The Mass Immigration Debate within the Socialist Party of America from 1910–1912, Part 1

The Socialist Party of America existed between the 29th July 1901 and the 31st December 1972.

Before the party was repressed for its opposition to World War I and suffered splits over the question of Communist Russia, it was probably the most successful and largest radical party of the socialist Left in America, at least down to the 1920s.

The Socialist Party of America was made up of Marxists, anarchists, some members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union, democratic socialists and Social Democrats of that day. Eugene V. Debs was on two occasions its candidate for US president in the elections of 1912 and 1920, and even won about 6% of the votes in 1912.

From 15–21 May, 1910, the Socialist Party of America held a national convention in Chicago (Ross 2015: 119). During that convention the party discussed the controversial issue of immigration restriction and the question whether mass immigration was good for American workers, as analysed by a committee established in 1908 consisting of Victor L. Berger, Guy E. Miller, John Spargo, Joshua Wanhope and Ernest Untermann (Untermann had been the first American translator of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital).

By modern standards, the socialists of that day had a frank, detailed and spirited debate for and against mass immigration, and decided by a not insignificant majority to oppose certain kinds of mass immigration.

The proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party are available online here for anybody to read, so that we can easily delve into their own records.

So what did these radical socialist – and some of them Marxist – comrades from 1910 actually think? I am willing to bet that most modern leftists or Marxists have no clue about this forgotten aspect of their history.

Here is the text of the majority report, accepted by most of the committee established in 1908 to investigate the issue of immigration:

“REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION.
The Socialist party aims to realize a system of society in which economic class distinctions, the foundation of all other class distinctions shall no longer exist, and in which all human beings without regard to nationality or race shall have equal opportunities as members of the industrial army of the world.

In the struggle for the realization of our social ideals it is the duty of the Socialist party to combat vigorously all those tendencies of the capitalist system which weaken the working classes of the different countries in their struggle for emancipation, and to promote and accelerate all those tendencies which increase their power of resistance, raise their standard of living and facilitate the organization and propaganda of the most militant and intelligent portions of the working class.

We recognize, however, that our present decaying capitalistic system generates many contradictory phases and antagonisms which at times compel the Socialist movement in its efforts to conform its acts to the present and immediate interests of the working class, to come into apparent conflict with its ultimate ideals. This, however, is an unavoidable condition of the general law of social progress. We work toward our ultimate ideals through and despite these apparent contradictions. We recognize with Marx that the progress of working class emancipation does not proceed uniformly and by identical methods in all countries, but that the working class of each nation will have first to settle matters with its own ruling class before absolute international working class solidarity can be realized.

The general question of Immigration and Emigration with its multitude of conflicting elements falls clearly into the category of contradictions referred to above. In a conflict between ultimate ideals and immediate class interests, the law of self-government asserts itself above all ultimate ideals. The Socialist Party in its present activities cannot outrun the general development of the working class, but must keep step with it. We agree with the statement of the Communist Manifesto that the Socialists ‘fight for the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the immediate interests of the working class,’ and that precisely ‘in the movement of the present we also represent and take care of the future’ of our movement.

In advocating the policy of restricted immigration, or even the exclusion of specific races, we are not necessarily in contradiction with the essential principles of solidarity of the working class. On the contrary, we are convinced that this policy may, under some conditions, and especially under present conditions in the United States, be the most effective means of promoting the ultimate realization of international and inter-racial solidarity.

We agree with the conclusions of the International Congress at Stuttgart to the effect that ‘Immigration and Emigration of working-men are phenomena as inseparable from the substance of capitalism as unemployment, over-production and under-consumption of the working man, and that they are frequently one of the means to reduce the share of the working men in the product of labor, and that they at times assume abnormal dimensions through political, religious and national persecution.’

Also we thoroughly endorse the statement of the same body that ‘it is the duty of organized working men to protect themselves against the lowering of the standard of life which frequently results from the mass import of unorganized working.’

We believe that this statement applies with peculiar force to conditions in the United States. If it be admitted that the working class of each nation has first to settle matters with its own ruling class; if it be furthermore admitted that by defending the immediate interests of the working class we are taking care of the ultimate ideals of the future; and if it be finally admitted that the principle of national autonomy prevents the International Congresses of the Socialist Party from laying down specific rules for the carrying out of the general principles recognized as valid by all Socialists: then we may well cede the right of the International Congress to declare that it ‘sees no proper solution of these difficulties in the exclusion of definite races and nations from immigration,’ and nevertheless deny that an opposite policy is necessarily ‘in conflict with the principle of proletarian solidarity.’

For this reason we are convinced that we are fully justified in endorsing every demand and position taken by the International Congress in its resolution on Immigration, with the exception of those passages which refer to specific restriction or to the exclusion of definite races or nations.

We do not believe that such measures are necessarily ‘fruitless and reactionary’ as stated by the International Congress, but on the contrary are convinced that any measures which do not conform to the immediate interests of the working class in the United States are fruitless and reactionary.

Such a measure or measures would place the Socialist Party in opposition to the most militant and intelligent portion of the organized workers of the United States, those whose assistance is indispensable to the purpose of elevating the Socialist Party to political power.

We have no special recommendations to make that would enlarge upon the general position on Immigration and Emigration taken by the International Congress in its Stuttgart resolutions. But the present conditions compel us to make an important exception in the matter of exclusion of immigrants from specific and definite nations. This exception refers altogether to the mass immigration of Chinese, Japanese, Coreans [= Koreans] and Hindus to the United States. We advocate the unconditional exclusion of these races, not as races per se—not as peoples with definite physiological characteristics—but for the evident reason that these peoples occupy definite portions of the earth in which they are so far behind the general modern development of industry, psychologically as well as economically, that they constitute a drawback, an obstacle and menace to the progress of the most aggressive, militant and intelligent elements of our working class population.

The larger and more powerful elements of our ruling classes, the great capitalists, the real and effective opponents of the militant working class, are the real beneficiaries of immigration from those countries, and being well aware that these immigrants are accustomed to a much lower standard of living and do not easily assimilate with the other elements of our population, use every means, legal and illegal, to encourage the immigration of these peoples to a point where it becomes an effective competitor against the progressive elements of the working class, serves to lower their standard of living, and constitutes a formidable factor in perpetuating division among the workers by subordinating class issues to racial antagonisms and thus tends to prolong the system of capitalistic exploitation. For this reason the exclusion laws already on the statute books are not only not enforced, but are made largely inoperative by the influence of the powerful interests which desire that this immigration shall continue.

It is true that this legislation was passed mainly by the influence of the middle class in its vain struggle to avoid political and economic extinction, but it has so happened that this legislation promotes the interests of the working class rather than those of its originators.

The exclusion of the above-mentioned peoples does not prevent the disintegration of the middle classes, but it does, on the other hand, assist the workers by lessening the unemployment, maintaining the standard of living, minimizing the number of possible strike-breakers and lessening the various race problems which tend to confuse and divert the working class in its struggle for final emancipation.

In view of the already existing race problem bequeathed to this country by former chattel slavery, every mass immigration of the peoples referred to tends to add to and intensify race issues and relegate the class war to the rear by weakening the political and economic labor organizations and substituting an Asiatic middle class with a lower standard of living than the American. The continuity of such mass immigration would undoubtedly prolong the life of capitalism in this country and constitute a most formidable factor in retarding and relegating to the far distant future the realization of our social ideals.

Just as emphatically as we insist on the exclusion of the races named above, so we on the other hand insist that our position shall not be construed as applicable to those immigrants of other races and nations who have behind them a long history of faithful service in the struggle of the working class and which contain most valuable revolutionary elements much needed here in our common conflict with the exploiting classes.

Especially does this exception refer to immigrant laws from all countries, who, through long centuries of association, not only in struggles against race oppression, but in the general labor struggle, have become an integral and essential part in the world’s revolutionary forces.

Also, it is to be distinctly understood that we are in full agreement with the position taken by the International Congresses which demand freedom of immigration and emigration for political refugees, regardless of their race or nationality.

The Committee has arrived at this conclusion after several years of careful study of all available data. So far as the time limits of this convention permit, individual members of this Committee are prepared to state the general and specific reasons that have led them to the position taken in this report.

We would, however, call attention to the fact that an enormous amount of data has been accumulated on this question, an amount which precludes the presentation of anything more than a general conclusion. We would recommend, in addition, that this mass of data be arranged systematically, with a view to publication in book form for the education of the party membership on this complicated and important question.

Finally, we recommend the continuation of this committee with the same members, or others, as the Convention may decide, for the general opinion of this Committee is that this question is in no sense exhausted, and that new and peculiar phases of it appear from year to year which imperatively demand attention.” (McDermut 1910: 75–77).

So, while the majority resolution made an exception for political refugees and immigrants with “a long history of faithful service in the struggle of the working class” (essentially, European immigrants), it advocated significant immigration restriction:

“… the present conditions compel us to make an important exception in the matter of exclusion of immigrants from specific and definite nations. This exception refers altogether to the mass immigration of Chinese, Japanese, Coreans [= Koreans] and Hindus to the United States. We advocate the unconditional exclusion of these races, not as races per se—not as peoples with definite physiological, characteristics—but for the evident reason that these peoples occupy definite portions of the earth in which they are so far behind the general modern development of industry, psychologically as well as economically, that they constitute a drawback, an obstacle and menace to the progress of the most aggressive, militant and intelligent elements of our working class population.

The larger and more powerful elements of our ruling classes, the great capitalists, the real and effective opponents of the militant working class, are the real beneficiaries of immigration from those countries, and being well aware that these immigrants are accustomed to a much lower standard of living and do not easily assimilate with the other elements of our population, use every means, legal and illegal, to encourage the immigration of these peoples to a point where it becomes an effective competitor against the progressive elements of the working class, serves to lower their standard of living, and constitutes a formidable factor in perpetuating division among the workers by subordinating class issues to racial antagonisms and thus tends to prolong the system of capitalistic exploitation. For this reason the exclusion laws already on the statute books are not only not enforced, but are made largely inoperative by the influence of the powerful interests which desire that this immigration shall continue.” (McDermut 1910: 76).

And the majority report did not seek to exclude them simply because they were racially different, but for pragmatic economic, social and political reasons.

There was also a minority report which was less opposed to mass immigration in the immediate circumstances of 1910, but which made it very clear that it also advocated immigration restriction should large-scale harmful immigration into the US occur:

“MINORITY REPORT ON IMMIGRATION
At the International Socialist Congress held at Stuttgart in 1908 the following resolution upon the subject of immigration was adopted:

‘Immigration and emigration of workingmen are phenomena as inseparable from the substance of capitalism as unemployment, overproduction and underconsumption of the workingmen; they are frequently one of the means to reduce the share of the workingmen in the product of labor, and at times they assume abnormal dimensions through political, religious and national persecutions.
The congress does not consider exception measures of any kind, economic or political, the means for removing any danger which may arise to the working class from immigration and emigration, since such measures are fruitless and reactionary, especially not the restriction of the freedom of emigration and the exclusion of foreign nations and races.

At the same time the congress declares it to be the duty of organized workingmen to protect themselves against the lowering of their standard of life, which frequently results from the mass import of unorganized workingmen. The congress declares it to be their duty to prevent the import and export of strike breakers.

The congress recognizes the difficulties which in many cases confront the workingmen of the countries of a more advanced stage of capitalist development through the mass immigration of unorganized workingmen accustomed to a lower standard of life and coming from countries of prevalently agricultural and domestic civilization, and also the dangers which confront them in certain forms of immigration.

But the congress sees no proper solution of these difficulties in the exclusion of definite nations or races from immigration, a policy which is besides in conflict with the principles of proletarian solidarity.

The congress, therefore, recommends the following measures:

I.—For the Countries of Immigration—

1. Prohibition of the export and import of such workingmen who have entered into a contract which deprives them of the liberty to dispose of their labor power and wages.
2. Legislation shortening the work-day, fixing a minimum wage, regulating the sweating system and house industry and providing for strict supervision of sanitary and dwelling conditions.
3. Abolition of all restrictions which exclude definite nationalities or races from the right to sojourn in the country and from the political and economic rights of the natives or make the acquisition of these rights more difficult for them. It also demands the greatest latitude in the laws of naturalization.
4. For the trade unions of all countries the following principles shall have universal application in connection with it:

(a) Unrestricted admission of immigrated workingmen to the trade unions of all countries.
(b) Facilitating the admission of members by means of fixing reasonable, admission fees.
(c) Free transfer from organizations of one country to those of the other upon the discharge of the membership obligations towards the former organization.
(d) The making of international trade union agreements for the purpose of regulating these questions in a definite, and proper manner and enabling the realization of these principles on an international scope.

5. Support of trade unions of those countries from which the immigration is chiefly recruited.

II.—For the Countries of Emigration—

1. Active propaganda for trade unionism.
2. Enlightenment of the working-man and the public at large on the true condition of labor in the countries of immigration.
3. Concerted action on the part of the trade unions of all countries in all matters of labor immigration and emigration.
In view of the fact that emigration of workingmen is often artificially stimulated by railway and steamship companies, land speculators and other swindling concerns, through false and lying promises to workingmen, the congress demands:

Control of the steamship agencies and emigration bureaus and legal and administrative measures against them in order to prevent that emigration be abused in the interests of such capitalist concerns.

III. Regulation of the system of transportation, especially on ships. Employment of inspectors with discretionary powers, who should be selected by the organized workingmen of the countries of emigration and immigration. Protection for the newly arrived immigrants, in order that they may not become the victims of capitalist exploiters.

In view of the fact that the transport of emigrants can only be regulated on international basis, the congress directs the International Socialist bureau to prepare suggestions for the regulation of this question, which shall deal with the conditions, arrangements and supplies of the ships, the air space to be allowed for each passenger as a minimum, and shall lay special stress that the individual emigrants contract for their passage directly with the transportation companies and without intervention of middlemen. These suggestions shall be communicated to the Socialist parties for the purpose of legislative application and adaptation, as well as for the purpose of propaganda.’

While this is the expression of the International Congress, it is important to bear in mind that, as declared by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of America, the International national congress has no power to determine tactics for national parties.

It is an advisory body only; its decisions are recommendations, not laws. Therefore, we in America, while paying due and just attention to the suggestions of the International congress, must determine our own position in light of our experience.

Of all the nations of the world no other has an immigration problem of such vast magnitude as that with which the United States has to contend. For reasons inhering in its economic development, this nation has become the ‘melting pot’ of the world.

Men and women of every race and tongue come to this country to the number of more than a million a year, inevitably creating conditions which greatly add to the complexity and difficulty of the struggle of the proletariat of the nation to emancipate itself from the oppression and thrall of capitalism. Diversities of race, creed, language and custom militate against the solidarity of the workers by obscuring in some degree the fundamental class struggle.

Of the workers who are drawn to the United States a large proportion come from countries where the standards of living are inferior to those which the workers of this country have, by long and arduous struggle, established. Such immigrants, whenever they come in large numbers, for a time at least, until they are reached by the economic organizations of this country, commonly become, more or less unconsciously and unwillingly, tools of the capitalist class in their warfare upon the organizations of the working class.

They accept conditions of labor, wages and standards of living lower than those generally prevailing. That this is a temporary phase of the immigration from practically every country is made clear by all the available statistics on the subject.

We must face the fact that the proletariat of the United States differs from the proletariat of every other country in that it is largely constituted of aliens of many races and nationalities, differing in race, language, creed and customs, who find it difficult to understand each other.

We have to-day great industrial centers, of which Gary may be cited as an example, almost wholly made up of foreign speaking workers, of many races, who have not been reached by the economic or political organizations, of the working class of this country.

In ‘Free America’ they are serfs, living and working under an industrial feudalism, little likely, unless special efforts are made to educate and organize them, to become American citizens, able to share effectively in the proletarian struggle as a whole or even to protect their own interests.

Enormous and varied are the difficulties attendant upon the political and economic organization of the working class under these conditions. But they are not insurmountable. They can and must be overcome.

The organized proletariat of this country must, through its political organization, the Socialist Party, and through the labor unions, make a supreme effort to break down the barriers which keep the immigrant workers outside of the organized working class movement.

This nation differs from every other in that a majority of its citizens are either naturalized immigrants from other countries or the children of such immigrants. It is the nation’s task to break down the dividing lines of race, language, and custom and make intelligent citizens of all the varied elements drawn to its shores.

Even more is it the task and opportunity of the workers of the nation to overcome all those barriers which divide our class and so hinder its conquest of the economic resources of the nation.

Upon all essential principles we stand by and affirm the Stuttgart resolution. But, while we agree with its declaration in so far that we see no proper solution of the difficulties arising from mass immigration ‘in the exclusion of definite nations or races from immigration,’ we cannot agree that such exclusion would, if determined upon, be ‘in conflict with the principle of proletarian solidarity.’

We affirm, in opposition to this declaration, that the central, fundamental principle of Socialism is the class struggle; that it is the duty of the Socialist movement to fight the battle of the working class for a higher standard of living; and to protect, at all costs, the measure of civilization we have attained against any and all forces which menace it.

If ever the time comes when the protection of these requires the total exclusion of a race which menaces our standard of living, or our democratic institutions, then, in conformity with the central principle and mission of the Socialist movement, the Socialist Party would be compelled, however regretfully, to stand for that measure.

In view of the present existence of a grave and perplexing race problem in our southern states, the tragic result of the importation of slave labor by the capitalist class, it would be a betrayal of every principle and ideal of the Socialist movement should the Socialist Party, in such an emergency, act otherwise.

But that question is not immediately before us, nor do any available statistics warrant the belief that it is likely to be in the near future. The movement in favor of the exclusion of Asiatic immigration which has so long agitated many of the workers of our western states, is, we believe, due to a misunderstanding of the facts.

The volume of such immigration, including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Hindoos and Malays, is at present too small to constitute a serious menace; nor are there any signs of a considerable immediate increase. It would, therefore, be unwise for the Socialist Party to advocate Asiatic exclusion at this time.

We call the attention of the workers to the fact that it is perfectly well understood that most of the Asiatic immigration of the present time represents, not the free migration of workers, but practically contract labor.

It is artificially stimulated, subsidized immigration against which the party, in conformity with the Stuttgart resolution, stands with all labor organizations.

We direct the attention of our comrades and all members of our class to this condition, and to the fact that they can only secure protection from the menace of the mass immigration contract laborers by controlling the political powers.” (McDermut 1910: 77–80).

However, the minority report was rejected, and a compromise version of the majority report was adopted as the official policy of the Socialist Party of America.

In defending the majority report, the German Marxist Ernest Untermann – who had chaired the Committee on Immigration – also pointed out that there were cultural and social reasons for exclusion:

“Neither Japan nor China has developed a capitalism anything like the United States or Germany. It is in a state of development which at most resembles that of England 100 or 150 years ago, and even most of the peasants still live under the feudal system, and the old communes are just being disintegrated, so that an industrial proletariat is just in the process of formation.

That being the case, economic conditions in China and Japan and among the Hindus make these men not only economically backward but psychologically backward. These men still stand under the influence of Buddhism and Shintoism. They still believe in the ancient code of ethics and do not know anything about modern problems. They are just as lost when they come over to this country as you people would be lost if you were thrown en masse across to China or Japan. You would be in a new world. You would be among people that you would not understand, and you would be among people that would not understand you. That being the case, the tendency would be for you to live an isolated life, to stay away from the actual industrial problems, to work them out for yourselves. And if that is the case, they may as well work them out for themselves in their own country instead of making it more difficult for us by coming over here. ….

This is not a question of superiority of races. I am perfectly willing to grant that the Chinese and Japanese in their physiological qualities as a race are just as good and perhaps superior in some respects to us. That is not the question with us at all. The question with us is whether they as a nation, and occupying a certain geographical territory in a certain development and environment, are in a psychological stage which makes them accessible and assimilable to our ideas and civilization. I deny that emphatically on the strength of the experience of the comrades in the Pacific states.” (McDermut 1910: 87–88).

Untermann was also well aware that large-scale mass immigration from East Asia would effectively dispossess the European workers of America and make them a minority:

“It has been argued by some comrades that in this problem race does not go as deep as class. I do not know what they mean by such a phrase. But certainly this is not a question of a struggle between different classes, but of a struggle between the same class of different races. And when it comes to the question of whether we shall be permitted to live in our own house or whether we shall voluntarily abdicate and let somebody ese come into our own house, I should think every sensible man would stand for his own house and for the right to live in it, rather than voluntarily emasculate himself and let somebody else in.” (McDermut 1910: 90).

After some days of debate over the issue of immigration restriction between the supporters of the majority and minority reports, a compromise resolution was finally passed 55 to 50 as devised by Morris Hillquit (McDermut 1910: 168):

“The Socialist Party of the United States favors all legislative measures tending to prevent the importation of strike-breakers and contract laborers, and the mass importation of workers from foreign countries, brought about by the employing classes for the purpose of weakening the organization of American labor, and of lowering the standard of life of American workers.

The party is opposed to the exclusion of any immigrants on account of their race or nationality, and demands that the United States be at all times maintained as a free asylum for all men and women persecuted by the governments of their countries on account of their politics, religion or race.” (McDermut 1910: 157).

This compromise was intended to support mass immigration restriction in practice on pragmatic economic grounds, but allowed immigration of people suffering persecution, and did not call for exclusion on the basis simply of their race.

As we shall see in a future post, at the May 1912 national convention of the Socialist Party, the majority report on immigration took an even stronger line against mass immigration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
McDermut, Wilson E. 1910. Proceedings. National Congress of the Socialist Party held in Masonic Temple, Chicago, Ill., May 15 to 21, 1910. The Socialist Party, Chicago, Il.
https://archive.org/details/NationalCongressOfTheSocialistPartyHeldInMasonicTempleChicagoIll.

Ross, Jack. 2015. The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History. Potomac Books, Lincoln.

What is the Case against Marxism in a Nutshell?

That is, what is the case against the actual theory presented by Karl Marx in volume 1 of Capital? This was the only volume of Capital that Marx published in his lifetime, and volume 3 contradicts volume 1 in important respects.

First, we need to know what Marx actually argued in volume 1 of Capital.

The essence of Marx’s theory and his conception of the historical tendency of capitalism is as follows:

(1) Marx had an elaborate labour theory of value on which he founded volume 1 of Capital (see here). Marx understood “value” in the following terms:

(1) the substance of value is abstract socially necessary labour time, which must be defined as a homogeneous unit capable of aggregating and measuring all heterogeneous types of human labour-power (Marx 1906: 45–46);

(2) so therefore value is abstract, socially necessary labour time embodied, crystallised, or materialised in commodities, and

(3) the magnitude of value or quantitative measure of value is the amount of abstract socially necessary labour time, counted in homogeneous units (Marx 1906: 45–46).

Marx also thought that market prices move around and are determined by labour values, since the latter are the equilibrium price anchors for a capitalist system.

(2) capitalism tends to increase the (1) accumulation, (2) concentration (accumulation over time) and (3) centralisation of capital. Capitalism will therefore have a tremendous tendency towards monopoly.

(3) capitalism will tend to destroy more and more capitalists and result in huge centralisation of capital (or monopoly) and reduce even capitalists to the proletarian class;

(4) capitalism will tend to use more and more machines and automation in production resulting in a huge body of unemployed people.

(5) the industrial reserve army of labour (the unemployed) grows and grows, and helps to hold real wages in check (see Chapter 25 of Capital). Even more, Marx thought that a large and growing industrial reserve army is a necessary condition of capitalism: it was a “condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production” (Marx 1906: 646).

(6) the tendency of capitalism is to keep the real wage at a subsistence level, which is the value of the maintenance and reproduction of labour-power (on this, see Chapter 25 of Capital and here). Wages rise and fall around this subsistence level as an equilibrium process;

(7) machines will only increase the intensity, speed and arduousness of work for the proletarians and their misery (see Chapter 15 of volume 1), and also increase the employment of women and children who are paid a lower wage than adult men (although government laws might counter this latter trend to some extent). The adult men are then increasing thrown out of work by machines and women and children replace them with lower wages;

(8) volume 3 of Capital adds to this the tendency of the profit rate to fall, but this mechanism is not invoked in volume 1 as one of the causes of the collapse, and some modern Marxists now dispute just how important the tendency of the falling rate of profit was for the final collapse of capitalism in Marx’s theory, as the emphasis given to this may be more the result of Engels’ tendentious editing of volume 3 of Capital.

(9) eventually almost the whole of society is reduced to the proletarian class with only a tiny handful of monopoly capitalists, who according to Marx “usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation” (Marx 1906: 836).

(10) the huge and constantly growing class of proletarians, who are kept in poverty with a subsistence wage, are subject to an increasing “mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, [and] exploitation” (Marx 1906: 836). As in the passage of Engels quoted by Marx, the “other classes perish and disappear in the face of Modern Industry” (Marx 1906: 837, n. 1).

(11) finally, the proletarians eventually organise and rebel against capitalism, overthrowing the system.

Now these theories and predictions judged in their totality were not the long-run tendency of capitalism.

Even if a few elements are true (e.g., the increasing use of machines), nevertheless Marx’s vision is a Marxist caricature of capitalism which has been falsified by history.

We can run through the problems and failed predictions of Marxism as follows:

(1) Marx’s labour theory of value is false. The a priori argument for the labour theory of value in volume 1 of Marx’s Capital is a non sequitur and later contradicts itself, as detailed here and here. There are devastating problems with the very concept of a homogeneous unit of abstract, socially necessary labour time and serious empirical problems with the theory, as I show here. The very concept, as Marx defines it, cannot be accepted or defended as coherent or meaningful, and is contrary to the empirical evidence. The labour theory does not explain price determination (for how most prices are actually determined, see here), and the theory of price determination in volume 3 of Capital is inconsistent with that in volume 1. See here.

(2) the tendency to monopoly has its limits even in capitalism, and the extreme and increasing degree of monopoly as predicted by Marx goes well beyond anything observed in real world capitalism;

(3) the size of the working class eventually stabilised and society was swelled by a growing and prosperous middle class and social mobility. Unemployment rates in capitalism are simply a cyclical result of the business cycle: even in the 19th century, unemployment rates did not grow and grow in the long run, as Marx’s theory predicts, but normally simply moved around a point somewhat above full employment, as John Maynard Keynes pointed out:

“our actual experience … [sc. is] that we oscillate, avoiding the gravest extremes of fluctuation in employment and in prices in both directions, round an intermediate position appreciably below full employment and appreciably above the minimum employment a decline below which would endanger life.”
Keynes, J. M. 1936. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money , Chapter 18.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch18.htm

(4) Marx thought that the large industrial reserve army is a necessary consequence and necessary condition of capitalism, but this is incorrect. In the Keynesian era of full employment, there was very low unemployment and indeed labour scarcity in the advanced capitalist world, but capitalism continued and thrived – indeed we now call it the “Golden Age” of capitalism.

(5) the long-run tendency of capitalism, even in the 19th century, was to massively increase the real wage, which has soared above subsistence level, even for workers (see here and here).

(6) the growing real wage and rising disposable income even of workers in capitalism also allowed a massive capacity for production of new commodities and new opportunities for employment (e.g., especially in services and middle class employment), which in turn has helped to overcome technological unemployment.

(7) Marx’s claim that machines, generally speaking, are an unmitigated evil in capitalism whose primary effect is to increase the intensity and speed of work by labourers is an outrageous falsehood – a perversion of history and reality. In reality, machines have, generally speaking, tended to decrease the intensity, difficulty and monotony of human labour and often reduced to human labour to lighter work of visual inspection and overseeing of machine work, not physical labour. On this, see here and here. Advanced capitalist nations have also virtually eliminated child labour as well, and in our time have tended to pay women the same hourly wage for the same type of work as men.

(8) highly developed and advanced Western capitalist states like Britain and the US proved the most resistant to communism and Marxism (contrary to Marx’s theory), and when communist revolutions broke out it was in backward Russia and China. Even the communist outbreaks in Germany and Italy at the end of the First World War were more the result of the collapse of those nations under the strain of war, and not in line with the vision Marx had predicted (as I noted here).

In the Keynesian era of full employment from 1946 to 1973, mixed economy capitalism produced a golden age.

Of course, since the 1970s we have entered a a disastrous and regressive era of Neoliberal economics, but, even so, the consequences of that Neoliberalism are not in line with all of the predictions of Marxism as listed above.

The end of the Keynesian period and the return to revived neoclassical theories from the 1970s brought with it a return to lower growth, higher unemployment, stagnating real wages, and higher income inequality, but, above all, a transnational globalised neoliberal capitalism which has shipped a great deal of Western manufacturing and jobs to the Third World, and allowed legal and illegal Third World mass immigration into the West to lower wage costs, displace native workers and even replace populations.

To the extent that early Marxists dealt with issues of immigration and open borders, many welcomed it.

Engels in The Principles of Communism (written in 1847) welcomed the destruction and erasure of ethnic and national groups:

“What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Lenin saw open borders as “progressive”:

“There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations. Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth.

America heads the list of countries which import workers. …. The bourgeoisie incites the workers of one nation against those of another in the endeavour to keep them disunited. Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries.”
V. I. Lenin, “Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration,” Za Pravdu No. 22, October 29, 1913.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm

So early Marxists saw mass immigration and the destruction of national differences as “progressive,” and thought that once people had been mixed up into multicultural or multi-ethnic states, this would create a huge class-conscious proletarian movement, which would then overthrow capitalism. This was yet another Marxist delusion.

Instead, unending Third World mass immigration means the dispossession of the people of the Western world, the Islamisation of our societies, the transformation of our nations into dysfunctional, Balkanised areas with rent-seeking nepotistic and mutually hostile ethnic and religious groups fighting for control of the state.

The deteriorating plight of Western workers and even segments of the middle class by Neoliberalism, the Islamisation of our societies, and Third World immigration has not produced any renewed Marxist or Communist movements of any political importance in the First World.

Rather, more and more people have reacted with increased support for nationalist and protectionist conservatives, and Marxists and Communists – where they still exist – militantly support the disastrous mass immigration policies that more and more people hate and reject.

In particular, modern Marxists are mired in irrational regressive left and Cultural Leftist delusions, such as Third Wave feminism, the idea that all cultures are equal and the nonsense that mass immigration is always a positive force.

That is why Marxism is destined for the dustbin of history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (vol. 1; rev. trans. by Ernest Untermann from 4th German edn.). The Modern Library, New York.

Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume One (trans. Ben Fowkes). Penguin Books, London.

Why did US Libertarians become disillusioned with Libertarianism?

First of all, it requires some study and serious effort.

Here is some direct and fascinating evidence from Vox Day, a former libertarian personality who is now an Alt Right blogger, about why he turned against libertarian ideology both on the issues of immigration and free trade:







As we can see, it was the feeble libertarian responses to the problem of free movement of people, and gaping holes in the theory of free trade that did it for Vox Day. Vox Day also cites Ian Fletcher’s Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why (2nd edn.; 2011) as an influential book against free trade.

Libertarianism is flawed by its insistence that the individual is sovereign, and its inability to see the importance and interests of larger groups, above all, the family and nation. Without government policies to secure and create a viable political unit of people with common interests where those people can flourish, individuals cannot flourish.

What would happen to America if it went full anarcho-capitalist, and if its government were abolished and government control of the borders were ended?

As all barriers to trade and capital movement were removed, the collapse of manufacturing and industry would be accelerated as free trade under absolute advantage would implode the US economy.

As centralised government border control was abolished, and decisions on immigration flows were totally privatised and decentralised, there would be a tidal wave of mass immigration from the Third World, which would destroy the demographic and cultural cohesion of America.

The owners of any big business and industry left would also happily bring in millions of cheap, foreign and easily exploitable labour from the Third World to smash wages and labour rights and make themselves internationally competitive.

Given the fact that there would be no US national government concerned with national security, hostile foreign governments like China or the Arab Gulf States would be able to buy up vast real estate, property and national assets, and then import millions of their own people, which would reduce vast areas of America to colonies of China or Saudi Arabia. As in Europe, whole areas would be gradually lost to segregated and fundamentalist Islamic communities, deeply hostile to the culture around them.

The result would be increasingly isolated, militarised gated communities of wealthy Americans, surrounded by a sea of Third World poverty, economic collapse, crime, drug cartels, violence, social collapse, intercommunal violence, and then civil war.

In short, America would turn into Brazil.

Some libertarians have realised this. Others remain mired in their utopian cult, as cult-like in its own way as dogmatic Marxism/Communism.

The Existential Question of Our Age

It can be illustrated first by a quotation from Ha-Joon Chang’s 23 Things they Don’t Tell you about Capitalism:

“Wages in rich countries are determined more by immigration control than anything else, including any minimum wage legislation. How is the immigration maximum determined? Not by the ‘free’ labour market, which, if left alone, will end up replacing 80–90 per cent of native workers with cheaper, and often more productive, immigrants. Immigration is largely settled by politics.”
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2011. 23 Things they Don’t Tell you about Capitalism, Thing 1: There is no such thing as a free market.

True free market capitalism, as imagined by Rothbard here or other libertarian ideologues, would result in the demographic replacement of a large percentage of the population of a First World nation, reducing the original citizens to a minority.

Even though, mercifully, we do not have Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism or some extreme small-state libertarianism with no national borders, the neoliberal governments of the Western world are gradually doing the same thing, but in a slow and steady manner, by their pro-big business, mass immigration policies (since big capital, without any doubt, loves mass immigration), their deeply-flawed multiculturalism, and obsession with refugees (many of whom turn out to be economic migrants or, if genuine, refugees who could be better helped with humanitarian aid from the West to settle in safe countries where they are culturally compatible).

Continued mass immigration to the First World, in the face of the declining birth rates for the original citizens falling below 2.1 (the replacement level), means demographic and cultural suicide in the long run.

It’s that simple, once you understand it.

For example, what is Denmark? What is it, if it is not a homeland for the Danish people, with a distinct language and culture, for the people whose ancestors have lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years?

This does not mean that Denmark cannot have immigration; nor does it mean it cannot have some have ethnic minorities. Or a small and reasonable inflow of genuine refugees, especially if these refugees agree to return to their home countries once those countries are safe again. But there needs to be strict limits and controls, and Denmark needs to remain a country where the majority of people are Danish.

For those on the left obsessed with open borders or mass immigration, these leftists don’t understand how the majority of ordinary people feel. You can’t even begin to build a popular left-wing movement, with sensible economic programs, if the vast majority of people see a left utterly divorced from reality on such an existential issue.

And this is why the left will implode unless it quickly – and honestly – admits that democracy requires accepting the political will of the people, especially given how more and more people are becoming distressed, upset, and angry at the economic, demographic and cultural effects of mass immigration.