I have just finished reading the Zine that E printed out and I must say good job. I wish I had taken the time to write something; but I really didn’t feel inspired at all, and I just let it go. It is quite interesting to see writing by people I know, relating events I have heard of, but in so much more details. Now I am inspired to write, and the reason is the contribution by nobordersmanchester about the ‘English’ anarchists, pp 18-20. Here is what the contribution says:
The ‘English’ anarchists – of that identity they seem to be proud – write on blogs and discussion forums that they will stand in defence of the working class when the “liberals” of No Borders abolish immigration controls in favour of capitalist exploitation. There is Matt D., member of the IWW and Liberty & Solidarity who blogs at ‘workers self organisation’. He draws a distinction that could have come straight from a primitivist or gated-communities pamphlet: “no borders… or community control of resources”. The No Borders position for him is “un-anarchist” as it “can only be realised if some large international body enforces it”. Or take 9/11 Cultwatch writer Paul Stott who finds it hard to believe that anarchists would “travel to another country” in solidarity with migrants rather than staying here in solidarity with workers facing recession. Even Class War founder Ian Bone on his blog defines class struggle in national terms: “it’s our England we will fight for”. Paul Stott again adds to this a typical expression of labour movement nationalism: “Is there anything more likely to drive down existing wages than mass immigration?”
I had a good opinion of anarchists from the UK this far; but I guess it was because I was interacting with No Borders anarchists. This drove me fucking nuts all afternoon, the reaction included, and I intend to go yell at the fuckers who wrote all this bullshit the way I yell at the fascist cops. If you can listen to this song, you’ll get an idea.
Let’s start with the idea that abolishing immigration controls goes in favor of capitalist exploitation. This is what the author responds, in his first point: « To say that capitalism would benefit from no borders is to overlook the role border control has served and continues to serve in the maintenance of an exploitative status quo. »The author says, therefore, that borders are part of capitalism; the moron above says it will benefit from their disappearance. What is capitalism again ? It is, in a nutshell, absentee ownership defended by the state, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a ruling elite. What then has movement control to do with it ? Nothing. A nation-state makes a difference between natives and strangers; decides to enforce movement control. The author is justified to point out that borders make migrants more vulnerable, and that certainly helps exploiting them; but abolishing borders would not, in and of itself, hurt or benefit capitalism as an economic system of exploitation, since the number of people on a land, higher, lower, or identical, cannot possibly put an end to, nor create, the said exploitation, which exists artificially and is enforced by the state.
The concentration of wealth is what makes workers, all workers wherever they’re from, so helpless. Free movement will make migrants less vulnerable/more independent once they arrive; but they’ll face the same hardship in making a life for themselves. So instead of trampling on people’s rights, you might think of trampling on the pigs who shouldn’t even have all this power to begin with. Why do anarchists think with a capitalist framework, I can only wonder.
Next, Mr Matt D., who is lucky his last name didn’t appear on this zine, says « The No Borders position can only be realised if some large international body enforces it. » Uh. Sorry ? Isn’t there a large international body already enforcing borders ? Something kinda like the thing that starts with European and ends with Union. Borders are not natural, they are created from scratch by states after wars and negociations between ruling elites. What sense does it make for any anarchist to support a border around millions and millions of square miles, a border that only exists because of states ? None at all. It simply means a cuckoo needs to find its nest; near an asylum, preferably. Would be quite appropriate.
What to make of the distinction that seems to scare anarcho-communists, or wherever the Nick Griffins Mk II quoted above actually are on the political spectrum, that no borders would mean a community couldn’t control its resources ? First of all, No Borders means no national borders, obviously. We thought the slogan ‘No Borders No Nations Stop Deportations’ was clear enough. This specification is also found in the activist trauma support bit, page 27. (« Whilst everybody involved is working towards No (National) Borders, there are still personal borders which need to be respected. ») And now, I need to break it down to the idiots who have no brains: the reason there isn’t any control of any resource by any community in England, and the reason there cannot be any such thing, is because your ‘community’ is a nation controlled by a state; and this control comes through a legislation, and this legislation holds sway over a territory, an immense piece of land, which is the jurisdiction of the pathetic ‘community’ which Ian Bone calls his; in order for all this bullshit to make sense, there has to be borders separating nationals from non-nationals. That’s how borders work you idiots!
The way to community control of resources is through the end of states, and therefore, the end of all borders. May I also add that I do not intend to spend one second near any of these racists’ communities ? What, racists ?! YES. « Or take 9/11 Cultwatch writer Paul Stott who finds it hard to believe that anarchists would “travel to another country” in solidarity with migrants rather than staying here in solidarity with workers facing recession. » Poor workers facing recession! It’s right in front of them ! They’re getting chased by the police, clubbed, tear-gased, arrested and released, they risk their lives trying to have their— oh sorry. My bad. I thought we were free and equal. I guess we were just on the other side of the border where the possibility for a white to be poorer is so terrible that in comparison, the possibility of dying for a brown-skinned is not that important. In comparison you see. I’d like to compare Paul Stott’s ass to Hitler. May he die soon.
And let’s finish with this gem from Hitler’s grand-son, or something:
“Is there anything more likely to drive down existing wages than mass immigration?”
That’s what pisses me off about the response of the author. It’s not there. Doesn’t mention it. Well, what would happen in a case of mass immigration ? First of all, there wouldn’t be a mass immigration. The mass immigration, whatever its degree, is happening now. Second, what the fuck is it with people who can’t add one and one ? Or maybe, what is it with people who can only add one and one. More people, less money ? That’s all they can muster ? What is the response to low wages ? Is it less workers ? Are we going to deport workers elsewhere ? If Hitler’s grand-son was consistent, he would do it. People aren’t free you see, states can control their movement; it’s the community’s control of resources that requires it. England is their community.
No, that’s not how it works for Hitler Mk III. Let’s turn to an individualist for an explanation of why English workers wouldn’t be deported in the name of the community control.
Our courts would want no other authority than this truth, thus acknowledged, for setting at liberty any individual, other than one having negro blood, whom our governments, state or national, should assume to authorize another individual to enslave. Why then, do they not apply the same law in behalf of the African? Certainly not because it is not as much the law of his case, as of others. But it is simply because they will not. It is because the courts are parties to an understanding, prevailing among the white race, but expressed in no authentic constitutional form, that the negro may be deprived of his rights at the pleasure of avarice and power.
This was Lysander Spooner, explaining why Whites are free and Blacks are not, in the America of 1845. Mr Stott wants Black and Brown people’s freedom limited so his cherished wages are better. That is racist. Let him die soon, oh Lord.
I’ve been quite angry, this is very good. I said I’d be. But I want to say that I don’t care much for who is or wants what, so long as there’s this anarchist prefix. That’s freedom, isn’t it ? But when someone pretends to this prefix and then supports an institution which requires a state in the first place, then you’ve crossed the line. Fuck them.
But also, let’s not forget that in addition to bringing a need for jobs, migrants also bring a need for housing, clothing, food, etc. That’s how it works you see. People need stuff, and stuff is provided, that requires work. Oh !!!! Suddenly I’m not a racist English ‘anarchist’ anymore ! And that’s why Mr Stott doesn’t even need to go all the way with his scary-ass comments, and ask for birth control, also by the State, which is only, after all, somehow, the voice of the community. (Cause you see, if there’s more people inside the nation, then there’s less money around for each person! Oh no! Wages down! Malthus, actually a visionary anarcho-communist !)