Note: This arrived in my inbox a few days ago, with a false return address. The covering note says:
“Please find attached an article which I would like to submit for publication on the Libertarian Alliance blog site.
“If you do not accept submissions, or if you think the article is rubbish, please let me know.
“Obviously the name is a pseudonym, and perhaps it is best to keep it that way.”
We do accept submissions, and the article is not rubbish – though it is rather eccentric in its conclusions. As ever, comments welcome. SIG
Should Slavery Be Restored?
By Arthur St Hugh
“Slavery will everywhere be abolished, or everywhere be reinstituted”. So opined the Virginian advocate for slavery George Fitzhugh in 1854. As slavery has not everywhere been abolished should we now ask whether it should be formally restored?
The date 1807 could instead be remembered as signifying the rise of capitalism as the rival economic system to that of slavery. Whilst Thomas Carlyle would forlornly hold out for compulsory labour the British navy would attempt to enforce the abolition of the slave trade on an unwillingly world. With the conquest of the Confederate States of America capitalism would become the economic system of the West. But Carlyle’s American admirer Fitzhugh had already foreseen that slavery would have another champion in socialism. And indeed under communism slavery would be restored by the socialist. But the gulag would prove to be short lived because industrialisation made large scale slavery inefficient and economically unnecessary. However, while the latifundia of the Southern States and the kolkhozy of the USSR no longer exist, slavery, at a smaller economic scale, not only continues to exist but is now making inroads into the capitalist heartlands of the West.
And what is the definition of slavery: bondage, servitude, exploitation, compulsion, dependence, obligation? – but these are by degree present in all forms of economic life. Perhaps for some people the definition is that which would see a difference between the institution of slavery – formalised, regulated, legally enshrined – and non-institutionalised slavery. But this is a deception, albeit a psychologically powerful one. Where there is the institution of slavery people fool themselves into believing they too might be enslaved, whereas where there is no such institution people fool themselves into believing that they are not enslaved. Perhaps it is the institution of slavery which generates the fear of slavery, rather than slavery itself?
If there can be no certainty as to what slavery actually is we can be certain that there are slaves and that it seems that nowadays there are three types: those used for sexual purposes, those used for domestic work, and those used for light-industrial work.
Women and children are routinely bought and sold across countries and continents, it has been unremarkable for decades. The League of Nations in the 1920s would acknowledge the matter but international organisations have proved incapable of stopping international slavery. Sexual exploitation could well be the most predominant form of slavery, both for women and children according to The Centre for Social Justice’s 2013 report It Happens Here. Prostitution cannot be stopped because of the nature of man, but it can have the appearance of being controlled and regulated – and then taxed. There has been a move to redefine prostitutes as ‘sex workers’, to make it a job like any other, thus making the trade acceptable. Regulating prostitution reassures conscientious male punters that their whore has made a job choice rather than has been trafficked, in the same way that the conscience of those concerned about the environment is salved by the phrase ‘responsibly sourced’ on a tin of tuna.
Whilst Western males’ use of sex slaves is generally in the form of prostitutes, Asian males also partake of them in the form of concubines and it is this market which will grow exponentially this century due to sex-selective abortion. Gender imbalance will make the need for concubines an imperative; as Asia demands so Europe will supply. But, this is not a geographical phenomenon. Sex-selective abortion is clearly practiced by immigrants to Britain as the Lost Girls report by The Independent showed. Whose girls then will fill the place of these ‘lost girls’? The phenomenon of ‘Asian paedophile grooming’ in Britain (the word Asian invariably being used by the media to refrain from indicating that the colonists are from Pakistan) would seem to be an expression of the demand for concubines rather than an expression of an unnaturally high level of paedophilia; and paedophilia is here ill-defined with the British media’s definition of paedophilia in contrast to Sharia law relating to puberty. Pakistan features in the top ten countries for slavery according to the Global Slavery Index 2013; it would seem logical to conclude that some colonists from Pakistan are simply replicating in Britain the practices of their homeland. Considering the profits to be made from this unquenchable demand for concubines the question is will the Government demand a cut? The machinery is already in place: the public accept without demur that children may be taken from parents by social workers and put ‘into care’; who cares what their fate is thereafter?
Servants remained in use in Britain long after slavery officially ended, and their image is in enshrined in popular television series such as Upstairs Downstairs and Downton Abbey. Real life servants came to offend the left’s notion of egalitarianism, but foreigners are not afflicted with such bourgeois feelings of guilt. The preference though seems to be for children rather than for grown-ups in costumes. For the British nowadays children are idlers watching online porn and binge drinking, but in Africa, for example, children are put to profitable use. The International Labour Organisation in its 2013 report Marking Progress Against Child Labour noted that the “risk of child labour is highest for children in sub-Saharan Africa, where one child in every five is in child labour.” As with ‘Asian paedophile grooming’ it would seem that the use of domestic child labour in Britain is merely reflecting the normal economic practices of the homelands of the immigrants; as indeed The Centre for Social Justice accepts this “form of exploitation can reflect cultural practices in a wide range of countries” and that “domestic chores and beatings may have been the norm in their home country”. The report also recognised that “domestic servitude represents a labour market that is out of sight and predominantly beyond regulation” . Yet despite this difficulty the solution proposed is to expend tax payers money without end on various means to ‘safeguard’ immigrant children. In the near future though could there be elected a Government which acknowledges the reality of the cultural diversity it preaches and simply accepts the norms and demands of the immigrants?
If the thought of children being used as slaves occasionally causes a morality spasm amongst Western do-gooders, sweatshops prove to be more problematic, not least because Western consumers are indebted for their low priced goods to low paid workers. Sweatshops are an essential part of some countries’ economy, and Bangladesh is invariably given as the atypical example. Do-gooders have called for improved rights for sweatshop workers, but perhaps War on Want and others have missed the point. For the globalists sweatshops are recognised as a necessity to be extolled. The journalist Alex Massie commenting on the matter stated that sweatshops have been “a force for good”. Having already relocated a proportion of their population here then surely it follows that we should welcome these ‘forces for good’ being relocated here as well? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report Forced Labour in the UK (2013) noted there was “concern about the overall direction of travel for labour markets in the UK”, that “some migrants appear willing to accept exploitative and abusive employment” and that this “can lead to a downward spiral where everything is acceptable as long as those who are employed accept it”. However, acceptance might be obtained by force, but such “forced labour is difficult to detect”. The report recognises as a key factor a “significant migrant workforce with which to fill low end work” and that “the availability of migrant workers has not simply resulted in open work slots being filled readily, but more fundamentally that is has changed work and labour market dependencies “. It is that fundamental change which should be kept in mind.
For the left the issue of slavery can be ‘resolved’ by the application of international laws and human rights – by which is meant regulation. The free movement of slaves has been made easier by the promotion of mass movement of people for economic ‘development’, as overseen by the UN and partners such as the Global Migration Group and the Global Forum on Migration and Development. This makes even the appearance of the slave trade impossible to defeat as it was in the 19th century. Seeking to address the issue with the ‘protection’ of ‘human rights’ is in effect to accept the slave trade, but to regulate it, to make human bondage humane as it were. The ruling elite are just being plain pernickety in claiming a distinction between trafficked workers and migrated workers, however they get here it is still the capitalisation of human beings.
The mainstream politicians are committed to the idea that population growth is essential to economic growth; who can doubt the simplistic logic that more people means more investors, more consumers and more output? A declining birth rate under this theory means recourse to immigration. Add to that the scarcity of labour theory, whereby increasing population does not equate to an increase in those labouring, means immigration with end (a circular argument). Politicians are also wedded to the idea that immigrants by virtue of being immigrants bring economic benefits. The positive argument for immigrants is they reinvigorate the economy by providing innovation to start up new businesses to replace the existing businesses – in other words Joseph Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’. The negative argument is that immigrants are necessary because they do the work no one else will do – which is precisely what slaves do. From the perspective of dynamics, however, there must then be a certain number of immigrants necessary to put the emphasis on the creative part of creative destruction; and what would happen if that number were exceeded, would capitalism then tilt towards destruction? Malthus had previously noted that the “wage of labour will always be regulated by the proportion of the supply to the demand” and forewarned that the “number of labourers also being above the proportion of work in the market, the price of labour must tend to fall”. Immigration economic theory would have that mass immigration depresses the price of labour and thus makes slavery uneconomical. However, this is – ironically – stymied by the promotion of labour rights and the welfare state which means that the price of labour can never bottom out, thus leaving an increasing margin of profit in slavery. Liberals have unthinkingly parroted socialists in denouncing those who criticise immigration as ‘racist’ rather than considering immigration in economic terms; perhaps it is an example of what Hayek described as “economophobia”? Whilst New Labour’s policy of mass immigration can be viewed as an attempt at voter replacement perhaps what should be asked is did Labour’s open door immigration policy tilt the balance in Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction and create a fundamental change in the nature of the labour market? Whether done so with that aim in mind or inadvertently can be debated, but Schumpeter himself believed that capitalism would destroy itself and be replaced by socialism.
What no one seems to have factored in is the immigrants themselves. They are imported to bolster the capitalist economy but no one seems to have thought that they might be more than just economic units and instead have cultures of their own. Importing immigrants en masse means importing their cultures en masse, and in some cases that has clearly included a preference for, acceptance or toleration of, slavery. Mass immigration creates colonies where these cultures can live and grow. What goes without saying it that politicians have been shy to admit their responsibility for this. New Labour’s policy of mass immigration in itself purposively changed the equilibrium in the market to the detriment of the working class, whilst at the same time uncontrolled immigration and multicultural toleration has brought in slavers and slave-owners as well as the enslaved. Joined together these two elements might well create an environment conducive to the formal restoration of slavery. With the unions seemingly following the British working class in turning their back on Labour, and with Labour seemingly entirely reliant on migrant voters some of whom are slavers, slave-owners or those who otherwise profit from slavery, can we perhaps see a time, not long hence, when the new Labour Party becomes the old Southern Democrats? For the far-left this is an inevitability if they hold
to the Marxian view that the superstructure of society reflects the substructure of the economy – and, dare we say it, maybe this development is welcomed by them? Slavery has become a factor of production in the British economy, how it is managed is the question.
The Government seeks to enact in 2014 a Modern Slavery Bill (why the addition of the word Modern? Does it mean we can look forward to Post-Modern Slavery?). This will introduce ‘Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders’ – ASBOs for the overseers – and an Anti-Slavery Commissioner (has calling such appointees ‘tsars’ gone out of fashion?). But an anti-slavery act which merely seeks to criminalise the effects but disregards the causes of slavery is nothing but a sermon from the pulpit, well-meaning, but irrelevant. And undoubtedly it will end in compromise, just as the Government compromised over Sharia law, tolerating Sharia courts in return for the creation of sukuks, just as it compromised over genital mutilation of children, campaigning against it for females but endorsing it for males. Tom Winsor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has recently commented, some “minority communities” police themselves. Can we really be certain then that the Modern Slavery Act will apply to those parts of Britain where other British laws no longer apply?
Slavery has returned to Britain, should it now be formally reinstituted – with appropriate ‘safeguards’ ands ‘rights’ for the slaves of course? For some people, perhaps even for many, the reinstitution of slavery will be a moral dilemma. But the decision to reinstitute slavery will not be based on moral considerations because that is not how bankers and politicians think, rather it will be an adjustment to reflect the new economic situation created by unlimited immigration in tandem with the democratic desire of the politicians to represent the values of the ‘new communities’. The Modern Slavery Bill may tackle the excesses of slavery, but its only effect is, as the UN already does, to make a distinction between what is and what is not acceptable: we all know that plantation whips and gulag starvation should have no place in the global economic agenda for the 21st century, don’t we?
After 1807 English liberals were able to use the ships of the British Empire to curtail slavery, irrespective of the wishes of the world. Now that Britain is no longer free and great, merely “a small island no one pays any attention to”, the world can not only return to slavery irrespective of the wishes of the liberals, but can even do so in the liberals’ own country. Based on current trends, it seems that English liberals will shortly be watching in impotence as slave marts are erected across the British Isles.
 Sociology of the South; or The Failure of Free Society p53
 The Centre for Social Justice: It Happens Here – Equipping The United Kingdom To Fight Modern Slavery (2013) pp34-35
 The Independent 14 January 2014 The Lost Girls: It seems that the global war on girls has arrived in Britain & Main Conclusions of The Independent‘s study
 It Happens Here p41
 Ibid p44
 Ibid p41
 ibid p83
 Ibid p5
 Ibid p11
 The ‘orthodox’ economics of immigration was exemplified by the American economist Julian L Simon