenge left for desperate people to cling to is the jihad, the religious war, especially theidentity religious, however revisited, distorted and misrepresented in a decidedly more hyper key-traditionalist How traditional. And this too is useful to global capital to convince everyone that the defense of its interests and its status quo is in any case the best thing to do for everyone and that "there are no alternatives“.
In this lack of alternatives, many of the poor and rich countries are moving towards being ex-poor and ex-rich: they begin to level their differences, both as labor markets and as markets everything short, and so investors increasingly have an entire planet at their disposal for their financial raids, where one can indifferently act or disappear by moving elsewhere according to convenience.
This is globalization and it is within this framework, to which they are perfectly functional, that the current migratory phenomena must be seen: epochal tragedies effect and further cause of exploitation and subjugation both in the countries of origin and in those of arrival; fruit of wars and processes of political colonization, economic and military and disintegration without possibility of return of the multifaceted millenary cultures that have variously populated and colored our human planet with their diversity until a few years ago. All this for the boundless profit and power of a few, increasingly fewer and richer and more powerful. This is in no way a spontaneous push by people to mix in an exciting event melting pot intercultural: this may perhaps apply to a very small minority who could easily realize this aspiration for themselves through methods very different from these phenomena, but it is not at all in the minds of the people in general who suffer them, on both sides of the "barricade": this is demonstrated by the frequent "clash of civilizations" at many levels and forms and by the closing in of ethnic communities by migrants abroad as well as by natives towards them.
If that's the case, what is the role of the Left in this framework?? If the intention of many is sincerely motivated by human solidarity for those who are ill, from the recognition of one's own privileged condition compared to the migrant, which makes us understand that it is up to us to give him a hand, by those who claim a vision in overall terms, that is, politics, one cannot fail to see that it is precisely the so-called "left-wing" forces that are the greatest supporters of openness to immigration. And I'm not referring so much to the management policies of the phenomenon, compared to which one – greater or less, but in any case an – opening is simply in things, being pure propaganda, it is impossible to implement - even if one wanted to - a hypothesis of total blocking of arrivals. But the ambiguity and historical failure of the Left as such lies precisely in the ideal-ideological aspect of the simplistic do-goodism with which the question is addressed: an attitude that would have been understandable and coherent on the Catholic side, but it is not enough for those who ideally connect to Marxism.
Be available to welcome and help those in difficulty (to some extent also because of us or following historical processes and events from which we too have benefited) It's more than right and it's undoubtedly what needs to be done immediately. But as an overall policy, migration in the terms in which it presents itself today is a phenomenon that must be combated at its root, because it is carrying and can only carry, social problems and job insecurity here, while it doesn't really help the economic independence of the immigrants' countries of origin: it makes both more dependent, exposed and without the ability to oppose the interests of global capital.
And how could this be counteracted at its root? The Right says "help them at home" meaning in practice exploit them at home as has been done so far, perhaps letting come as many per year as we need. But the Left cannot oppose anything other than what exists (which is the same, that is, exploit them both here, together increasingly with local workers, than at their home) because he has now completely assimilated the Thatcherian principle according to which "there are no alternatives" (who belongs to the Right by conviction and to the Left initially by resignation, but a resignation of which they gradually became more and more enthusiastically convinced, given that it gave them some advantages compared to when they felt like revolutionaries – although the final outcome is political suicide).
Counteracting these phenomena at their root would in fact imply ceasing to believe that economic growth, which tends to be infinite, truly is (if anything was actually possible on this limited planet, which it isn't) the main road (On the contrary, the only one) for the well-being of all people on Earth who, this way, they will reach it, some before some later. This is clearly NOT the case: Development increasingly centralizes profits, it increasingly exacerbates competition, it requires increasingly larger economies of scale and reduces the autonomy of local communities and individuals to the point of annihilation. All for the benefit of very few and in the long run no one, given that the planet cannot tolerate this mechanism much. At that time, the only way to allow other peoples of the world to have an acceptable life with dignity (as they had it before colonization, according to their standards of the time – and also according to the European ones of the time, for many of these peoples) is to be the first to accept - as we are most in a position to be able to afford it - to adopt an economic model, of technology, of consumption (not for further development!) radically different: implement coherent policies in this sense, focused on authentic sustainability for the planet, that is, limiting our levels of consumption and development, thus leaving space and a way for others to develop their economies a little too. Even on a cultural level, rich countries could thus contribute to spreading a culture of sustainability at a global level (as they have already been able to do well for that of consumerism) and on that of cooperation they could support projects aimed at promoting the autonomy and resilience of local communities rather than their inexhaustible involvement in the "value chain"/globalized economy. We would all gain and the planet and future generations would gain.
Hiding behind superficial do-goodisms, without bringing criticism to the root of the issues (as Karl Marx had been able to do in his time and in his own way for what he could see at the time), the Left betrays its historical raison d'être: it has made itself the main force for implementing global liberal policies. But above all, with progressivism, its cultural version, it is today the major agent of propaganda and consensus on the vision of the world, equally superficial, which justifies the idea that "there are no alternatives" and therefore radically fails in the historical mission it had or that many believed it had.
It is time to understand that the alternative today only lies in a Degrowth perspective, authentic, far-sighted.
And what, but, Degrowth means definitively exiting the Right-Left dichotomy that has characterized all of Modernity. Get out of this dichotomy - and overcome Modernity (which is by its nature Western-centric) – it would take, among other things, on a level of more equal communication with non-Western peoples among them, mostly, the categories of Right and Left have never had much meaning, while they have much more - in addition to those of different interest groups variously defined, which also applies to us – those of tradition e change, that though, freed from the Hegelian mythology of Progress, they could become facts again, equal possibilities to choose from each time or find mediations based on what brings benefit in the broadest sense; not flags to stand behind a priori. Here, however, tradition has simply been swept away and change is so continuous (on the surface) which completely loses its meaning: it ends up not even being change anymore or distracting from the fact that the truly necessary changes aren't even being addressed, although they are increasingly urgent.
This equal communication plan would probably be more appropriate for a global world where we all have to coexist and make room for each other. And more concrete, more useful for addressing real problems and understanding different points of view.