Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

June 29, 2016

Diana Johnstone’s poisonous nativism

Filed under: immigration — louisproyect @ 3:25 pm

It should probably come as no big surprise that the preponderance of articles appearing on CounterPunch favored Brexit. It goes hand in hand with the tilt toward Vladimir Putin whose hostility to the European Union is generally considered in these circles as practically on the same level as Che Guevara’s call for “two, three, many Vietnams”.

Most of the authors are sensible enough to admit that there were nativist tendencies at work but they were secondary to the more important need for allowing Britain to return to the pro-working class economic policies that Tories and treacherous New Labour overturned. Jeremy Corbyn’s role in all this is ambivalent. On record for opposing Brexit, some thought he dragged his feet in speaking against it under the influence of his press secretary Seumas Milne who was about hardcore a Putinite you can find.

Leave it to Diana Johnstone to break with the sane Brexit consensus at CounterPunch and plunge deeply into UKIP territory. An ardent fan of Vladimir Putin, Johnstone was bold enough to tell CounterPunch readers a while back that Marine Le Pen was on the French left:

If “the right” is defined first of all by subservience to finance capital, then aside from Sarkozy, Bayrou and perhaps Joly, all the other candidates were basically on the left. And all of them except Sarkozy would be considered far to the left of any leading politician in the United States.

This applies notably to Marine Le Pen, whose social program was designed to win working class and youth votes. Her “far right” label is due primarily to her criticism of Muslim practices in France and demands to reduce immigration quotas, but her position on these issues would be considered moderate in the Netherlands or in much of the United States.

Much of the United States? I suppose so if you are referring to the sort of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and look like the people Diane Arbus photographed.

In today’s CounterPunch Johnstone ruminates on how “How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart”. Well, heavens yes. As David Duke once put it, forcing whites to live next to Blacks is inviting disaster. The best thing would be to have separate homelands for each race. No matter his excesses, the white nationalist is savvy enough to take Putin and Trump’s side against the dreaded globalists.

Of course, the main cause of friction is immigration. You get all those Jamaicans, Pakistanis and Poles swarming into good British neighborhoods with their strange clothing, foods and musical tastes. Feh, who needs them. Even worse, their foreignness goes hand in hand with stealing jobs from good Englishmen whose ancestors after all have been here for millennia and invented democracy. Johnstone hones in on the immigration issue:

In reality, for the majority of working class voters, opposition to unlimited immigration can be plainly a matter of economic self-interest. Since the EU’s eastward expansion ended immigration controls with the former communist countries, hundreds of thousands of workers from Poland, Lithuania, and other Eastern European nations have flooded into Britain, adding to the large established immigrant population from the British Commonwealth countries. It is simply a fact that mass immigration brings down wage levels in a country. A Glasgow University study shows statistically that as immigration rises, the level of wages in proportion to profits drops – not to mention the increase in unemployment.

Okay, let’s call a spade a spade. This shit is exactly the same thing you would hear from the worst nativist in UKIP or in the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Johnstone observes that “In reality, for the majority of working class voters, opposition to unlimited immigration can be plainly a matter of economic self-interest.” This is not “pro-working class”. It is reactionary crap that has plagued the working class for the past 150 years at least. From its inception, the radical movement has had elements that embraced the same kind of nationalism Nigel Farage espouses but formulated in the same demagogic “leftist” terms as Johnstone.

Even among Karl Marx’s supporters in the USA in the 1870s, you can find the same divisions that are reflected among Brexit supporters like Johnstone and those on the other side who believed in open borders. Samuel Gompers, who was the first labor leader to openly espouse class collaborationism, agreed with Johnstone. As Gompers climbed the ladder into officialdom, he found that anti-Chinese racism gave him a foot up. He endorsed the labeling of cigar boxes as made by white men, to be “distinguished from those made by the Chinese.”

The First International socialists led by Friedrich Sorge were just as bad. A member of his faction in New York held forth at one of their public meetings:

The white working-men see and feel daily the effects of the Chinese labor in that State. We cannot only perceive how it affects us, but know assuredly that it will seriously affect the destiny of the working classes of this country. The Chinese have driven out of employment thousands of white men, women, girls and boys…. They are in all branches of the manufacturing business, and it is only a matter of time when they will monopolize all branches of industry; as it is impossible for white men to exist on the same amount and sort of food Chinamen seem to thrive upon.

In reality the debate over open borders has been going on for almost as long as the socialist movement has existed. Germany, which always had the most advanced Marxist thinkers, was a test case for the two perspectives.

Changing economic circumstances in the German states (the country had not yet unified) led to increased mobility in the 1850s. Liberal-minded industrialists insisted on the right of labor to move freely within and outside the country just as proposed by backers of the EU today. This need was felt especially keenly in cases where foreign workers could be used to break strikes. However, the impulse to greater freedoms was countered by traditional German social structures, especially strong in Prussia.

Things came to a head in 1867 when the Reichstag would debate sweeping legislation that would go the furthest in removing restrictions. If passed, both citizens and foreigners would be allowed to travel freely to the states within the North German Confederation that included Prussia as well as more economically developed entities.

While the motive of bourgeois politicians was purely to secure cheap labor, the working class representatives to the Reichstag were not prejudiced against legislation that would grant workers more freedom. Wilhelm Liebknecht, the father of Rosa Luxemburg’s close collaborator Karl Liebknecht, made a clarion call in support of the bill.

Lenin, who counted himself as a disciple of the German Social Democracy led by Wilhelm and Karl Liebknecht, was emphatic on this. In a 1913 article titled “Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration”, he wrote:

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.

Two years later in a letter to the Socialist Propaganda League in the United States, Lenin specifically took on the nativism that had held back the American left:

In our struggle for true internationalism and against ‘jingo-socialism,’ we always quote in our press the example of the opportunist leaders of the S.P. in America, who are in favor of restrictions of the immigration of Chinese and Japanese workers (especially after the Congress of Stuttgart, 1907, and against the decisions of Stuttgart).

We think that one cannot be internationalist and be at the same time in favor of such restrictions. And we assert that Socialists in America, especially English Socialists, belonging to the ruling, and oppressing nation, who are not against any restrictions of immigration, against the possession of colonies (Hawaii) and for the entire freedom of colonies, that such Socialists are in reality jingoes.

In my view, those who supported Brexit are largely sincere in their belief that this was a measure that could have repudiated the neoliberalism of the EU and put Britain on a new course. The debate on the left over such perspectives is not one that lends itself to litmus tests even though the stakes of the outcome are quite high. As happens many times in politics, it is impossible to know what the future has in store so a leap in the dark is unavoidable.

That being said, Diana Johnstone’s opinions on immigration are pure filth and should be rejected by the entire left as a concession to the nativism that is threatening immigrants all across Europe and that will force desperate people trying to flee violence in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to remain in jeopardy.

This has not been the first time in history when our movement has become very confused over basic questions of left and right. In Germany there were two instances where the left ended up supporting the right. The first was when Germany signed the Treaty of Rapallo with the USSR that led the German Communist Party to back its government against Anglo-French imperialism rather than maintaining an independent class position—in other words the same mistake many CounterPunch writers make with respect to the “New Cold War”. Instead of analyzing Ukraine or Syria on their own terms, they simply follow whatever position favors the Kremlin.

In 1922, the French army invaded the Ruhr to seize control of mines and steel mills in order to force the Germans to pay debts extracted through the punitive Treaty of Versailles. The German capitalist class screamed bloody murder and proto-fascist armed detachments marched into the Ruhr to confront the French troops. At the height of the anti-French armed struggle in the Ruhr, the German Communist Party issued feelers to the right-wing nationalists.

Comintern representative Karl Radek was totally into this Red-Brown alliance. He urged that the Communists commemorate the death of Albert Schlageter, an ultraright fighter who died in the Ruhr and was regarded as a martyr by the right-wing. His lunacy struck a chord with some German Communists, including the generally unreliable Ruth Fischer who gave a speech at a gathering of right-wing students where she echoed fascist themes:

Whoever cries out against Jewish capital…is already a fighter for his class, even though he may not know it. You are against the stock market jobbers. Fine. Trample the Jewish capitalists down, hang them from the lampposts…But…how do you feel about the big capitalists, the Stinnes, Klockner?…Only in alliance with Russia, Gentlemen of the “folkish” side, can the German people expel French capitalism from the Ruhr region.

Is Diana Johnstone channeling the ghost of Ruth Fischer? It would seem so.

It was this sort of Red-Brown idiocy that discredited the German CP but not so nearly as bad as after it had been consolidated as a hard-core Stalinist group during the “Third Period” madness that led it to support a Nazi referendum that would unseat a Social Democratic politician.

In 1931 the Nazis utilized a clause in the Weimar constitution to oust a coalition government in the state legislature of Prussia. Prussia was a Social Democratic stronghold. The Communists at first opposed the referendum, but their opposition took a peculiar form. They demanded that the Social Democrats form a bloc with them at once. When the Social Democratic leaders refused, the Communists put their support behind the Nazi referendum, giving it a left cover by calling it a “red referendum”. They instructed the working class to vote for a Nazi referendum. The referendum was defeated, but it was demoralizing to the German working-class to see Communists lining up with Nazis to drive the Social Democrats out of office.

Is there an element of “third period” thinking in support for the Kremlin’s various positions on the EU, Syria, Ukraine, et al? I am afraid that this is the case. While one could possibly excuse the mad policies of the late 1920s and early 30s as a poorly thought out strategy to punish the treacherous Social Democrats, who after all had murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht, they would only end up punishing the left itself that would soon be Hitler’s victims.

The only way to avoid such catastrophes is to be committed to a class analysis that is combined with a party-building strategy that avoids opportunist mistakes on both the ultraleft and right. This is not easy, of course, but it is necessary for the survival of our movement and our ultimate victory over a social system that will destroy the planet if not stopped dead in its tracks.




  1. The sincerity of those who backed Brexit is not the issue.

    The sincerity of my side, the pro-European left, is not the issue.

    But the seriousness of Counterpunch in publishing Diana Johnstone – whose original article on the Front National was beneath contempt and who continues in the same vein – is deeply in question.

    Comment by Andrew Coates — June 29, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

  2. I’d hate to break it to you but outside of maybe NYC and San Francisco most white workers are very much opposed to immigration of any kind.

    Despite the early obituaries there are still millions of white workers concentrated both in productive work like construction and manufacturing and in low paid service work like Walmart and Amazon warehouses.

    They are the populist base for Trump’s campaign and they support him precisely because of what he says about ending immigration of brown people from Latin America and the Near East.

    Heck, even in the edges of NYC you can see a lot of this. Do you honestly think Paulie and Peter in the rockaways want to welcome Juan and Tariq to move in next door?

    First we have to face reality if we actually want to change it. CLR James based his life on it.

    Comment by Arnold — June 29, 2016 @ 4:26 pm

  3. I’d hate to break it to you but outside of maybe NYC and San Francisco most white workers are very much opposed to immigration of any kind.

    So who cares? Most white workers are for capitalism. If I were to be guided by what workers thought, I’d never have become a socialist. And don’t drag CLR James into this. He was a victim of the INS that sought to deport him under the McCarran-Walter Act.

    Comment by louisproyect — June 29, 2016 @ 4:31 pm

  4. Anyone who is interested in making revolution in America cares.

    You stated that the only people against immigration are :

    “the sort of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and look like the people Diane Arbus photographed.”

    Now, when I point out that the white working class in general is against immigration, you say who cares. If you don’t care why did you make the statement?

    You don’t think this is a problem? I do. Xenophobic Facebook conspirital hate networks, Alex Jones prison planet and the NRA are now infinitely stronger than any left organization or union in America.

    Would you say who cares when you found out the majority of German workers came to hate Jews right around the time of Adolf was consolidating power?

    Comment by Arnold — June 29, 2016 @ 4:56 pm

  5. Look, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump’s positions on immigration are not “moderate”. They are extreme. As in Tea Party extreme or UKIP extreme. People’s views on immigration are reported here for what it’s worth. They are definitely not in sync with Trump’s.


    Comment by louisproyect — June 29, 2016 @ 5:09 pm

  6. I don’t get my info from “people magazine”. I get it from my coworkers and people in surrounded by here in the midwest every day. Most of the people around here wouldn’t even talk to anyone from people magazine or college anthropology students, not that they’d be asked. “Popular opinion” in America is almost always the voice of the petty bourgeoisie.

    In the parking lot at my manufacturing job at least 5 trucks have Trump stickers or signs on them. This is out of the fifteen present during my shift. At lunch yesterday a group of six guys were taking about what they’d do if Clinton won and “opened the borders, expanded the sanctuary cities, and tried to take our guns.”

    I don’t think you’ll see their views in Newsweek but they’re pretty accurately represented in the statements of Trump.

    The guy’s an airhead who basically repeats popular rhetoric emerging from the ruined remains of the industrial American working class.

    Comment by Arnold — June 29, 2016 @ 5:18 pm

  7. We are going around in circles. It doesn’t matter what workers think, whether they are for Trump or against him. Socialists are for open borders and should defend that position when talking to fellow workers. In the 1960s, when females began showing up in construction jobs due to affirmative action, they were hassled by men who thought that they did not belong there. Socialists in construction jobs should have been their outspoken defenders. If you are not willing to defend unpopular positions, then don’t be a socialist. The name of this blog says it all. We should not mind being in a minority.

    Comment by louisproyect — June 29, 2016 @ 5:23 pm

  8. Arnold,

    The thing about the working class is that it is vast, is not self-selecting, and is therefore heterogeneous in it’s opinions. Just as an example, I’m a working class socialist; a few weeks ago I worked with a guy whose views were pretty much fascist. That does not make one of us more working class than the other because class is not defined by a person’s opinions but by their economic position. The views you quote are not representative of the working class, or even the “white working class”; they are representative of the right-wing, to which a proportion of the working class belongs. Currently that proportion is unfortunately quite large, but that does not mean that the left should tail after it.

    Comment by John — June 29, 2016 @ 5:43 pm

  9. Louis Proyect,

    I mind being in the minority very much. The point, after all, is to change it.

    Comment by John — June 29, 2016 @ 5:56 pm

  10. Arnold. Socialists are not Workerists, meaning we do not idealize the masses and understand that workers are not always right. When the Bolsheviks were on the rise at the start of 1917 the vast majority of Russian workers were pro-War. By October the Bolsheviks shook the world by taking power on an anti-war platform of socialist internationalism.

    As Trotsky put it in his brilliant pamphlet: “Their Morals & Ours”;

    “The masses, of course, are not at all impeccable. Idealization of the masses is foreign to us. We have seen them under different conditions, at different stages and in addition in the biggest political shocks. We have observed their strong and weak sides. Their strong side-resoluteness, self-sacrifice, heroism – has always found its clearest expression in times of revolutionary upsurge. During this period the Bolsheviks headed the masses. Afterward a different historical chapter loomed when the weak side of the oppressed came to the forefront: heterogeneity, insufficiency of culture, narrowness of world outlook. The masses tired of the tension, became disillusioned, lost faith in themselves – and cleared the road for the new aristocracy. In this epoch the Bolsheviks (“Trotskyists”) found themselves isolated from the masses. Practically we went through two such big historic cycles: 1897-1905, years of flood tide; 1907-1913 years of the ebb; 1917-1923, a period of upsurge unprecedented in history; finally, a new period of reaction which has not ended even today. In these immense events the “Trotskyists” learned the rhythm of history, that is, the dialectics of the class struggle. They also learned, it seems, and to a certain degree successfully, how to subordinate their subjective plans and programs to this objective rhythm. They learned not to fall into despair over the fact that the laws of history do not depend upon their individual tastes and are not subordinated to their own moral criteria. They learned to subordinate their individual desires to the laws of history. They learned not to become frightened by the most powerful enemies if their power is in contradiction to the needs of historical development. They know how to swim against the stream in the deep conviction that the new historic flood will carry them to the other shore. Not all will reach that shore, many will drown. But to participate in this movement with open eyes and with an intense will – only this can give the highest moral satisfaction to a thinking being!”

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — June 29, 2016 @ 8:47 pm

  11. Apologies for being off-topic, but just read this news about Angela Eagle, one of the Labour MP’s who resigned from Corbyn’s opposition policy team, announcing she would run against Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of Labour Party.

    MP Eagle to challenge Corbyn for Labour leadership – media:

    Comment by Reza — June 29, 2016 @ 8:57 pm

  12. Johnstone’s book on Yugoslavia is also abysmal, pure nonsense.

    Comment by jschulman — June 29, 2016 @ 10:07 pm

  13. I actually thought highly of it at the time but doubt that I would if I read it over again. That being said, I would never put Milosevic in the same category as Bashar al-Assad.

    Comment by louisproyect — June 29, 2016 @ 10:51 pm

  14. Nor would I, Louis. My point is simply that Johnstone is constantly proving that she doesn’t know her ass from her elbow, and yet people take her seriously.

    Comment by jschulman — June 30, 2016 @ 12:00 am

  15. Recently, shadow business secretary Clive Lewis said that only those who are members of a trade union should be able to migrate to the UK. He needs to clarify that those immigrants should be members of a British trade union, not members of a foreign trade union operating in a country where wages are markedly lower.

    Should this change in Labour’s approach to immigration be opposed? Alternatively, should this change be viewed as being in line with the International Workingmen’s Association’s foundational concerns about foreign workers being brought into each country in a scab capacity, as well as foundational opposition to a laissez-faire approach to labour markets?

    Comment by Nick Tan — November 27, 2016 @ 12:15 am

  16. […] And indeed on British Politics, where she warmed to UKIP’s views on European immigration (Diana Johnstone’s poisonous nativism) […]

    Pingback by Counterpunch – Diana Johnstone – Defends Marine Le Pen Against “Racism” charge and Rallies to the Cause of National Sovereignty. | Tendance Coatesy — April 22, 2017 @ 10:33 am

  17. But isn’t she cried her heart out with crocodile tears over break-up of Yugoslavia, and described and defended Milosevic as the knight-protector of this land of Brotherhood and Unity, where different people lived together, I suppose opposite of “forcefully”, while decrying war-crime and genocide charges against him, Karadzic, Mladic and the rest of the barbarian throng, and so on and so forth ?!
    And now, EU is suddenly the Peoples Dungeon ?
    Who knows, maybe Merkel could be EU’s Milosevic, but Johnston certainly won’t end in her corner ?

    Comment by Santa — April 22, 2017 @ 11:38 pm

  18. […] (2) Thus, for example, Johnstone’s fellow CounterPunch columnist Louis Proyect denounced Diana Johnstone’s poisonous nativism in an article on his blog last year. More recently Tendance Coatesy attacked both “the […]

    Pingback by On the Left and “Fascism” – NeoPopulism — May 9, 2017 @ 3:29 pm

  19. Diana Johnstone is the most unbiased and perceptive author Counterpunch has published. She doesn’t pull any punches, even when her Green Party is the object of pillory for foolishness.
    Why has Counterpunch not published any of her articles since November 2017?
    Diana is the best reporter you ever published, the only author able to penetrate the “genocide” smoke-and-mirrors of the “main stream media” who concealed the real war criminals who attacked and destroyed Yugoslavia.
    You go with an outright fraud such as Penny Marshall over a serious knowledgeable writer such Diana Johnstone? No one else has written a documentary of Yugoslavia as brilliantly informing as Fool’s Crusade. Don’t take my word for it, see what Jared Israel has uncovered as well. These people work hard to inform all wise enough to recognize truth when they hear it.

    Comment by David Parke — December 8, 2018 @ 7:11 am

  20. David, aren’t you aware that Jared Israel has become an outspoken defender of Netanyahu?

    Comment by louisproyect — December 8, 2018 @ 8:09 pm

  21. No. How is that possible? Where does he justify his stance on Netanyahu?

    Comment by David Parke — December 8, 2018 @ 11:40 pm

  22. At that site Jared Israel made the point that Israel is not an apartheid State as was South Africa. He exposed the deception that Arabs in Israel own less land than Jews pointing out that by per capita land ownership Arabs own more land than Jews.
    In short, Mr. Israel stuck to the titles of his article:
    “Is it Antisemitic to Criticize Israel?”
    “Is Israel an ‘Apartheid State'”
    The answer being “No!” in both cases as Mr. Israel very forthrightly answered. Nowhere is there even a mention of Netanyahu or government. On the other hand, Jared Israel is very informative:
    “Mr. Schultz has asked a loaded question. First, the word ‘criticize’ suggests honest intent, as when one says, “Don’t get defensive; listen to my criticism.” But Mr. Kanana, whom Mr. Schultz is quoting, is not criticizing Israel; he is lying about the facts.

    Second, the statement, “Mohamed Kanana criticizes Israeli apartheid,” assumes that Apartheid does in fact exist in Israel. As I will show, this is absurd.

    Is it all right to criticize Israel? Sure, but it’s not all right to tell lies which generate support for terror. If someone spreads the rumor that you are a serial murderer, and you aren’t, and if a lynch mob gathers outside your window, you are not likely to consider this ‘criticism.’

    The Western Establishments and their junior partners in the Arab countries (and most of the supposed Left as well) are engaged in a campaign to delegitimize Israel. This campaign is powered by systematic distortions in the mainstream media and lies by Western and Arab leaders, academics, and anti-Israel organizers.

    Is Mr. Kanana personally antisemitic? I don’t know him so I can’t say, but I can say this: he’s a liar, and his lie does contribute to antisemitism, about which more later.”

    “Is Mohamed Kanana factually wrong about Arab land ownership in Israel?

    No, not factually wrong. Israeli Arabs do make up 20% of the population and they do own 3% of the land. So then how is he lying? Cleverly – by omission. He leaves out a crucial fact: Jews make up 80% of the population of Israel but own only 3.5% of the land!”

    “The term ‘Apartheid’ refers to the system that existed in South Africa, with draconian laws dividing the population into ‘races’ defined according to a Nazi-like ideology. It means the segregation of these supposed races, with radically different conditions of life prescribed for each. It means the official sanctioning of hate speech; racism becomes state ideology.

    If Israel were an Apartheid state, the enemies of Israel could point to laws based on a theory of supposedly superior and inferior races and they could point to secret police terror to enforce those laws. They could point to statistical evidence of the results of Apartheid: there would be extreme differences between Jews and Arabs in telltale statistics such as infant mortality and life expectancy, just as there were between blacks and whites in South Africa. The professional Israel-bashers never mention such statistics because the figures indicate that Israeli Arabs live better than Arabs in any other country in the Middle East. [2]”

    As you see in this article, Jared did not approve of Netanyahu whatever. I argue that Jared Israel is so opposed to bloodshed and violence and war that he is highly critical of every government policy that does not serve all people. Perhaps you got the wrong URL because http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/land.htm does not support your case.

    Comment by David Parke — December 9, 2018 @ 1:11 am

  23. David, you don’t think that Israel is an apartheid state?

    Comment by louisproyect — December 9, 2018 @ 1:17 am

  24. […] even went so far as to claim that Le Pen was on the Left of the French political map (for more see here). The reference to Jews’ “ancestral fear… of being excluded” is a regurgitation of an […]

    Pingback by Rats in Sheep Clothing - Tony Greenstein — February 3, 2019 @ 1:48 pm

  25. Typical elitist misdirection against the working class adding insult to injury:

    “This shit is exactly the same thing you would hear from the worst nativist in UKIP or in the Tea Party wing of the
    Republican Party. Johnstone observes that “In reality, for the majority of working class voters, opposition to
    unlimited immigration can be plainly a matter of economic self-interest.” This is not “pro-working class”. It is
    reactionary crap that has plagued the working class for the past 150 years at least.”

    Why do you think people don’t have jobs? Come visit our new American homeless cities. Los Angeles and San Francisco for example, tremendous wealth and awful poverty side by side. See people without jobs living on the streets. See make shift tent communities along freeways, under bridges, and in parks. Check out the cardboard box homes on sidewalks. See newspapers used as blankets. Come to California and see federal law violated by racist tribal hiring practices from many different tribes where people in competition for limited resources just hire people from their own ethnic group because it’s just like “back home.” See multicultural racism where people of all ethnic groups discriminate against one another.

    Easily see all the businesses that just hire people from south of the border replicating the racist hiring practices and worker abuses seen in the skin complexion hierarchy brought north from South America where light skinned Europeans and Spaniards rule. Look no farther than the “white” movement in Brazil and Venezuela. It can happen here and it has. Light complexioned English speakers exploiting the indigenous and mixed. You’ll see it on the streets, in restaurants, in your home and yard when workers show up. Even major corporations hire in a race based manner! Totally illegal but done every day.

    It’s now tribe vs tribe and that’s the way metastatic capitalism likes it. Unions destroyed, wages truly lowered, racist hiring practices, dog eat dog, low ball bidding in the construction industry by non licensed unskilled workers which has displaced many skilled Caucasian and African American workers. People have forgotten this historical fact in California. And it is a fact.

    Also jobs that are cash so no taxes are paid on income. However most of the elite and academia as well as politicians have little or no actual knowledge of the true working class, it’s only another one of their tone deaf abstractions and their adherence to the type of dogma of this article. I grew up working class, I’ve lived it, and I’ve been all over our working world.

    Comment by Norman — April 2, 2019 @ 11:56 am

  26. I grew up working class, I’ve lived it, and I’ve been all over our working world.

    So what if you grew up working class. So did many of Adolf Hitler’s followers.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 2, 2019 @ 1:31 pm

  27. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. That certainly influences your views on immigration. Thanks for such a succinct example of limited depth ideological thinking! Your implication is that I’m a racist and possibly even a Nazi. You’re wrong on both counts my dear.

    Comment by Norman — April 2, 2019 @ 6:07 pm

  28. I don’t think you are a fascist. But I am dead sure you are not a Marxist.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 2, 2019 @ 6:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: