Not far from where I live is a woman who, like many others from her class, have the best of all the worlds possible. She owns a house somewhere here in Yorkshire and one in Cape Town, allowing her to live here for six months during the best of weather conditions in Britain, and to spend the remaining part of the year enjoying sunny South Africa. She represents, in a literal sense, the beneficiary (along with thousands of others) of her class’ conquest of open borders, long before the formation of the European Union and the latest accession of other Eastern European states.
Recent calls in South Africa, during and after the xenophobia outbreaks, for tightening of the borders, made me think about this woman; it made me think about the EU policy of open borders; more particularly, it made me think what the call for fortifying South Africa’s borders means politically for African working class brothers and sisters who are not citizens of South Africa.
The fluidity of capital across borders makes nonsense of the nation-state. National and regional economies are so integrated into the single global economy that all attempts to curb human movement become out-and-out an explicitly class action. Capital is not restricted from moving between countries, neither is ‘skilled’ labour, ie middle- and upper middle class people or the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, the call to strengthen South Africa’s border control is a hypocritical one. It argues that ‘foreigners’ come to benefit from the wealth of South Africa; that these ‘foreigners’ put further strain on the already fragile abilities of government and local authorities to deliver services. Some arguments appear to be more sophisticated and hold that bosses in South Africa take advantage of the situation of ‘foreign workers’ and end up appealing to bosses (!) to stop these practices … [to myself: what humbug! Capitalists will always search for the cheapest labour and if they are hindered to do so within the borders of one country, they simply go after this splendid source of profit extraction, even if it means closing their operations and relocating]. Before I positively state my case for open borders, let me look at some of these concerns raised.
“Foreign nationals come to South Africa to take ‘our wealth‘”. This concern of course does not say working class black people from countries further north of South Africa, but this is actually what it means. ‘Our wealth’? A considered look at the role of the South African economy in the region and across the entire African continent makes plain that its impact on people in Southern Africa especially, but also further afield on the continent, is one of extracting wealth (material as well as human) from those countries and concentrating it in South Africa. In its truest sense, therefore, the wealth of South Africa is created by not only South Africans, but by Africans from countries outside South African borders. The integration of Southern Africa’s economies into that of South Africa renders any argument of ‘our wealth’ baseless. Furthermore, the very manner of this integration changes working people from the region into a ready-made source of reserve labour. South African capitalists draw from this reserve army of labourers when their profiteering appetites desire. The wealth of South Africa is the creative product of ‘ours’ in the truest sense of the word, and this includes working people from the region.
“Foreign nationals put extra pressure on South Africa’s meager services”. In other words, the working class from the region competes with the South African working class for services and is therefore responsible for the downward pressure on wages. The key source of this tendency of wages to move downward is the fact that capital, which is not simply a thing, but a creative, living entity, is highly mobile and simply moves to where labour is cheaper. Without ceremony. No one needs to spell out how this mobility relates to declining services. Instead of taxing big business and corporations in order to fund the delivery of local services, the ANC government acts as the proper instrument of capital by tightening its embrace on its macro-economic strategy, GEAR.
The borders of South Africa are only argued to be closed for working class Africans. The upper middle class enjoy the benefits of capital’s conquest almost as a matter of course. Like so many other countries the world over (Australia with their points system, Britain now following Australia, with the exception that this system will only be applicable to nationals from outside the EU), South African apologists of capital advance their argument on the level of ‘attracting skilled labour’. If ‘skilled labourers’ are deemed deserving of entry by virtue of their usefulness to the economy, it therefore seems to stand to reason that there are those outside this category also deserving of exclusion from entry. And so the political preconditions are created for xenophobia and bigotry and racism to roam large with relative impunity.
The way out is for South Africa to implement an open-border policy. Working class citizens from African countries should be allowed to enter and exit in the same fashion as the upper middle classes and capitalists (from Africa and the entire world, for that matter) are allowed to. There are those, of course, who raise all sorts of alarm bells on this proposition. They envision all sorts of chaotic situations, collapse of the country’s infrastructure and whip up the most terrible of socio-economic disasters, including the plain ridiculous, from load shedding to potholes. The first thing we must be clear about is that the policy of open borders is not a new concept. It already exists for the upper middle class and capitalists in South Africa; in fact, South African capitalism was so thorough in its conquest of Africa’s markets that most ‘ordinary’ South Africans do not need special travelling documents like visas to enter those countries. We simply hop on the airplane and enjoy the conquests of our pioneering homegrown capitalist! The only people not enjoying this open-border policy are working class Africans.
The other piece of counsel is that an open-border policy is impracticable. It cannot work. Well, it works in Europe. It is not true that the reason why it somewhat works in Europe is the level of those countries’ infrastructural development and systems administration. The thing about South Africa and all other capitalist states is that the bourgeoisie create systems of administration and the variation of infrastructure to suit their aims, to assist them primarily in their insatiable pursuit for profits and control over lives of people and material resources. Needs placed above anything else and the call for an open border policy not only makes sense, but can become an instrument of struggle in the hands of oppressed classes.
I am for an open border policy in South Africa and the world.
Steven, the borders of SA is already open for the African working classes. The estimate is from 5 million to 10 million African foreigners within SA’s border. Please explain that. And please explain that the people involved in the xenophobic attacks were mostly SA African workers stating that these foreigners are taking their jobs, services and houses.
Although the notion of closed or even restricted boarders seems ideally dispensable, greater influx of population to South Africa is not a good thing for anyone. We do have unemployment, and capitalists will not just shy away from our busniess environment because there is cheaper labour Up Africa. There are many factors which wil keep them here. Our neighbours, perhaps more importantly, feel the pinch of skills leaving their economies.
The problem with open boarders arises with the dis-unity of nation states, and the disparity of living conditions between one side of the river and the other. Because South African wealth doesn’t translate into essential services in, say, Zimbabwe, people will move here to get them. Creating a more unified economic zone where responsibility for each African rests with neighbouring states to some degree, and prosperity is more collective, would (perhaps) reduce the disparity, and hence the need for border control would diminish. If conditions were similer people would still flock to the cities, but in the usual urban migration sense, not out of desperation or hopelessness.
I am for a boundaryless world rather than an open boarder policy.
God save us from Marxist rantings. Perhaps you might consider South Africa’s unemployment rate before championing the cause of open borders. Do you really think we can absorb more proles to demand education and basic services? A nation has a right to define and defend its borders. If South Africa must do so to avoid further destabilising xenophobic violence, of the type that drives away investment if not the World Cup.
Illegal aliens bring nothing but crime, poverty and more unemployment and incite the already hard-pressed masses. The difference with the bourgeoisie (didn’t know people still used that word) is that they enter countries LEGALLY. In conclusion, please catch a wake up, Big Red Steve!
The riff-raff must be kept out.
It’s imperative.
Very good piece my brother!Nobody is confronting illegal foreigners from Europe or countries outside the African continent.The fact of the matter is that the majority of whites in this country are decendents of illegal foreigners.
Steven
Europe had a number of wars before they developed to an open borders policy, and it only happened when the main societies were close to equal. It took a few hundred years to get there.
AND believe it or not, migrant labour to our mines in the 1970′s had been reduced to mainly SA and not external labour ,BECAUSE of security.
Open borders DO attract criminals as well, especially if there is wealth to loot.
@ Coen: Perhaps I should have spelt out what I meant by open borders. I simply mean that a person being allowed into a country by virtue of him/her presenting his/her passport of his/her country of origin, without having to present special travel documents like visas or entry permits. In the case of South Africa this would mean that Africans who are not citizens of South Africa will be allowed to enter the country with the passport of their country of origin. This must be part of government’s policy outlook. The 5 million odd working class Africans from outside South Africa’s borders are either people who are there as a result of the UNHCR’s dispersal programme (people who fled their countries of birth as a result of conflict, wars of plunder or regime change, etc.) OR they are there because they stole through the borders because they cannot afford these special documents of entry. They are therefore rendered vulnerable to repatriation operations of immigration officials who are seasoned and case hardened through the years and years of experience in keeping unwanted sections of the population in their balkanised positions. If South Africa had an open border policy, these individuals would not be illegal in the country. In fact, the notion of an ‘illegal alien’ would not have existed.
The second element of your comment requires somewhat of a complex treatment. I get the sense that you lead us into believing that the cardinal reason for working class South Africans from the townships turning on Africans who are not South African citizens hinges on delivery. It only appears to have been the case. I remain unconvinced that it is so. There are two factors that give us an insight into the forces at play here. Firstly: despite the alliance’s predomination as a political tendency in South Africa, we did not see a progressive political intervention by the ANC/COSATU/SACP alliance when it became clear that the xenophobic attacks would become an issue of national political significance. We did not see branches of the alliance launched into a progressive education campaign to stem the tide. This, however, is a truism. The real question is why did this not happen? Could it be that the alliance harbour the same xenophobic sentiments and that this explains the sleep-walking through these attacks? I am not convinced that this is entirely the case – elements of the leading layer of the alliance betrayed such sentiments, but as an entity it cannot be said for the entire leadership, I think.
I think the reason lies somewhere else, which brings me to the second element. The ANC rules on a delicate balance of consent and political and organisational demobilisation. Whilst people in the townships vote for the ANC, the organisation does not rule on the basis of its electorate base’s opinions influencing the political outlook of the ANC. Why did these attacks not happen ten years ago? Or earlier? It points to the political and organisational demobilisation of the working class in the townships. Strong organisations and a vibrant, progressive political culture are powerful levers against this sort of sliding. These do not exist and I believe the key to why the working class in the townships turned on their class brothers and sisters who are not South African citizens lies in this.
@ Haydn: you are correct, “capitalists will not just shy away from our business environment because there is cheaper labour Up Africa”, cheaper labour follows the trail of capital’s concentration. This is what happens: South African capital extract profit from Africa, undergo a metamorphosis and bring it over the borders to concentrate in Johannesburg. Guess what happens. Labour follows the concentration, capital does not have to relocate. Your point about ‘skilled labour’ proves this behaviour of capital spectacularly. Mind you, the way you put it makes it sound all so natural, as though the invisible hand of the market is not involved here. You said “[o]ur neighbours, perhaps more importantly, feel the pinch of skills leaving their economies”. You did not think the curriculum in township schools are the same they teach at the so-called Model C schools or private schools, did you? Whilst education in the townships is in a sorry state (to say the least), Home Affairs is encouraged to streamline its efforts to attract ‘skilled labour’ from African countries. See, the South African economy concentrates both material and human wealth, both extracted from elsewhere on the continent.
The second part of your argument rests on the issue of economic convergence. It holds that the hordes will storm from poor countries to affluent South Africa and leave their own countries near depopulated (forgive me if I crudify it, but if this is not what you say, there would be no need for this element you raised in your comment).
Let’s keep the discussion close to home for a minute: South Africa is a country of vastly uneven development, yet with all this, the poor parts of the country were never left uninhabited as a result of some massive exodus to more affluent parts holding the promise of better living standards. There will always be small sections of any population moving to and fro, but never to the extend that it changes the face of that country’s population settlement beyond recognition. From the early 2000′s Britain experienced a large inward migration of Polish nationals, but today a small fraction of these EU nationals remain in the country (despite the protests of xenophobic Britons that “them outsiders are still too many”).
If your argument, however, is that what I advocate may encourage and indeed, facilitate economic convergence, I would agree with you, but there is simply no reason for anyone to believe that people from countries north of South Africa will behave differently to, say people from Lusikisiki.
@ Dante: read my post again and get back, speedily to your comment (but this time, do it s-l-o-w-l-y)…you’ll find it surprising that no-one had burst out in homeric laughter.
@ Lyndall: part of your comment is addressed in what I said to Haydn…but you certainly don’t hold that southern africa must follow the blood-trailed example of Europe, do you? Close to equal? Capital is not interested in equality of any sorts. Not in development, not in representation, not in relations between people with different genders or skin colour – capital IS about inequality. Of all sorts.
Criminality is around us irrespective, Lyndall. Connecting my call for open borders to it attracting criminals is rather disengenuous. It whips up the same irrational fear as those who prophecy about the dark horde of Africans coming to besmirch our lily white suburbs (now with its few lily white blacks).
Steven
Close to equal between economies of neighbouring states, not individuals in those states. Don’t be obtuse.
And if your argument is ratinoal there would be as many Zim refugees in Zambia as in SA. There are not! Nor in Botswana – but then Botswana keeps them in camps ! So does Kenya. In fact one of the most interesting article that I read was about the Somalis in the Kenyan camps, who were given land next to the camp to farm, and did it so well they provided a surplus for sale to the locals – who did not want them to go home!
@ Lyndall: I repeat: I have dealt with this part of your comment in my reply to Haydn re economic convergence. Nothing you say here (August 15th, 2008 at 12:55pm) represents anything close to an analysis of my proposition and its relation to the world as it is. Your narrative says what? That people will in all likelihood move to where opportunities seem better? The likelihood is there, yes, but an open border policy does not quite imply this. Treatment of ‘Zim refugees’ by other Southern African border control and immigration agencies does not provide the decisive insight as to why more are in South Africa than elsewhere; you seem to be so wedded to counsel on what a globalised world we’re living in, here’s your chance to penetrate the depths of capital’s concentration tendencies and its impact on migration patterns. This, I hold, is the key to your apparently puzzled bemusement of the discrepancy in absolute numbers of ‘Zim refugees’ (a really detestable term, I believe) in respective Southern African countries.
Steven
Look at a recent practical example – Germany. West Germany was the most flourishing economy in Europe. When the Berlin Wall came down, and they incorporated the much poorer East Germany it really knocked the average of the normal ordinary West German citizen way down. For historic and cultural reasons they were prepared to pay the price.
In Southern Africa – we should not be opening our borders to all at the expense of our own poor, but helping them uplift their economies till we get them to parity so that the borders can be opened.
The price of open borders is on the poor, not the rich, black and white ( who merely have more expansion opportunities into new markets – SA is colonising the rest of Africa as it is).
Brother Enrico, I suppose all the ‘blacks’ born and bred in Europe are illegal there too.