Immigration and the Global Proletariat

It's just not petty nationalism supported by the US that's a problem.

Were mid-19th-century white Americans workers justified in supporting slavery because freedmen would flood the job market and exacerbate competition, too?

At the end of the day, the third worlds population is booming. We can take in a million, or two million immigrants every year for the rest of eternity, but it's not going to do us any good, or the third world either if we are just taking the cream of the crop from them. Ideally they should stay where they are and we should help them there to get on their own two feet again. the third world is producing more offspring then countries can take in, it will just lead to collapse, and strains are already showing with just the small amounts that have come in.

It's on the same similar post boom decline as the rest of the world…..

Good, force America to break from the logical consequence and conclusion to its actions.

You're not answering my question.

All you'll fuel is reactionary response from the migrants and the natives. Point to one multicultural nation that's been peaceful and stable for any real length of time and maybe I'll shut up.

I would say they are experiencing a lot more growth than developed countries. But you keep telling yourself that.

I guess there's no moral justification for opposing mass immigration, it certainly goes against all anarchist principles. But from a pragmatic point of view, there's nothing for anti-capitalists to be won by supporting neoliberal immigration policies. It only leads to scapegoating, increased social tensions between workers and weakened labor rights. Only after capitalism has been abolished can we have truly free movements of people that don't lead to the detriment of one group of workers or the other

Tbh Africa won't fix itself till mother nature reasserts herself.

Full restriction is bad but a migration deficit between countries is always non-beneficial if its economic migration. The poorer country loses its most educated people and the richer country has to take care of a constant stream of new people.

bump

rational self-interest.

The same way you justify saying 'sorry, you can't eat' when there simply isn't enough fucking food and the douchebag who's coming to eat our food actually left a farm and servants back in india or w/e.

It's also in your supposed self-interest to have every woman confined to the kitchen, decreasing competition of the job market in the process. Do you also support that?

From the pragmatic perspective we could say there isn't much problem with immigration as long as there is something that "mitigates damage" for the already present workers(which at the same time mitigates native vs immigrant antagonism). Obviously things like mass unionization hardly happen anymore, but a man can dream.
Also being "for" or "against" it is a sign of retardation, because the process of getting cheaper workforce is an integral part of capitalism, as the business owners need the cheaper labour in order to sustain the reasonable surplus value/variable capital ratio. The ride never ends and we can't will its end into existence.

Holla Forums is absolutely indistinguishable from Holla Forums when it comes to immigration.

The second greent text is retarded, but being against mass immigration is not fucking Holla Forums. Even corbyn spoke against it

It's incredible how quickly Holla Forumstards forget about the most basic tenets of Marxist theory when brownies are involved.

I'm not disparaging anyone for opposing mass immigration here. I'm just pointing out how stupid the "sorry we're full" defense is.

So, the question of "what is the optimum state of affairs" is of course quite different than "what ought to be done right now", and that itself is "what should be done on a particular issue right now, assuming nothing can be done on any other issue". Asking about immigration quite squarely is asking the third question.

From there, you have foreigners who are being materially squeezed looking to find a place where they will be less squeezed. However, their being able to do so will contribute to the reserve army of labor within the less squeezed places, allowing capital to hence squeeze natives more. The proper course of action for the native laborer is to refuse to acknowledge the reserve army of labor as an excuse for squeezing him and his fellow laborers. It makes no sense why more people being willing to work should translate to reduced prosperity for anyone. However, we are speaking not as the native laborer himself, but random blokes on the internet. The most we are able to do is to make noise that might influence his position. At the moment, he is materially threatened by the foreign worker. If our message to him is that this scenario is good because of equality or acceleration or whatever, he will see us signaling in favor of something that will disadvantage him, and will be repulsed. We must signal instead that we acknowledge the material threat that the foreign worker represents, and challenge him to rid himself of the threat altogether.

This material way of doing things is infinitely more valuable than the morality or justice based view.

I don't think Marx created a post-scarcity society dipshit. We have limitations, letting middle-upper class brown people immigrate away from their problems, avoiding revolution and social change so they can suckle from the teat of imperialism doesn't help anyone but that one selfish shit-eater.

I just don't like foreigners, it just so happens there are numerous justification on top of that to support limiting immigration.

What Fallout game is that image from?

Back to reddit

At least you're honest about it, as opposed to most of those Holla Forumstards who cloak their xenophobia in vulgar Marxist terminology.

Why is she so perfect?

This is not a liberal board you fuck. Instead of calling us name why don't post your opinion so that us mortal can finally ascend?

It's not stupid. Bringing in low-skilled immigration from poorer countries that will undermine the price of labour for the poorest in our society. Pointless moralism about those born abroad helps nobody. I have sympathy with low-skilled economic migrants and I would probably do what they do in their situation but what's the logical conclusion to allowing everyone born in the "wrong" country to move to the "right" country? To allow the entire population of India to move to a richer country?

I never lived in that world so its hard to say. I do think that motherhood is close to a full time job and that a single working unit should be able to support a household. so no. Don't ban women from the workplace.

What exactly does not letting those people immigrate do to the problems, though? It's quite clearly not our endgame, so the reason we'd be doing so is either reformism or propaganda purposes. For reformism, any increase in domestic quality of life is more than counterbalanced in decline in foreign quality of life, And for propaganda purposes, is showing we're against liberal idpol that domestic lives are worth less than foreign lives really worth lying that domestic lives are worth more than foreign lives? Nay; the solution is to not take any stance on the issue other than to point out capitalism's senselessness in making certain people's lives worse because other people are now able to contribute to society.

Pretending the problems with resources is that there aren't "enough for everyone" and that therefore some people should and will inevitably be excluded from it was described by Lenin as "an attempt on the part of bourgeois ideologists to exonerate capitalism and to prove the inevitability of privation and misery for the working class under any social system". Get fucked, you're a reactionary piece of shit.

Sweet yeah let's outsource the revolution! Fool.

Yes, that's it, good worker. Fight over those scraps.

You're right, it is.

What's the matter, user? Don't you believe in free speech? :^)
The actual answer is that we have a lot of dipshits from Holla Forums and apparently "converted" polyps hanging around, but they haven't been able to shed their retarded, backwards spooks yet.

Leftists need to first be organizing among themselves, for education, defense, social support, etc. Once that's accomplished, they need to start integrating with other social groups and organizations, not just to find allies and those sympathetic to the left, but to take on that role of a social unit. They need to be ready to step in during disasters like hurricanes or earth quakes or terrorist attacks, whatever.

Why is this so important? Because eventually, even in places like the US (ESPECIALLY places like the US), the poor are going to be on their own, and trapped between the fortress enclaves of the mega-wealthy, and the borders that keep native proles in and foreign proles out. You're going to be trapped and the only help you're going to find is what's already in your cell when Porky slams the door shut.

And that's the real rub. The Capitalists are in charge of the borders. They get to decide who comes and who goes. So, what, are you going waste your time fighting to keep the proletariat out? Aside from being retarded, that's a never ending battle right there. You'll never win fighting the bourgeois and the proletariat at the same time. Porky is going to keep bringing people in because it's profitable to do so, and he has all the money and guns to make it happen.

All this "are you pro or anti immigration" shit is missing the fucking point. Is it a material fact? Yes. Is it ever going to stop as long as capital is in power? No.

So the only answer for the Leftist is to build the social structures necessary for accepting and integrating them. That means making contacts with mosques and churches and synagogues. That means having a presence in neighborhoods where these people end up ghettoized and abused. That means having the means to help people get the help that they need and providing what they can't provide for themselves. Because eventually you're going to be relying on these people for one reason or another, and you're not going to be able to survive, much less overturn the bourgeois, without their help too. If not this year or the next, the economy is going to break down. You're going to have a lot of people with a lot of needs and no means by which to fulfill them. You've got to cut The Lord of the Flies off at the pass, so that when it all comes crashing down and people are wondering what to do, they can turn to the Communists to help them figure it out.

Because without integration, without building these social structures now, without preparing for when the comfortable world that we knew finally bites it, you're just going to have a lot of scared, hungry people with only their little tribe to turn to, whether it's their congregation or family or gang, and they'll squander their lives eating each other while the bourgeois laugh and laugh and laugh from atop their glittering towers, sipping caviar martinis while millions are left to starve.

Switzerland. China. France. Brazil. Cuba. The United States.

Can't wait to see how you move the goalposts so that these countries aren't "actually multicultural" or "not diverse enough" or whatever polcuck bullshit you use to weasel out of being fucking wrong.

It really depends on how you define multicultural doesn't it? By the modern standards none of those countries are actually "multicultural". In fact a number of them actively worked to squash out their multiculturalism in the name of monoculturalism like France.

I'd say the main point is that all those countries that you gave as an example have a unifying identity that all their various cultures had, had a dominant culture group that was always the majority, and/or didn't get their multiculturalism from rapid immigration.

Gotta say despite this I personally hope that the revolution happens and the nonsense that's causing the immigration ends sooner rather than later because I rather enjoy living in a monolingual and relatively monocultural society and it'd be a shame if Capital manages to destroy the last remnants of civility like it wants to before it bites the dust.

I can't believe my eyes. Thank you, based user.

Thanks for the rant user, really cleared some spooks out of my head.

immigration, like the whole economy, is better off planned.
need 30,000 workers for that biomass factory? advertise 30,000 immigration visas.
need 300,000 skilled and unskilled work for a new green agricultural enterprise and dont have the expertise ready? fine, off you go and put out those visa applications.
most of the people have jobs and a living wage so there will be sweet tax dollars and high productivity with less working hours anyway, so nobody will mind.

It isn't, because (at first glance)

Holla Forumscuck 1

Holla Forumscuck 2

Holla Forumscuck 3

Remember to do your part keeping Holla Forums clean by reporting Holla Forumsfags on sight, all the time, every time.

Of course. Fuck you, you worthless piece of shit.

How is this statement even remotely based in reality? How exactly do all the people and cultures and regions of China have a unifying identity?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_China
What about the Uyghur seperatist groups for example?

How is this statement even remotely based in reality? How exactly do all the people and cultures and regions of China have a unifying identity?
Because Han Chinese make up 90%+ of the population and they speak dialects of Chinese while Mandarin is the largest promoted as the unifying lingua franca that everyone should learn.

Yeah, that just goes to show that they aren't a successful multicultural nation. Which was what the person who asked was originally looking for an example of.

The point is that China does not embrace what is the western defined "multucituralism". The current "multiculturalism" which rejects even the traditional of idea of a cultural "melting-pot" in favor of non-assimialtion and peaceful coexistence of various demographics regardless of how much they have in common.

multiculturalism is not real, culture is always secondary in the organization of a society, if there is a strong communitarian spirit, and a culture of solidarity, people do not rely on their religious and ethnic/subethnic networks and institutions that much.
like in the scandinavian countries, there are always problems with newcoming people, especially with right wing governments liberalising education and the housing market like in Sweden or Norway, but because of the inherent logic of social ownership at least these attempts die pretty soon after causing havoc.
in Denmark for example, the neighbourhood community spirit holds up pretty OK to this day despite some cracks showing there either with a right-wing governing party.

...

I literally said that none of those countries were multicultural. I didn't say they were successful and then that they were unsuccessful. I gave you the definition that is promoted when people talk about multiculturalism today, which does not describe those nations listed historically.

On top of that I don't know how you can consider a country that is over 90% the same group like China to not be homogeneous . Is Japan no homogeneous because 2-5% of the population is not Japanese?

I'm not moving any goalposts you're just annoyed that I'm stating the reality on the ground of countries.

youtube.com/watch?v=J5qEmvL-D0w
Reality check, you are not leaving the prole out. You are importing prole so that you can create a an ethno class. What will happen is that unskilled and uneducate working class will be all immgrants. When you say stuff like >"you're just going to have a lot of scared, hungry people with only their little tribe to turn to"
You are ignoring the fact that is already like this. Their cultural structures are too impenetrable for a native. Their concept of poverty is different for our. They are too different from us. Look at afghanistan, Their material conditions improved like never before under a red goverment, still it was not accepted and gave and excuse to porky to arm a group that overthrow the goverment.
Now tell me when the new working class will rebel against the native ruling class what will happen to whitey? Never underestimate how easily can someone penetrate minds through idpol.
Porky controls everything not only our border.
your post is utopian to say the least, lefty unity is something that never happened and how do you expect the left to ever be able to build contacts with mosques and churches and synagogues when the first one are directly funded by reactionary monarchs, the second by the porkiest motherfuckers around and the third is hated/hates to death the first? Only class can unite us but they are a different class and poor in a different way an with a totally different conception of class. You are forgetting that these people don't really want to be here neither. Also we are literally braindraining their lands, what the fuck you are gonna do about their homeplace when all the doctors and professors are over here?

I've read a ton of tankie bullshit but this takes the cake.

Obviously they are not all this lucky. Part of them is and those people feel of with their condition right now

Hour*

I know I'm not who you were asking, but I basically oppose this. Immigrants are a symptom of damage done. Barring some of them hurts them, but doesn't really hurt the capitalists who can still profit off of the ones that come in plus the larger gains they already pocket from wars, union-busting, and outsourcing.

I wonder if these subjective standards about poverty could be defined by that one thing we tend to describe as "material conditions".

You have an exaggerated burger idea of Africa. While they do have some of the worst places in the world, it's also a huge continent where you can find stability and well fed people for hundreds and hundreds of miles.

And I can assure you that well feed people do not risk their lives to come here. I never said all africa is 100% shit

Aren't most of the Africa refugees Eritrean and Somalian?

Yep. Both are not nice places

Ah, the DRC. I met a mixed race guy at Addis Ababa Intl. who had family there and went to see his relatives. The local police force kidnapped him because he was half white and they demanded several hundred dollars for his release. Unfortunately for them his uncle was a local warlord and sent down several technicals packed with militiamen to free him.
Have you ever read about the Congo Crisis? It's probably one of the craziest wikipedia articles in existence. Belgian oil corporation mercenaries, the assassination of a UN secretary general, a coverup involving various European intelligence services. It's got a plot a writer would be strained to concoct.

Holy shit, africa is a fucking crazy place.
Yeah I've read about congo I'm still looking for a good detailed book about it tho.
I hate shilling for vice, but they made a fucking cool documentary about liberia and that place is crazy as fuck too

Immigration fron the third world to the first world creates a brain drain in the third world. This means that the third world will be impoverished forever.

That last pic is from a movie. I've not read King Leopold's Ghost but I've seen that referenced many times when reading around. I actually lived in Africa for a short period of time and even though it's crazy it's not as dangerous as you would imagine if you're a little street smart and don't go into some of the unstable hellholes like the DRC, CAR, Somalia etc. Generally the further you are from the interests of capital, much like Latin America, the safer you are. For example some of the more dangerous countries in Latin America are incredibly safe if you're in an area that isn't useful for drug trafficking.
It's pretty funny that ancaps disown Somalia because "niggers can't do anarcho capitalism" when many of the more stable African countries are basically libertarian paradises with a heavy reliance on NAP-esque social contracts and private security with massive amounts of tax avoidance and little social security.

*will be impoverished for longer then it would otherwise be.

Right off the bat you know you're in for bullshit and this faggot doesn't disappoint.

t. Rules for Radicals

t. not an argument

bump

bumperino

You could never fix the 3rd-world by evacuating it into the 1st-world. Free immigration under capitalism is practically, economically, and morally indefensible.

Also, while this thread has a lot of Reddit bullshit, like the high-horse hotpocket post, this takes the cake.

How DARE you embed that Wolff clip, which merely argues that the disparity between 1st & 3rd world is a consequence of capitalism, and turn it around to argue that destroying the 1st-world under a tsunami of scabs is somehow good praxis because "dude, porky will do it anyway, we're totes helpless, LMAO".

Fuck you.