The Free Movement of Labour & What it Means for Nations

True globalization means not only the free movement of goods and capital, but of labour. Many seem to forget this (Vox Day has written extensively about the free movement of labour and its implications for nations in terms of the economy and culture).

All else being equal, as the pool of available labour increases, the price of labour decreases. This is simply market forces at work, where people scramble over each other just to secure a job.

In a world operating under the principles of free trade and mass immigration, the global supply of labour travels to where it can be utilized in the most economically efficient way.

This was one of the key goals of the European Union: It was believed that the economic output of Europe could be enlarged if labour mobility was unhampered by onerous travel restrictions. In order for the continent as a whole to expand economically, the ability to travel from country to country was instituted, permitting people to journey to where they’re particular sets of skills are most in demand (think about the large number of Poles that have left Poland for places like Britain).

The Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP) in Canada is an other example of this; a large number of qualified workers are needed to fill a wide variety of jobs, so businesses press the government to import people from other countries (the same is true of H1-B Visas in the US).

Businesses prefer to employ these foreign workers, not only for their work ethic and willingness to accept lower wages, but because they have fewer options available due to restrictions imposed on them via the TFWP program. In addition, because many of these workers come from impoverished countries that offer them little in the way of decent employment opportunities, they are less inclined to quarrel with employers and happily accept working conditions and schedules that the domestic population would not.

The problem of course, is this comes at the expense of the domestic work force.

We are already seeing the effects of this: wages are stagnant in many industries, contract and temp work is on the rise, personal debt levels are climbing, and disposable income is becoming more and more scarce.

On the flip side, greater numbers of people are being lifted out of poverty around the world.

The logic is impeccable: Globalization transfers wealth from the First World to the Third World. The First world has a surplus of wealth, and as economies consolidate, some of it gets transferred to the Third world.

As global competition intensifies, economic efficiency becomes king. Wages fall to be more in line with the global average. This is the end result if free trade if taken to its logical conclusion.

Profits also fall, as the few firms that rise to the top emerge as international monopolists.

There is one particular problem with the free movement of labour: more people are moving from Third World countries into First World countries.

In order for nations to trade effectively with one another, and assuming international trade grows, many Canadians will have to leave Canada to obtain work.

It is simply not possible for the whole world to emigrate to Canada, the US, Europe, and Australia – some Westerners will have to leave for Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East. This is what free trade entails; it necessitates that nations trade not only their goods and services, but their citizens as well.

Interestingly, one individual who was a gleeful proponent of free trade was Karl Marx, In a speech delivered to the Democratic Association of Brussels on January 9, 1848, he said:

But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade (Lawrence and Wishart, 1976).

Karl Marx believed that free trade would help usher in an era of international communism, which would facilitate the destruction of the capitalist class and eventually trigger the “withering away of the state.” The end result would be a workers paradise free of exploitation, usury, and poverty.

Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of a world culture (c) Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state – they will be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their backers in the higher classes (Peter Myers, 2003).

The era of the global communist revolution was short-lived (1917 – 1923) and failed to produce a lasting impact; the political ideology was soon infused with a nationalist bent to appeal to populist tendencies. States did not “wither away,” and, instead, grew prodigiously until they enveloped the populace under an iron fist of terror and subjugation.

The end goal of globalists, it seems, is the complete political and economic consolidation of the nation states. Therefore, national identities must be erased or diluted, so that people can become global citizens – and what better way to achieve that then to liberate labour from the shackles of borders. Like Marx, the globalists understand that free trade enables the destruction of nations.

The distinctive ethnic and cultural makeup of nations, in the end, suffers a blow, as each one becomes simply another business division of Earth Inc.

Notes

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 6 Lawrence & Wishart, London 1976 {p. 465}

Peter Myers, “Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism),” July 7, 2003

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*