According to the investigative program "Complément d'enquête," broadcast last November on France 2, the word "immigration" was used 69,353 times on the far-right channel CNews between 2020 and 2024, while the term "Islam" was used 30,993 times during the same period. These are the obsessions of the industrial-media conglomerate owned by billionaire Vincent Bolloré, which propels figures like the ultra-conservative Philippe de Villiers into the spotlight. Last September, de Villiers launched an online petition to "demand a referendum on immigration."
For this former minister under Jacques Chirac, we are "in the process of a civilizational shift," and it is even a matter of saving "the last French people." However, the founder of Puy du Fou - who also hosts a weekly show on CNews - is simply reiterating themes dear to proponents of the "great replacement" theory, just weeks before the publication of his essay, Populicide, by Fayard. This publishing house, recently acquired by the Bolloré group, now serves a thoroughly reactionary agenda, as evidenced by its bestsellers in the "political" section: from National Rally leader Jordan Bardella to former President Nicolas Sarkozy, thus confirming the right-wing alliance strategy in publishing.
Despite their differences on certain aspects, the most prominent figures on the French right agree, following Philippe de Villiers' initiative, to present immigration as "the central issue." This allows them to activate the usual divisions within this political family in order to unite its diverse components: people versus elites, sovereignty versus globalization, nationals versus foreigners... Yet, despite its identity-based rhetoric, the petition's text has an economic dimension, since it targets, alongside "unfettered family reunification" and "mass regularizations," the alleged "unconditional social benefits."
Therefore, the exploitation of the immigration issue by the most fervent segments of the conservative movement-echoed all the way to the highest levels of government and by the chauvinistic, so-called "republican" left-not only contributes to the stigmatization of the most vulnerable segment of the working class but also serves, by extension, to undermine the last vestiges of the welfare state and the hard-won social gains achieved by the working classes in all their diversity.
However, it is important to emphasize that not all components of the French bourgeoisie are necessarily aligned with the agenda of the Bolloré group and its media-savvy cronies. After all, on this subject, Patrick Martin, president of the MEDEF-the main employers' organization-declared last February on France 2: "We need to bring objectivity to this debate, which has become completely impassioned, completely politicized, completely manipulated. Demography is an exact science." If we want to preserve our growth, if we want to preserve our social model, will we need selective economic immigration or not?
More pragmatically, the head of the employers' federation had already distanced himself from the right-wing factions most deeply involved in the "culture wars," particularly during the debate on immigration law. In December 2023, Patrick Martin stated on Radio Classique that the economy was "massively demanding immigration," citing the figure of 3.9 million foreign workers by 2050, both for sectors experiencing labor shortages and for highly skilled professions. Similarly, in September 2024, a few days after the remarks made on TF1 by the new Minister of the Interior, Bruno Retailleau - "mass immigration is not an opportunity for France" - the president of the MEDEF (French Business Confederation) reiterated on France Info, citing figures, that it was necessary "not to rule out using all skill levels of immigrant labor, but in a regulated and highly targeted manner."
Against the Fontanet circular of November 1973
Here again, the financing of "our social model" is used as an argument from authority, which is particularly ironic given the colossal sums represented by employer social security contribution exemptions - more than 80 billion euros in 2024 for "general reductions," according to the CGT (General Confederation of Labour). Furthermore, following the logic of instrumental rationality, Patrick Martin fully subscribes to the concept of "selective immigration" promoted as early as 2005 by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and implemented the following year by his Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy. The latter would make it a campaign theme for the 2007 presidential election. In this way, the so-called "republican" right established, at least superficially, a dichotomy between, on the one hand, labor migration-which would be welcomed under certain drastic conditions-and, on the other hand, "uncontrolled migration," a vaguely defined category encompassing both those who settled in France through family reunification and migrants rendered "illegal" by xenophobic policies.
However, under the pretext of making a Manichean-and no less arbitrary-distinguishing between "chosen" and "uncontrolled" immigration-thus separating "good" immigrants from "bad" ones-business leaders, the parliamentary right, and a segment of the governing left have contributed to casting lasting suspicion on all immigrants and their descendants, thereby legitimizing the bitter passions of a vengeful far right. The number of foreigners-or their children-never truly established, gives rise to all sorts of fantasies among proponents of ethno-cultural nationalism who advocate the "remigration" or expulsion of populations deemed "undesirable" because they are held responsible for the country's misfortunes.
But this is indeed an aspect of class struggle and a well-worn tactic. In fact, the continuous tightening of legislation concerning migrants aims less at limiting their arrival in the country-despite the painful ordeals they have endured since leaving-than at making their living conditions even more difficult in order to intensify their exploitation by keeping the price of their labor as low as possible. As a result, immigrant proletarians-with or without legal status-are forced to accept wages or jobs that less vulnerable categories of workers are able to refuse-without knowing for how much longer... This competition between workers with unequal statuses, in the absence of collective organization and resistance based on class, tends to exert pressure on the entire proletariat-already divided according to laws, statuses, agreements, hierarchies, etc.-disarming its militancy and fueling resentment against foreign workers or all those perceived as such, through racist propaganda.
This is a centuries-old problem from the perspective of revolutionary theory-namely, that of the "reserve army"-since, as early as 1845, in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Friedrich Engels addressed the case of Irish immigration in these terms: "It is against a competitor of this kind that the English worker must struggle, against a competitor occupying the lowest rung of the ladder that can exist in a civilized country and who, precisely for this reason, is content with a wage lower than that of any other worker. Therefore, the wage of the English worker, in all sectors where the Irishman can compete with him, is constantly falling, and it cannot be otherwise."
In the same vein, Karl Marx grappled with this asymmetrical competitive relationship between English and Irish workers, which he addressed in a text dated 1870, at a time when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. He articulated, in his own way, the issues related to capitalist exploitation, imperialist domination, and racist oppression: "The average English worker hates the Irish worker, whom he sees as a competitor who lowers his standard of living. Compared to the Irish worker, he feels himself to be a member of the dominant nation and thus becomes an instrument that the aristocrats and capitalists of his own country use against Ireland. In doing so, he reinforces their domination over himself. He indulges in religious, social, and national prejudices against Irish workers."
Besides these "classic" references in the Marxist tradition, the subject has also been addressed by the revolutionary socialist movement in our part of the world. Thus, as early as 1886, in Le Socialiste, the organ of the Workers' Party, we find an article signed Géva denouncing the political and media campaigns directed against foreign workers-considered scapegoats-and highlighting the basic principles relevant to this issue. Indeed, its author advocates not only prohibiting "employers from employing foreign workers at a lower wage than French workers" but also opposing workers' internationalism-founded on equality, cooperation, and solidarity-to bourgeois internationalism, not without a certain optimism that is sorely lacking in our time: "The exploited of all countries are our brothers. Our homeland is not only France, but the world. The goal we pursue is the abolition of borders." The homeland we dream of is greater than that of our chauvinists; it is the homeland of all humanity, the emancipation of all human beings, without distinction of sex, race, or nationality.
Nedjib SIDI MOUSSA
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4622
_________________________________________
Link: (en) France, OCL CA #356 - Capitalism, Immigration, and Xenophobia (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten