Deal deportation refugees from UK to Rwanda

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
joan
Deal deportation refugees from UK to Rwanda
Printer-friendly version

News :

The UK with 1st Minister Boris Johnson wants to "temporarily" deport refugees from Syria, Afghanistan,etc.who have reached the UK to Rwanda,where they can then wait for their possible recognition.The UK made a "deal" with Rwanda on this.

 

This in the "good tradition" of the slave trade and colonialism of the UK /GB /England.

Just think of the "displacement" of people from India to South Africa, Malaysia, Mauritius, etc., a part of the Tamils on Sri Lanka, etc., and also the exile as punishment for crimes from the "motherland" to Australia.

The same practices applied to other (ex-)colonial countries, such as e.g. France (people from India on Madagascar), the Netherlands (Indonesians, Chinese from Java and China to Surinam, etc.), etc., etc.

Although not identical to the "classic" slave trade and "classic" colonialism, I am also thinking here of the "displacements" of Crimean Tartars and Volga-Germans by Stalin as "punishment" for their alleged collaboration with nazi-Germany.

joan
a "homeland" for the Jews

In addition to the planned "temporary" deportation of refugees by the British government and the easiness with which the capitalism talks about and deals with the "displacement" of masses of people, I am also thinking of the various plans for a “homeland” for Jews as a "solution" to discrimination, persecution and even repeated murderous pogroms.

Argentina, British Guiana (South America) and Uganda (the last two were British colonies) were considered, and finally Palestine (British mandatory from 1920 to 1948) was chosen, where there was talk of "a land without a people for a people without a land", “forgetting for a moment” that Bedouins and others had lived there for centuries.

At a certain moment, before the decision for the Holocaust or “Endlösung”, (a part of) the Nazi regime and even the SS was in favour of a massive move of Jews to their own "homeland".

d-man
good topic

In recent years the EU had some agreements with Turkey and other Mediterranean states (or, in the particular case of Libya, a half-state), to keep asylum seekers there, also temporarily I think, if I recall correctly. As to deportation, it seems one point sometimes made, it that is more the threat that matters, than the actual practical implementation. That is, the threat serves to undermine the status of immigrant labor, making it more difficult for them to try organise, and so pushing down their working conditions. And actual implementation would be harmful to the employers' profit, as they would suffer a labor shortage (particularly in certain industries). Also, there is the question what the prime motive is of immigrants, and if it's purely safety (escape from violence) or from economic motive, and can these motives be really isolated, or ranked.

Interesting historical comparisons, Joan. By the way, on the Germans in Russia, it's perhaps not often mentioned, that the Nazis themselves (prior to 1941) were actively promoting the displacement of the Germans that had been living spread throughout Russia, to settle them closer to Germany (presumably to create a more densely populated German area). I wonder, if it was not this policy that first started Stalin's worry about Russian Germans.

joan
d-man wrote :

d-man wrote :
"it ... is more the threat that matters, than the actual practical implementation. That is, the threat serves to undermine the status of immigrant labour, making it more difficult for them to try to organise, and so pushing down their working conditions."
This looking further, digging deeper than the facts themselves is very enlightening, also with regard to the reasons for not yet actually implementing the deportations ("harmful to the employers' profit, as they would suffer a labour shortage").
As far as I know, at the time of writing there have not yet been any deportations to Rwanda.
d-man wrote :
"Also, there is the question what the prime motive is of immigrants, and if it's purely safety (escape from violence) or from economic motive, and can these motives be really isolated, or ranked."
The "receiving" authorities are always so eager to make a distinction between "real" refugees, economic refugees, "fortune seekers", etc. (Note 1)
I think,it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to separate the different motives for migration.
E.g. climate refugees from Africa.
They can be considered economic refugees (agriculture and cattle breeding, their source of income is disappearing), but often they are also victims of violence, of racism, etc. (also partly caused by climate change and its economic consequences).
D-man wrote :
"...the Nazis themselves (prior to 1941) were actively promoting the displacement of the Germans that had been living spread throughout Russia, to settle them closer to Germany (presumably to create a more densely populated German area)."
Also this fact was totally unknown to me.

More info (dates,names,sources)on this is very welcome.
Quote :
"I wonder, if it was not this policy that first started Stalin's worry about Russian Germans."
Maybe that is surprising, maybe not, given the fact that Stalin lived in a world of his own (Note 2).
For example, he did not trust (among others)the detailed information of Richard Sorge, spy for the Soviet Union in Japan about the invasion plans of Nazi Germany ("Operation Barbarossa").

Perhaps this thread should have been given a more general name, e.g. Refugees.
But I noticed the similarity between the current plans of the British government and previous plans and realisations of the British and other governments / capitalists in times of open slavery and open colonialism.Hence I started this thread.

Note 1

As is the case today with the refugees from Ukraine (young mothers and children, whose partners, fathers and big brothers are fighting for the NATO in Ukraine) and who are immediately regarded as real war refugees, in sharp contrast to refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc., who must thoroughly prove and re-prove that they are really fleeing from war.

Note 2
If that private world is already there to a large extent in the case of "democratically elected" politicians (such as Boris Johnson, such as Donald Trump, to name but a few extreme cases), it is certainly the case for figures such as Stalin (Hitler, Mao, the leaders of North Korea, etc.), just as it was certainly the case for emperors and kings up to WW1 (to name again but a few).

 

d-man
Your thread has a more

Your thread has a more general theme (ie "the easiness with which capitalism talks about and deals with the "displacement" of masses of people") I understood.

joan wrote:
Also this fact was totally unknown to me.

More info (dates,names,sources)on this is very welcome.

The figure of about 370,000 Volks-Germans resettled specifically from SU territory closer to Germany (250,000 of which into Poland), is cited here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_ins_Reich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi%E2%80%93Soviet_population_transfers

Ethnic Germans Resettled by Nazi Germany 1939–1944 in total: 1,880,000.

joan
other title ? & Germans resettled

1)

d-man wrote :

"Your thread has a more general theme (ie "the easiness with which capitalism talks about and deals with the "displacement" of masses of people") I understood."

I had already written what follows before I read d-man's completely justified remark.

-----

In connection with a possible change in the title of this thread.

"Refugees" would not be a good title either (too narrow).

Perhaps "forced displacement" would be an option, even though also this flag would probably not fully cover the load.

Quote :

Forced displacement (also forced migration) is an involuntary or coerced movement of a person or people away from their home or home region. The UNHCR defines 'forced displacement' as follows: displaced "as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence or human rights violations".[3]”

[3 ]"UNHCR Global Trends –Forced Displacement in 2014". UNHCR. 18 June 2015. Retrieved 25 May 2020.” (Wikipedia English)

-----

I am thinking of starting this thread again under a new, better title.

( comparable to what Link did with the thread "Who is allowed to oppose war?")

Of course with all contributions.

--------------------

2)

Thank you very much, d-man,for the info about “Volks-Germans resettled specifically from SU territory closer to Germany”.

(Even though we both know that we have to be critical of Wikipedia too (see threads “Kronstadt 1921”,post # 10,"partial struggles discussion", post # ?and “Russia-Ukraine...”,post # ? (at "partial struggles..." and "Russia-Ukraine...") correct posts not found at the moment)

 

Now read the given texts.

 

d-man
joan wrote: Argentina,

joan wrote:
Argentina, British Guiana (South America) and Uganda (the last two were British colonies) were considered, and finally Palestine (British mandatory from 1920 to 1948) was chosen, where there was talk of "a land without a people for a people without a land", “forgetting for a moment” that Bedouins and others had lived there for centuries.

At a certain moment, before the decision for the Holocaust or “Endlösung”, (a part of) the Nazi regime and even the SS was in favour of a massive move of Jews to their own "homeland".

One should probably not literally ascribe the belief to anyone of actually having "forgotten" that others lived there. According to Kautsky, as a matter of principle, Marxism is not opposed to colonization as such (which existed since Ancient times, as eg Adam Smith mentioned). I see the (Eastern-European) Jewish immigration from the 1880s as just a part of the general European immigration (Finnish, Italians, etc.), which was caused by the 1870s economic crisis/depression. Kautsky at the time wrote a couple of interesting articles about emigration/colonization, as the migration idea was also a popular topic in Germany then. By the way, iirc the anti-Semitic brother-in-law of Nietzsche migrated to Latin-America to start a "Jew-free" German colony there, because he believed Germany was under Jewish influence. Thus far, in a sense there's nothing particularly unique or special, that a small number of Jews in this general wave of European migration went to the Ottoman Near East. The particular aspect is perhaps that Jews (unlike eg the Italians), had no colonies of their own to go to, and the imposition of migrant restrictions (after WWI in the US). Even in British Palestine there were restrictions.

But another migration aspect of the 1870/80s depression period, that I find interesting: Engels/Kautsky made the prediction/warning that the opening of China (as capitalism was searching for markets) would cause a flood of cheap Chinese labour into Europe (similar to Irish into England, but on much larger scale). It's interesting to me, that they had a belief in such a great mobility (of such great number of people, over such a great distance). They were very alarmed about this. It didn't happen (maybe because China wasn't really opened to capitalism so fast as they predicted), but some Chinese at the time did go to the US (btw the political opposition to this came from petty-bourgeois Americans, not mainly from proletarians).

joan
----------d-man wrote :

----------d-man wrote :
"One should probably not literally ascribe the belief to anyone of actually having "forgotten" that others lived there".

Of course (except perhaps for a few very ill-informed or simple souls) those who spoke in connection with Palestine of "a land without a people for a people without a land" had not "forgotten" that Bedouins and others had also lived in Palestine for centuries.
But that statement and that view was fully in line with colonial thinking.
Of course one had not "forgotten" that in America (both North, South and Central America (with all their differences) also people lived.
Of course one had not "forgotten" that also in Africa or in Australia or in New-Zealand people already lived. (Note 1 )

Many explorers and sailors had already reported this.
For Palestine there is also the almost simultaneous approval (to get their support against the Ottoman enemy in WW 1) by the Britsh of promises to Jews (Balfour-declaration) ("national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine,1917)) and to Arabs (who among other places also lived in Palestine) ("Lawrence of Arabia",the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence(1915-1916)).

There was also the “Sykes–Picot Agreement, a 1916 secret treaty between the United Kingdom and France,[2] with assent from the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.” (Wikipedia)

After WW 1 (and the victory of the Entente on the Ottoman Empire) became the UK the mandatary of the "League of Nations" in Palestine, but also the de facto boss in almost the entire Near East, except for Syria and Lebanon, which fell to France.
To be clear, it cannot be a problem, it should not be a problem, that people of different faiths (if it played a major role for most Zionists) live together in the same area.
But in a class society it is often a problem or maybe better said something that is constantly used, also and especially against the workers struggle, its struggles and its class consciousness (see apart from Palestine/Israel, e.g. also Northern Ireland (Catholics and Anglicans), India-Palestine (with Hindus and Muslims),etc.).
----------d-man wrote :
"According to Kautsky, as a matter of principle, Marxism is not opposed to colonization as such (which existed since Ancient times, as eg Adam Smith mentioned)."
Kautsky made important contributions to the spread of Marxist thought.
But it seems to me that Kautsky (to put it mildly perhaps) was also very much a product of his time, the time of the rise of world capitalism.
I am not sufficiently informed about what the position of Kautsky and others in the social-democracy or marxist movement was on colonisation.
Question : is colonisation the same as colonianism ?
----------"...colonization as such (which existed since Ancient times..."
But of course that in itself is not an argument for being for or against colonisation as a Marxist. Most probably d-man doesn't mean it either.
As we know, after primeval communism there was a succession of all kinds of class societies (slaveholding society, feudalism, capitalism), so the fact that e.g. colonisation existed since ancient times (e.g. with the Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans) cannot, in itself, be an argument for or against colonisation.
But this does not prevent Marxists from being uncompromising opponents of slavery (and of course also of wage slavery).
The erroneous and a-historical idea of "it has always existed" (and thus usually followed up implicitly or explicitly by "it will always exist") is completely alien to Marxism.
----------d-man wrote :
“I see the (Eastern-European) Jewish immigration from the 1880s as just a part of the general European immigration (Finnish, Italians, etc.), which was caused by the 1870s economic crisis/depression.”

It is good that you point out the general migration from Europe to North America in particular, which was caused by the economic crisis/depression of the 1870s.
That's what you mean, isn't it?
But I think there was an extra element to the Eastern European Jewish migration to North America, namely anti-Semitism, the constant use by the state and higher circles of society of the Jews as scapegoats, often as a bloody diversion for all sorts of "evils" of the regime and of capitalism, and of course as a weapon against the workers' struggle (e.g. pogroms at the time of the 1905 revival events).
The living conditions of (poor) Jews in the Russian empire (e.g., also compulsory residence) cannot be equalled with those of other migrants.
But also in the case of others, I think that it was not always just about migration for economic reasons.

Also the Finns and a part of the Italians, for example, often had at least a feeling of backwardness, of discrimination, of disdain.

In the case of the Finns versus the "great-Russians"(Not for nothing was the tsarist empire called "a prison of peoples") and in the case of migrants from poorer southern Italy and Sicily versus richer northern Italy (Milan, Turin,...).

Here we come back to the comment " There is also the question of what the main motive of immigrants is, and whether it is purely security (escape from violence) or an economic motive, and can these motives really be isolated, or ranked." (# 3)

Of course, there is still a big difference between deprivation, discrimination, looking down on, on the one hand, and outright threats to life, on the other.

----------d-man wrote :

"Kautsky at the time wrote a couple of interesting articles about emigration/colonization, as the migration idea was also a popular topic in Germany then."

Thought not only in Germany, but everywhere in (Western) Europe (UK, Belgium, Italy,...), also as a "solution" for the "social question", for the " workers problem".

The particularity of Germany was that due to its late unification (1871) it originally had no colonies (and later only a small number and yielding little to the motherland), And especially Bismarck, who determined the politics of Prussia and Germany for a long time, was no advocate of colonies.

----------D-man wrote :

"By the way, iirc the anti-Semitic brother-in-law of Nietzsche migrated to Latin-America to start a "Jew-free" German colony there, because he believed Germany was under Jewish influence.”

The idea that Germany was under Jewish influence was widespread, especially among members of the petty-bourgeoisie ,who were often in sharp competition with people with Jewish roots ( as clerks, lower or middle managers in administration, trade, etc.)).

There were certainly "Jewish" large companies (banks, press, supermarkets), but they were not predominant. It is enough to think of companies such as Krupp, Thyssen, etc. to refute the idea of a Jewish Germany or a Jewish capitalism in Germany.

Emigrating to Latin America to found a "Jew-free" German colony there

is (of course) also reminiscent of the many German and other Nazis and kindred spirits who went to Latin America after WW2 (to name but a few of the most famous : Eichmann, Mengele, Barbie).

Ironically (or is it cynical?) already in the 1930's many Jews, "anti-fascists" and leftists fleeing Nazism had also gone to Latin America, and there was also the "leftist" President Cardenas in Mexico who was open to their coming.

I am thinking here of (again with all the differences between them): Trotsky, Victor Serge,Otto Rühle ,etc.

 

More about the Jews who went to the Ottoman Near East and also about the very interesting aspect of migration from China as soon as possible.

 

Note 1

And in South and Central America with civilisations (Aztecs, Incas, Mayas) that could withstand comparison with the Greek and Roman civilisations, so eagerly referred to since the Renaissance as examples to follow.

Which of course does not mean that "native people" in North America, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.were merely "savages", who could only be used as pack animals or even, like the bisons on the North American prairies, could be freely shot.

d-man
Kautsky

joan wrote:
But it seems to me that Kautsky (to put it mildly perhaps) was also very much a product of his time, the time of the rise of world capitalism. I am not sufficiently informed about what the position of Kautsky and others in the social-democracy or marxist movement was on colonisation.
Question : is colonisation the same as colonianism ?

Territorial conquests were sometimes justified by statesmen with the "popular" (appeal to poor people) argument of colonisation (ie migration/settlement). From this it is clear, that they are 2 distinct things.

I'll try to recap a couple of Kautsky's early articles, eg his 1879 article Kolonien und auswanderung: Kautsky distinguishes colonies for exploitation (Latin-America, India), and those founded by oppressed classes or parties (in antiquity Greek colonies in Southern Italy, in the bourgeois era North America). As to the working class or Social Democracy, in general he's against prospects of socialist colony, due to practical considerations (would have to go through transition stage, ie require capital etc.). In a 1883 piece, none of his arguments against worker (settler) colony relate to the effect on local population. For example he argues that even if a settler colony were to flourish, despite all the practical obstacle, such a 'colony' doesn't benefit the mother country, but rather becomes a new competitor on an already overproduction-riven world-market. This is not to say that Kautsky neglected (or justified) exploiting colonies (he shows the brutal horrors of slavery, etc.). It's just that his argument (against colonisation) is about practical difficulties (and the lack of enthusiasm, so "beer-nationalists" may talk highly about colonies, but won't actually emigrate there).

joan wrote:
Though not only in Germany, but everywhere in (Western) Europe (UK, Belgium, Italy,...), also as a "solution" for the "social question", for the " workers problem".

Yes. Kautsky argued against the common claim that emigration would get rid of radical elements. He said mostly backward elements emigrate. But I note, that Kautsky's argument here (against colonisation) is again entirely on practical (and non-socialist) grounds.

joan wrote:
The living conditions of (poor) Jews in the Russian empire (e.g., also compulsory residence) cannot be equalled with those of other migrants.
But also in the case of others, I think that it was not always just about migration for economic reasons.

Yes, but I mean for the debate dealing with arguments for or against migration (colonisation), "practical Zionism" does not represent really anything special, or a unique phenomenon that would require new arguments. Jews were migrating already independently of Zionism. By the way, if the young Kautsky's argument is correct, then Zionism never could be a danger in the sense of "resolving"/weakening the social class struggle, for if only (or mostly just) backward/reactionary Jews would become Zionists, this would be no loss to socialist class struggle, because they were never socialist to begin with.

To apply Kautsky's general arguments (against colonisation) to the specific case of Zionism, he would thus oppose Zionism even if non-Jewish Palestinians were not displaced. That is, just on the basis of practical considerations (and not for any concerns to non-Jews, without listing the historical record of violence).

However, I noted that "in principle" he doesn't reject colonisation (/migration) as such. And it seems to me this is just the Marxist way of conceiving social developments. Today "on principle" Marxists also couldn't reject migration from people to the eg developed countries, even though we're aware this isn't a solution.