International Migration

Full text

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
291
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
27
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Esra Erdem and Maliha Safri
Introduction
This essay presents a critical overview of Marxian scholarship addressing the interrelation
between class and migration. Certainly, how migration affects the logic of exploitation is a
central theme, as is the history of labor, xenophobia, strike-breaking and striking that
involves migrants. We cannot do full justice to the rich variation of migration patterns across
the globe and readily admit that our geographical situatedness (in the U.S. and Europe)
heavily affects the material we select. Ultimately, though, we argue that the conceptualization
of migration contributes to Marxian theory as it crystallizes tensions in and issues concerning
the conceptualization of unemployment, the reserve army, exploitation and the capitalist/
postcapitalist divide.
Inserting the Migrant into Modes of Production
In pre-capitalist economies, as well as in the transition to capitalism, migration assumed
central importance in articulating social relations and the mode of production. To begin with,
transatlantic slavery was thoroughly organized by forced migration, which structured the
production of cash crops such as tobacco, cotton and sugar in the Americas. The brutal
exploitation of enslaved migrant labor power did not only render the slave mode of produc-
tion viable, however. The profits generated from slavery were to prove crucial in financing
the Second Industrial Revolution and spurring capitalist expansion in England (Williams
1944; Grelet 2001; Beckert 2014; Baptist 2014). The thread of migration weaves not only
through the ways that slavery was deeply embedded in capitalism, but also in the transition
from feudalism to capitalism.
1
In the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, human mobility drove the growth
of cities that also occurred with a larger shift in the locus of production from farm to factory.
Driven off the land in the process of primitive accumulation, displaced peasants played a key
part in the consolidation of the capitalist mode of production (Marx 1976). Accompanying
these processes, repressive measures such as the Poor Laws in England were instrumental in
molding mobile populations, considered as vagabonds, into a docile work force (Polanyi
1944). In short, rural-to-urban migration significantly increased the supply of cheap labor
291

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
292
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
power at the disposal of industrial capital, while dramatically transforming the socio-cultural
fabric underlying relations of production.
Marx was among the first to show the implications of the bourgeois conception of liberty
for capitalism and labor mobility. In discussing how the dynamics of capital accumulation
brought with it a constant relocation of workers away from declining sectors of the economy
towards expanding industries, he pointed out that civic liberties such as the freedom of
movement and contract were crucial for these shifts to take place. On the other hand, if
workers had not also been “free”in the sense of being dispossessed of the means of
production to secure their livelihood, they would not have had to move in search of
employment.
Building on these insights, migrants have typically been conceptualized in Marxian theory
as part of the “reserve army of labor,”i.e., a geographically flexible pool of unemployed
workers that capital can call upon as needed.
2
The availability, size and composition of such a
reserve army, however, depend (among other things) on how sovereign states regulate the
mobility across their borders. Today, labor migration programs serve as an instrument to both
facilitate and control capital’s access to the international labor market.
3
Nevertheless, the
constitution of a reserve army is far from straightforward, as it involves negotiating the
interests of migrants, capital and the nation state (both sending and receiving).
The complexities pertaining to this encounter between capital and labor power in the
context of migration regimes have been studied in considerable detail by scholars associated
with the “autonomy of migration”approach. Inspired by the operaismo tradition within Italian
Marxism (see Virno and Hardt 1996 and Wright 2002 for overviews), autonomist accounts of
migration have argued that the process of migration under capitalism is characterized by a
fundamental tension between the logic of mobility and the logic of exploitation. While labor
migration constitutes a productive force that helps capital retain its dynamism, the mobility of
labor power must simultaneously be controlled and harnessed towards the extraction ofsurplus
value.
4
Migration management policies devised by nation states play a crucial role in the
mediation of this tension.
5
At the same time, it would be a seriousmisperception to assume that
the movement of people across borders can be fully calibrated through recruitment programs
and border controls. The authorities oftentimes try to channel clandestine patterns of mobility
devised by migrants through reactive measures such as the closing of legislative loopholes, the
introduction of additional routes and technologies of border patrol, etc.
6
But, as recent refugee
movements demonstrate, an “excess”of irregular migration will always remain, proving
metaphors of total control such as “Fortress Europe”illusory (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013;
Bojadžijev and Karakayalı2010; Papadopoulos, Stephenson and Tsianos 2008).
7
The autonomist accounts of migration thus resist totalizing mechanics that pitch migrants
as objects “pushed and pulled”by markets, narratives that have come to dominate main-
stream economic models of migration. They still conceptualize migration as central to the
encounter between labor and capital, but dismiss the often-used hydraulic metaphor of
migration flows and a resulting (illusory) sense of control over the supply of labor in
conjunction with the business cycle (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013).
Value of Migrant Labor Power, Exploitation and Resistance
We return to how migrant labor power is implicated in the logic of exploitation but is marked
by specificity as well. Migrant workers share with all productive workers in capitalist firms a
relation to exploitation and the extraction of surplus labor. But the migrant also constitutes a
particularity to the extent that he/she experiences a different rate of exploitation. Thus, the
Erdem & Safri
292

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
293
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
universality of migrants’human and worker rights have to be considered in conjunction with
the reality of super-exploitation. To assert migrant human and worker rights, we assert that
“they”are like “us,”and yet, to see their super-exploitation, we have to be sensitive to the
fact that they are different, too.
Three prominent lines of argument have been developed to explain how capitalists can
pay migrants below the value of domestic labor power. First, it has been argued that migrants’
value of labor power is lower (at least in the initial stages after arrival), since the reference
point is still the lower costs associated with the reproduction of labor power in the country of
origin. Secondly, the precarious legal and economic status of many migrant workers results
in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis employers.
8
Consequently, they cannot afford to
turn down a poorly paid job even though they know it is unjust. This is particularly true for
undocumented migrants who routinely experience wage theft, or are not paid legally
mandated overtime or are paid less than they were promised. As migrants revise upwards
their value of labor power the longer they stay in the destination country, the problem of wage
discrimination deepens into unequal exchange. In the first case the wage gap between
migrant and native workers results from their different values of labor power, and in the
second case, the wage gap results from pure discrimination as immigrants settle into receiving
countries.
9
Thirdly, in what came to be known as the segmented labor market (SLM) approach,
scholars described how capitalists create a smokescreen to divide immigrant and non-
immigrant workers into separate, segregated labor markets for the express purpose of
maximum surplus-extraction (Reich 1981; Gordon, Edwards and Reich 1982; Drago
1995). Drawing together institutionalists and Marxists, the SLM approach has been highly
influential in theorizing racialized and gendered discrimination in the labor market by
shifting away slightly from the question of unequal exchange, and towards the segregation
of occupations. While unequal wages for the same job (i.e., pure and illegal discrimination) is
still a problem, it pales in comparison to why some groups are absent altogether from certain
occupations and labor markets. Contrary to Becker’s neoclassical economic model, which
posited the eventual erosion of discriminatory barriers through market competition (Bohmer
1999), SLM theorists like Reich (1981) have shown that wage gaps could be maintained in
the long run, resulting in lower average earnings for all workers and higher profit rates for
capitalists.
Obviously, this raises the question of why capital has been so successful in pitting
immigrant and non-immigrant workers against each other. While the history of Marxism
abounds in declarations of international class solidarity, the fact is that the class antagonism
between capital and labor has been overdetermined by intraclass ethnic and racial divisions.
10
Writing on the Irish question, Marx diagnosed with characteristic fire:
England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English
proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish
worker as a competitor who forces down the standard of life. He cherishes religious,
social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is
much the same as that of the poor whites to the Negroes in the former slave states of
the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money.... This
antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its
organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And
that class is fully aware of it.
(Marx 1977 [1870], 169)
International Migration
293

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
294
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
Numerous accounts in labor history demonstrate how wage competition, job segregation, and
color bars in trade union organization have marred the relationship between im/migrant
and non-immigrant workers. However, it would be too crude to argue that it was the “divide
and conquer”strategy of capital that implanted racism in the minds of an unassuming
working class. Race and class are distinct yet overdetermined social relations; neither is
reducible to the other. Nor do capitalists or the proletariat form homogeneous interest groups
that neatly align themselves on a particular side of the racial divide.
11
The “capitalist class”
(the same knowing English capitalist class Marx alludes to in the passage above) who
maneuvered behind the curtain to foment racism, sexism and xenophobia does not exist as
a homogenous class with homogenous interests, and neither for that matter do the workers.
The extent to which equal citizenship rights constitute not just a necessary but also a
sufficient condition for overcoming discrimination against immigrants continues to be inten-
sely debated within the Left. Balibar (2004) has argued that the reification of that division
between the deserving citizenry and the rightless “sans-papiers”(the undocumented) created a
new apartheid structure in Europe. Echoing the enthusiasm of the “new labor”activists and
organizers, Balibar sees the sans-papiers as exemplary of insurgent citizenship, i.e., pushing
Western democracy to be more inclusive and to live up to its full democratic ideals.
Neither did immigrant workers simply allow themselves to be instrumentalized as pawns in
the class struggle waged in factories. There are numerous accounts of immigrant strikes in the
nineteenth and early twentieth century, which were to usher in major changes in the relation
between capital and labor. The famous 1912 strike in Lowell, Massachusetts, for example,
brought together Italian, Polish, Hungarian, Portuguese, French-Canadian, Slavic and Syrian
immigrants in what would be a massively well-known and successful worker strike organized
by the Industrial Workers of the World. Women strikers held aloft signs saying “We want bread,
but roses too!”—signifying that immigrant workers were both raising economic demands
around wages and also forcing recognition of their basic humanity and dignity. In the 1960s
and early 1970s, South European migrants staged several wildcat strikes against wage dis-
crimination, poor working and housing conditions, and the complacency of white-dominated
trade unions in West Germany (Bojadžijev 2008). More recently, a new wave of immigrant
labor organizing in the U.S. has energized both theoretical work and the labor movement.
Among the catalysts was a major 1990 strike by mostly Latino and undocumented janitors in
Los Angeles (Milkman 2006). Out of this emerged a “new labor”movement, made up mostly
of immigrants in domestic work, taxi and livery, construction, grocery retail and other low-
wage industries in the service sector that were well outside the conventional manufacturing-
based organizing models of trade unions. The permanent “precarity”characterizing many of
the occupations with heavy immigrant concentrations, job insecurity (which sometimes could
mean employment-by-the-day) and the potential status as undocumented immigrants, required
different models of organizing, such as cooperation with immigrant community organizations
and the staging of highly visible publicity campaigns against poor working conditions in
renowned companies. The unorthodox and courageous examples of labor organization and
resistance that have taken place in recent decades have inspired many to look to the new
immigrant class struggles as a harbinger, and perhaps even the base, of a nation-wide renewal
of the labor movement (Ness 2005; Davis and Chacon 2006).
Postcapitalism and Migration
In this closing section, we would like to point out that the interrelation between class and
migration is not limited to capitalism or pre-capitalist modes of production. Rather, it extends
Erdem & Safri
294

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
295
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
to myriad postcapitalist
12
practices in which migrants’economic subjectivities are currently
articulated. The Marxian tradition in which we place ourselves sees noncapitalist economic
forms, organizations and class processes as already existing, rather than deferred to a post-
revolutionary conjuncture (Resnick and Wolff 1987; Gibson-Graham 1996). In our examination
of postcapitalism, we focus on one particular pathway of migrants and cooperativism and
readily admit that this is only one of many directions to take in examining postcapitalism.
Worker cooperatives offer workers one alternative means of securing their livelihood in
a democratic workplace, where surplus labor is produced, appropriated and distributed collec-
tively (Resnick and Wolff 1987; Wolff 2012). For this reason, we describe not only how migrants
are participating in cooperatives today, but how in the U.S. they are in fact the dominant urban
constituency that is forming, running and incubating other worker cooperatives.
In the United States, some of the most prominent worker cooperatives are run by immigrant
women: WAGES (Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security) in San Francisco, UNITY
Housecleaners in Long Island, and Si Se Puede in Brooklyn, New York. In the largest worker
cooperative in the U.S., Cooperative Home Care Associates in the Bronx, 70% of the member-
owners are Latina first- and second-generation immigrant women. Not only are immigrants
themselves participating in these noncapitalist enterprises, they are enthusiastically trying to
spread the model and sharing their own learning experiences by incubating other worker
cooperatives (Bransburg 2011). However, cooperative structures vary widely, even when all
members are immigrants, as demonstrated in at least one comparative case study of two Latina
domestic worker cooperatives in which class dynamics varied by factors such as the organiza-
tional structure of the cooperative, the target consumer market (high-end or low-end) and by
the immigration and social status of worker-members (Salzinger 1991).
Another point of intersection between migration and postcapitalism is through remit-
tances. By sending money home to family members in the country of origin, migrant
remittances are financing different economic practices, some capitalist and others not. One
concrete project in the Philippines, the NGO Unlad Kabayan, established a “Migrant Savings
for Alternative Investment”program, which pools funds from Filipina migrant domestic
workers in Hong Kong in order to help build community enterprises in the migrants’regions
of origin (Gibson-Graham 2006). A portion of the remittance-financed projects are assuming
noncapitalist organizational forms. Another case is of a Mexican worker cooperative
(Mujeres Embasadoras de Nopales de Ayoquezco) supported by migrant remittances that
has now extended beyond growing nopal (prickly pear) to starting the first industrial
processing plant in Ayoquezco (Safri and Graham 2015). The workers (who are all female
relatives of migrants and recipients of remittances sent home by migrant workers) grow,
process, package, market and export nopal among other foods.
Ultimately, though, worker cooperatives may be one step towards a postcapitalist politics of
migration, but only one of many steps required and certainly not without internal contradictions.
Such tensions and contradictions are at work in one of the most celebrated areas and
examples of worker cooperatives in the Italian Emilia Romagna region of Italy, famous for
the high concentration of worker cooperatives. A high-profile series of strikes from 2011–13
inside these cooperatives brought into sharp relief the different working conditions of
immigrant and native Italian workers (Sacchetto and Semenzin 2016). A major point of
contention turned out to be rooted in the practice of hiring immigrants as non-member
workers, thus putting them in a disadvantageous position in terms of lower wage levels,
higher work intensity and job insecurity—in effect replicating the segmented labor market
described above as characteristic of capitalist relations of production. The now-hybrid
cooperative composed of native member-workers and immigrant non-members transforms
International Migration
295

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
296
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
from being a non-exploitative enterprise to an exploitative two-tiered one. Native workers
“deserve”to participate in economic decision-making over surplus, but immigrant workers are
the excluded party bearing the brunt, proving that xenophobia and racism are not exclusive to
any singular mode of production.
Conclusion: The Figure of the Migrant
So often in political economy, the migrant is positioned as an object that is either pushed or
pulled by labor markets, as super-exploited, deployed as a tool against native workers, and so
on. These accounts, even perhaps with the good intentions of encircling the issue of
exploitation, are characterized by problems. New Labor scholarship brings to our attention
one of these problems when it describes how migrant-led labor movements and campaigns
have proved historical turning points and may just be a backbone of the contemporary one as
well. Operaismo has turned the full sophistication of its approach to the particular process of
migration, showing it to be a symptom of capitalism. The symptom (the figure of the migrant)
exceeds the capacity of capitalism to control; it is an eruption of excess that cannot in fact be
controlled in the last instance by capital and is daily seen in the global clandestine migration
escaping borders everywhere. Migration is the unruly evidence of capitalism’s inability to
totalize and tame, even as it is unmistakeably marked and cut by it.
We conclude by exceeding the capitalist frame itself, by pointing to the research area that we
daresay is crucial but under-researched: how does migration interact with postcapitalism or
anticapitalism? Even such a question requires further exploration—what is the difference
between anticapitalist and postcapitalist? What political implications follow? We have pursued
only one path, the cooperative connection, showing some of the potential contradictions that
may emerge. Such issues require our most trenchant and insightful scholarship and contribute
to answering to one of the most pressing political questions for Marxism: What is to be done?
Notes
1 Many researchers from the post-Althusserian tradition have argued that different modes of produc-
tion (feudalism, slavery and even communism) are class processes that are current and exist
simultaneously with capitalism. In using the term “pre-capitalist,”then, we describe points in
history in which migration majorly impacted the course of slavery and feudalism. However, we also
think that migration intersects with contemporary slave and feudal class processes, especially since
undocumented migrants are often most vulnerable to these forms of exploitative conditions.
2 Historically, the function of a reserve army has also been occupied by women and racialized groups
of domestic labor. Despite this functional similitude, however, it should be noted that racism,
nationalism and sexism each construct distinct processes of othering. Hence, the capitalist instru-
mentalization of each category of reserve army involves different social and cultural antagonisms.
3 For a classic example see Castles and Kosack (1973) on worker recruitment in post-World War II
Europe.
4InCapital Marx gives a pertinent example of how the mobility of labor power constitutes a
condition of existence for the production and capitalist appropriation of surplus value. Reminding
his readers that “capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons”he recounts the
situation of a Mr. Peel who:
took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of
production to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides,
300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his
Erdem & Safri
296

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
297
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
destination, ‘Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from
the river.’Unhappy Mr. Peel who provided for everything except the export of English
modes of production to Swan River!
(Marx 1990, 932–33)
5 While the economic conjuncture doubtless plays a significant role, the scope of such programs and
the eligibility criteria attached are always overdetermined by socio-political considerations. In the
case of imagined communities based on the principle of ethnic homogeneity (jus sanguinis) such as
Germany, it has proven politically impossible to pass pro-immigration legislation despite intense
pressure from employers facing labor shortages.
6 The argumentation here echoes the operaist position that industrial capital introduces new tech-
nologies of production in an effort to regain control over the labor process. A similar argument
about the failure of migration policies can be found in Castles (2004).
7 Similarly, De Genova (2005) refers to the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border as a spectacle
that is characterized by illusory control.
8 De Genova (2005) has studied the deportability of irregular migrants as a powerful threat strength-
ening the position of employers in the United States. In contemporary China, the residential permit
system (hukou) in effect strips internal migrants of their citizenship rights if they leave their
birthplace without the requisite passes. Their precarious situation (lower than legal minimum
wages, no access to social services, dangerous working conditions, being subject to arrest and
detention) in many ways parallels that of undocumented immigrants in other countries.
9 In both cases, the employer of migrants experiences relative expansion of value, by shrinking the
portion of the day devoted to necessary labor and expanding the portion of the day devoted to
the production of surplus. This is not to say, however, that employers of migrants do not also undertake
strategies aimed at absolute expansion of surplus, as when they extend the working day by employing
immigrants, especially undocumented ones. Migrants go from experiencing equal exchange because
they first arrive with a value of labor power closer to the one in the country of origin, even if it is a lower
one than the receiving country. As they revise their standard of living the longer they stay, but still
continue to receive lower wages due to wage discrimination, then the migrants experience unequal
exchange, since their value of labor power increases but the wages received do not.
10 From the Chinese immigrant workforces used to break railroad strikes in the U.S. (Briggs 2001) to
Moroccan workers being hired by French coal mines after strikes in the 1960s, the examples are too
numerous to list here. Using im/migrant workforces as strike-breakers, capitalists have deployed
and continue to employ immigrant workers strategically to erode the bargaining power of non-
immigrant workers over wages and working conditions all over the world (Bacon 2014). Employers
are also not above scapegoating immigrant workers for problems that the employers themselves
have helped generate (Davis and Chacon 2006).
11 In the apartheid era in South Africa, for example, the interests of capitalists facing an international
embargo differed starkly from the interests of white trade unions. Under the fascist regime in
Germany, Jewish capitalists themselves became the target of anti-Semitism.
12 A postcapitalist vision should not be understood as coming after capitalism, or denying its
existence, but instead as enacting political and economic forms that are not capitalist (Gibson-
Graham 1996, 2006; Mance 2007). The prefixof“post”stands more for a different way of
perceiving the economy and economic development that does not focus on capitalist growth as
the exclusive means by which well-being is improved (Safri 2015).
References
Bacon, David. 2014. “Why Is This Farm Using Guest Workers as Strike Breakers?”The Nation, May 2,
2014.
Balibar, Etienne. 2004. We the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
International Migration
297

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
298
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
Baptist, Edward E. 2014. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
Beckert, Sven. 2014. Empire of Cotton: A Global History. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Bohmer, Peter. 1999. “Marxist Theory of Racism and Racial Inequality.”In Readings in Black Political
Economy, John Whitehead and Cobie Kwasi Harris, eds. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bojadžijev, Manuela. 2008. Die windige Internationale: Rassismus und Kämpfe der Migration.
Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Bojadžijev, Manuela, and Serhat Karakayalı. 2010. “Recuperating the Sideshows of Capitalism: The
Autonomy of Migration Today.”e-flux 17 (June). http://www.e-flux.com/journal/recuperating-the-
sideshows-of-capitalism-the-autonomy-of-migration-today/ (accessed August 6, 2016).
Bransburg, Vanessa. 2011. “The Center for Family Life: Tackling Poverty and Social Isolation in
Brooklyn with Worker Cooperatives.”Grassroots Economic Organizing Newsletter 2 (8). http://
geo.coop/node/636 (accessed August 6, 2016).
Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. 2001. Immigration and American Unionism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Castles, Stephen. 2004. “Why Migration Policies Fail.”Ethnic and Racial Studies 27 (2): 205–27.
Castles, Stephen, and Godula Kosack. 1973. Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western
Europe. London: Institute of Race Relations.
Davis, Mike, and Justin Akers Chacon. 2006. No One is Illegal. Chicago: Haymarket Press.
De Genova, Nicholas. 2005. Working the Boundaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Drago, Robert. 1995. “Divide and Conquer in Australia: A Study of Labor Segmentation.”Review of
Radical Political Economics 27 (1): 25–70.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
——. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Gibson-Graham, J. K., Stephen Resnick, and Richard Wolff, eds. 2000. Class and Its Others.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gordon, David, Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich. 1982. Segmented Work,Divided Workers. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Grelet, Stany. 2001. “The Art of Flight: An Interview with Yann Moulier-Boutang.”Rethinking
Marxism 13 (3/4): 227–35.
Mance, Euclides. 2007. “Solidarity Economics.”In What Would It Mean to Win?, Turbulence
Collective, ed., 66–73. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital. Vol. 1. London: Penguin Books.
——. 1977 (1870). “Letter to Meyer and Voght.”In Writings, Vol. 3., 169. New York: Vintage.
Mezzadra, Sandro, and Brett Neilson. 2013. Border as Method. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Milkman, Ruth. 2006. L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the U.S. Labor Movement. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ness, Immanuel. 2005. Immigrants, Unions and the New U.S. Labor Market. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Papadopoulos, Dimitris, Niamh Stephenson, and Vassilis Tsianos. 2008. Escape Routes: Control and
Subversion in the 21
st
Century. London: Pluto Press.
Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Reich, Michael. 1981. Racial Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University.
Resnick, Stephen, and Richard Wolff. 1987. Knowledge and Class. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Roberts, Bruce. 2011. “Exploitation, Appropriation, and Subsumption.”Rethinking Marxism 23 (3):
341–51.
Ruccio, David. 2011. “Cooperatives, Surplus, and the Social.”Rethinking Marxism 23 (3): 334–40.
Sacchetto, Devi, and Marco Semenzin. 2016. “Workers’Cooperatives in Italy: Between Solidarity and
Autocratic Centralism.”In Social Economy in China and the World, Ngai Pun, Ben Hok-bun Ku,
Hairong Yan, and Anita Koo, eds, 135–55. New York: Routledge.
Erdem & Safri
298

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP27.3D
299
[291–299] 24.11.2016 9:27AM
Safri, Maliha. 2015. “Mapping Noncapitalist Supply Chains: Toward an Alternate Conception of Value
Creation and Distribution.”Organization 22 (6): 924–41.
——. 2011. “Worker Cooperatives: A Class Analysis.”Rethinking Marxism 23 (3): 329–33.
Safri, Maliha, and Julie Graham. 2015. “International Migration and the Global Household: Performing
Diverse Economies on the World Stage.”In Making Other Worlds Possible, Gerda Roelvink, Kevin
St. Martin, and J. K. Gibson-Graham, eds, 244–68. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Salzinger, Leslie. 1991. “A Maid by Any Other Name.”In Ethnography Unbound, Michael Burawoy,
ed., 139–60. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Virno, Paolo, and Michael Hardt, eds. 1996. Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Williams, Eric. 1944. Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Wolff, Richard D. 2012. Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Wright, Steve. 2002. Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist
Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
299
International Migration