Why isn't mass immigration frowned upon in here? I think there are many...

Anthony Martin
Anthony Martin

Why isn't mass immigration frowned upon in here?
It is, we just focus on the causes of it. The actual negative effects of mass immigration also aren't particularly worse than those of free trade in general - things like "outsourcing" are also bad for workers. The current mass immigration really is directly related to people fleeing countries that have been blown to fuck up. This "blowing the fuck up" process creates a problem in the first place, and we'd still have that problem even with strict enforcement of borders.
Also, I'm gonna go ahead and dispute advocacy for automation. It kills jobs, and doesn't assure that we can overthrow the system - if anything, it could just as well pave the way for a society where wealth is even more centralized and workers have even less will to resist.
Japan itself seems like a poor example, too. It's a lovely country, sure, but they're not on a great track.
It destroys the society's ethnic and cultural background. Even if traditions and ethnicity are not important to many of you, I don't think they should be abolished and destroyed in the name of such a backwards production mode.
Are you suggesting we just send them all to America or something?
Ethnic makeup and traditions change all the time. Don't allow them to be changed through force or violence or whatever, but people should understand that migration events are something that happens. How they happen is a question worth asking, but if they'll happen probably isn't.

Adrian Reyes
Adrian Reyes

Why is that good?

Josiah Green
Josiah Green

For once I agree with the tripfag

Jacob Evans
Jacob Evans

Even if you unionized every single worker currently working, increases in labor supply would still fuck those wages up, especially if the rise in supply is stable. This is not to mention outsourcing of labor to companies outside of the country or foreign workers with permits.

Ryder Stewart
Ryder Stewart

Honestly I don't believe in anarchism. You need structures and hierarchies to some extent, total chaos isn't gonna solve anything.

Jayden Russell
Jayden Russell

I'm a namefag. Get it fucking right.

Evan Thomas
Evan Thomas

Ignored, hidden, and reported.

Christian Barnes
Christian Barnes

1) It perpetuates an unsustainable mode of production based on exponential growth

The unsustainable mode of production is already being perpetuated. The MoP has nothing to do with who lives where. If your arg is capitalism will collapse faster if we let developed populations age, youve already answered the question since what we think right now doesnt matter since we don't determine policy. When we do, well change the mode of production (or, when we change the mode of production is when we can make policy).

2) It is detrimental to the environment. This mode of production doesn't accounts for the limited state of natural resources

These people will be alive and capitalists will be investing capital as profitably as possible regardless of where they live, so immigration is irrelevant to the environment.

3) Low quality jobs become the norm,

If these people lived somewhere else and couldnt move capital would just invest more where the poor live since you make more profit where development is lower. Immigration has no impact on automation since tech advancement always goes as fast as possible. Low quality jobs being the norm is what fuels immigration, not the other way around. Simple farm work has always paid shit for example. Slavery became unprofitable when industry subsumed agri, low wage jobs become unprofitable as high tech subsumes uneven industrialism.

4) It delays the implementation of automation

Automation is equally as profitable either way, its limitation is the state of tech not local wages. Given competing industrial centers automation will be developed as rapidly as possible in any event.

5) It expands the breach between the rich and the poor

The only meaningful economy is global, not national. If the poor are outside the country inquality is equal to if they are inside.

6) Countries which adopt the mass immigration model won't be able to compete with countries forced to innovate

Those countries will also have inefficiencies due to labor shortages, it evens out. Countries with mass immigration are developing automation just as fast.

7) It robs developing countries from one of their most valuable resources, workers

Those countries can receives wages back from dev'd countries on which many of their citizens rely. Again, you cant stop this from happening until you can make policy and when you can, why not counterbalance by sending people out to less dev'd economies to bring them up to speed?

8) It destroys the society's ethnic and cultural background.

Ethnic and cultural background is nothing. What you call tradition displaced something else. Why dont you mourn this? Because you accept it as necessity. The destruction of particular cultures and ethnicities as they currently exist is necessary at this time, because the impact of capital vs living labor is always increasing. Sorry.

The value attached to these "spooks", should, in any case, be much higher than the value of fostering such system.

When we get rid of this system were coming for your culture. Genetic engineering for example will make ethnic difference malleable without interbreeding. Culture is merging. All you can do is find what in your culture is worth sharing and universalizing. All else will be discarded, just as past cultural features have been discarded (are you sad you no longer worship the sun?).

Why not advocate for a mode of production similar to that of Japan?

Why do you think different countries have different modes of production? Its all capitalism.

With lowering birth rates comes less use of resources and the need for innovation and technology to avoid collapse

Why do you think older populations will innovate faster? There are not only survival pressures but muh competition.

I think this model is the only one that ensures a peaceful and calm transition

You think enforcing third world kill zones people cant leave from will be peaceful? How about they shut off trade and immigration from the west in response?

to a new mode of production in which the working class is abolished and substituted by machines, at least until machines become sentient and kill us all for oppressing them for so many years.

Not sure the machines will see it this way rofl. Regardless, communism is global, the working class is to be abolished worldwide.

Choosing automation over immigration

False dichotomy. Theyre clearly choosing both/and at the moment.

will rob the bourgeoisie of the power that a human desperate for work can provide

The desperate people will just be somewhere else, leading to more investment in poor countries and less where you want it to go. What will drive them to implement communism is economics, not popular demand.

Sorry for possible errors, English is not my first language.

Perfectly comprehensible to me.

Luke Cook
Luke Cook

Why isn't mass immigration frowned upon in here?
Stopped reading right there. This is your first day here and you think we are liberals. We are always shitting on mass immigration. But since you are a /pol/yp you think because we understand there is an underlying economic reason for this it means we support it. Those people aren't flat Saturday morning cartoon henchmen, they are trying to find a better life. First, we should stop brain draining and exploiting the third world. The only way that is possible is if we end capitalism.

Grayson Morales
Grayson Morales

I just can't find it in myself to blame and hate on immigrants for trying to flee the shitty conditions the capitalist West is primarily responsible for.

Levi Reyes
Levi Reyes

Many leftists view it as the moral duty of rich countries to atone for imperialism by offering citizenship to people in the global South.

Nathan Cooper
Nathan Cooper

These are all points addressed by a plethora of Marxists, and I would say that most people here see it as some sort of ethical blackmail: you either adhere to a nomadic globalized economy in which every atomized individual has to costantly move to new countries in order to suppress his leverage, or you let these people, who are currently living in truly terrible place and, again, they are people, human beings like us, die in miserable conditions, wether it's war, famine or tiranny.

In the mainstream medias most leftists will defend dogmatically immigration, but this happens because they do not want legitimate arguments to be co-opted by far right populists. This does not mean that criticism of immigration is necessarily a taboo, since what is to be criticized here is not immigration itself, but how it's being handled and exploited to further the domination of capitals over the global proletariat.

It is a very tricky subject, that's for sure.

Carson Nguyen
Carson Nguyen

Migrants also make it harder to unionize for the same reasons they drive wages down. They expand the reserve army of labour. Porky has an easier time firing people at his discretion when there's a constant inflow of labourers.

Luis Martinez
Luis Martinez

leftists
That's a funny way to spell libshit.

Robert Gomez
Robert Gomez

Self-described Communists here in the US are out protesting immigration restriction for basically this reason. The vast majority of self-identified Communists are libshits.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit