Why isn't mass immigration frowned upon in here...

Why isn't mass immigration frowned upon in here? I think there are many arguments that should make anyone realize mass immigration is detrimental to the transition to a next mode of production and to society as a whole.

1) It perpetuates an unsustainable mode of production based on exponential growth, since the next generation must work to sustain the previous ones. The generation must also keep a birth rate high enough to ensure another generation is there to pass the burden to, hence the need for mass immigration in developed countries with low birthrates.

2) It is detrimental to the environment. This mode of production doesn't accounts for the limited state of natural resources, since it advocates for exponential growth instead of seeking an alternative which would be able to cope with low birth rates while maintaining productivity high and use of resources to a minimum.

3) Low quality jobs become the norm, since the demand for jobs increases the offer decreases and the quality of the jobs offered becomes lower and lower. Mass immigration and cheap labor also makes automation unprofitable, thus it is delayed in it's implementation or never implemented, entrapping workers in this model, making in harder to transition to a better mode of production. In case automation is employed alongside the demand for work increases even more, not leaving a security margin in the workforce to account for the jobs lost until the transition is accomplished (if that ever happens), resulting in a deep crisis that could kill millions.

4) It delays the implementation of automation, since as mentioned, increasingly cheap labor makes technologically advanced solutions less profitable.

5) It expands the breach between the rich and the poor, due to the mentioned availability of cheap labor from which one can easily profit from.

6) Countries which adopt the mass immigration model won't be able to compete with countries forced to innovate due the challenges that a low birth rate poses.

7) It robs developing countries from one of their most valuable resources, workers, since many prefer to immigrate to countries where they're better off instead of working to better their own countries.

8) 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.
The value attached to these "spooks", should, in any case, be much higher than the value of fostering such system.

Why not advocate for a mode of production similar to that of Japan? With lowering birth rates comes less use of resources and the need for innovation and technology to avoid collapse, with innovation and technology comes higher productivity and better life quality. I think this model is the only one that ensures a peaceful and calm transition to a new mode of production in which the working class is abolished and substituted by machines, which aren't sentient, so it would be ok for us to become the bourgeoisie that leeches from their work, abolishing classes once and for all at least until machines become sentient and kill us all for oppressing them for so many years .

Choosing automation over immigration will rob the bourgeoisie of the power that a human desperate for work can provide and making the population believe automation is their enemy. Choosing automation over immigration will put them between the wall and the sword, with the only conclusion being transitioning to the new production mode.

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

Other urls found in this thread:


I'm against mass-immigration purely because it drives wages down for domestic workers like me. That's all the reason I need.

I personally agree. It puts pression wages and they are literally a workers reserve army. But there are a lot of utopians here too, I still have to see a good argument from them. Also the Holla Forums paranoia here and some shitposters make these kind of threads impossible here

This wouldn't be a problem if the immigrants (and natives) were unionized, but…

it's straßerism

Also I may add that the board non opinion on immgiration come from the antagonism with Holla Forums and a rudimental understanding of fascism. People here make fun of nationalist, but muslims are the same fucking thing for the majority. So when porky will need to react to communism what makes you think that he will not use them? serious question

Both the reactionary idea of immigration (they took our jobs so they're bad) and the neoliberal idea of immigration (they increase demand so they're good) are so laughably bad if you think about it for one second that I think the presence of the phenomenon is a positive thing. Why exactly would the introduction of more people willing to work be a bad thing, or having to supply more things be a good thing in any economic system that makes sense? That is the sort of question we need people to be asking themselves, and without phenomena like immigration, it wouldn't be present.

That said, the idea of "multiculturalism" being valuable is completely laughable. Immigrants will gradually need to move to the North due to climate change; this is an unfortunate reality that both they and those not aesthetically inclined to their presence must come to grips with. Fist pumping about "sticking it to the evil West" or "cultural enrichment" is fucking stupid, however.


It generally is, its just not seen as the worst thing ever about capitalism, and we usually remember that immigrants are proles who are getting fucked to.

On a more serious note…
Because this condemns a whole lot of people to death and suffering. All well and good to posit that everyone should just stay in their "homeland", but our devotion to capital is about to turn many homelands uninhabitable. What good does it do the Bangladeshi that we develop FALC after they have literally drowned?
This has to be dealt with, immigration is a necessity. Though I would prefer if it were managed, directed, and so on.

In the current global socioeconomic system, mass immigration does not work, hurts the native population, emboldens the far right, and is clearly used by the neoliberal ruling class for their own short term gains, namely: cheap labor, propping up real estate prices and keeping the general population distracted by internal ethnic conflicts so they don't vote for their own interest. In a futuristic Žižekian borderless utopia which most of Holla Forums subscribes to, maybe mass immigration could work.

Lel. Zizek is in no way pro mass immigration no matter the economic system

I thought straßerism was only directed at jews. You can be opposed to mass immigration and not have racist motives, user.

Because it wouldn't suppose a challenge and potential reform to the current model like a natal crisis would.
Limited resources, it would be good if we didn't keep exponentially augmenting the billions of people that are already in this world with no end in sight and instead advocate for a more reasonable model that doesn't relies on vicious circles.

Technology might be able to solve that in the future, specially areas like bio-engineering. If we abandon technology in favor of a production mode that relies on cheap labor instead we won't get nowhere.

mass-immigration is crucial for an Anarchist state.

It causes temporary chaos and confusion, which leads to fall of government, which leads to the anarchist state.

You think when comrades ain't shitposting on Holla Forums they're standing at train stations and airports holding signs saying "Refugees welcome"? Holla Forums don't give a fuck bout immigration. By that I mean we ain't for it and we ain't against it, we just know capitalism can't stagnate or else it goes to shit so Porky needs a steady supply of wage slaves to exploit and new markets to move into. Shooting flares at third world migrant boats in the hopes that they'll sink and drown everybody onboard's ain't gonna do fuck all to stop the problem cuz it's endemic to the economic system the whole world runs on. Tryna slow down immigration so a buncha Arabs and Africans don't take the proletariat's jobs is like tryna transform a capitalist society into a socialist society with SocDem-tier reforms instead of doing what's gotta be done which is bring the whole system down 1917-style.

This is actually good tbqh.

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.
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.

Why is that good?

For once I agree with the tripfag

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.

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

I'm a namefag. Get it fucking right.

Ignored, hidden, and reported.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

Perfectly comprehensible to me.

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 Holla Forumsyp 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

That's a funny way to spell libshit.

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.

Funny how it's always pictures of spooky brown people on boats when we're talking about mass-immigration and how it fucks native workers over, even though eastern European guest workers probably take way more jobs in Europe.

You can literally require all workers to be a member of a union. Workers CAN have that power, and in some places in the US even achieved it (this power being busted by right to work laws). I don't know why the left wing doesn't want to improve the power of the working class by unionizing documented and undocumented laborers alike, instead of saying we need to preserve a thin layer of a privledged worker class that had no power but they can compete with each other to sell their labor.

What does "immigration restriction" mean here?

Go back to plebbit.

The Roo was right all along.

Actually leaving the house over immigration is pretty libshit behaviour.

It's very low on the list of problems in the world. Plus you should focus on the causes instead of blaming powerless immigrants.

Half are for it, half are against it. I’m against it because it’ll cause a brain drain in the third world as only the smartest get out. Making the third world impoverished for longer. Also to all the climetfags out there geo-engenring will become a thing.

This article does a pretty good job explaining my criticism of immigration.

Increased amount of people decreases the amount of open land.

You do know drainage pipes exist. This is why New Orleans isn’t flooded.

The far-right already makes those legitimate arguments but everyone ignores them because of the other rhetoric the far-right produces.

The far-right does not make legitimate arguments against immigration.

this is my take on this:
1. Porky gets a much higher profit out of the wars that create mass immigration and the land he is able to claim than he´ll ever get out of the cheap workforce since the market value of for example the oil fields in Syria are a billion times more valuable than whatever they could produce as cheap workers, plus the amount of value produced by higher spendings on military, police etc.
pretty much works out for the capitalists either way there is money in every form of crisis
2. it doesn´t really drain the home countries of professionals since it doesn´t make a difference if they are dead or somewhere else
3. the point you brought up about competition with low birth rate countries is a) stupid because it doesn´t correlate in an equal manner and b) i couldn´t give less of a fuck about how much the porkies are winning in comparison to other porkies
4.the damage to the enviroment you mentioned in point 2 is more than irrelevant given the amount of enviromental damage every country that´s able to host mass immigration produces is so absurdly high and unsustainable
5.ethnic and cultural backround is dumb as fuck, spooked as fuck, and the value of "0" for the culture can´t be higher than the value "0" for anything that benefits capitalism
6.nigga stop watching anime japan is on the verge of an economical collapse and the life quality is as shitty as it can get in a first world country cause the people work themselfs into depression and complete social isolation
I gotta thank you for bringing up so many points at once though, really makes for a good exersice in forming a coherent standpoint on a political event
also sorry i couldn´t be bothered to do this in any particular order

They make many (though certainly not all) of the same arguments that the anti-immigrant left does but it's all dismissed out-of-hand with "you just say that to cover up your racist motivations". Third-world immigrants are objectively a horrible thing for any economy not based on the exploitation of disposable menial labor and the various arguments themselves are solid no matter who makes them but the charge of racism is such a kiss of death that it gives free license to the uninformed or unwilling to learn to ignore anything said by a "racist" and most of the left is so afraid to be tarred with that particular brush that they don't touch it even though not doing so compromises their intellectual integrity.

Yeah, because far-rightist usually rely on worker-based narratives to counteract immigration. Most of the time it's racism, plain and simple, which then people like you justify only because it addresses an actual problem, as if that was the only possible option.

It's never "capitalist institutions and comglomerates are importing immigrants to destabilize the status of worker's rights", it's always "they come here to steal our taxes through welfare money and to rape our women/spread fundamentalist propaganda/live as a criminal/etc.".

Trey Parker, is that you?

Their goofy "solutions" like building a giant fucking wall are worse for the economy. None of their arguments address the actual problems, like workers exploiting immigrants for cheap labor and wars that cause more refugees.

porky exploiting immigrants*

Immigration is viewed by the far right as being an existential issue before an economic issue and as such the economic points tend to be buried and easily ignored.


The specifically economic arguments do, but pretty much any economic discussionon the right is going to probably involve Jews at some point and that's a kiss of death as far as non-sympathetic credibility is concerned.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it's mass immigration or zero immigration. If it's done for capitalism, it's shit.

Donald Trump didn't invent the wall thing. It was a wingnut thing for like a decade before that, because those were the only people stupid enough to think it would be practical or worth the cost. It's absolutely far right policy, and Trump presents himself in many circumstances as a far right politician. His economics are probably his most centrist policies, and even in that area he's still to the right - ie actually pretty neoliberal, readily abandoning his populist bits'n'pieces. But enough about him, to reiterate - the wall idea (that he didn't come up with and the GOP had given up on because it was too extreme and stupid for most) is far right.

Good post

I think OP is conflating mass immigration with the humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS.

The people flowing in from the middle east to Europe aren't traditional immigrants, they are fleeing an invading army.

Fuck. If I had a family to protect and ISIS rolled into my town, I leave with my family too. Even if it meant going to a foreign land.

Once ISIS is eliminated, or at least reasonably subdued, many of the refugees will want to return to their homeland. Some others will lay down roots and want to stay. But an equilibrium will be achieved.

Until then there is no good reason for us as leftists to sell our souls and side with the right on "mass immigration." Taking in refugees is absolutely within the socialist impulse to share wealth for the good of all.

I don't want to live among baboon peoples and oogas boogas.

Why can't they fight like the Kurds fight?

I thought as socialists we were materialists and pursued socialism in the name of our material self-interest. Not because socialism is a moral good.

But you already post in Holla Forums in a daily basis

fight for whom? they get to 'pick' between SAA, FSA or ISIS - three awful parties to get oneself killed in the name of
not to mention that all three to my knowledge 'draft' any and all more or less serviceable men to fight for them, which is a major reason why so many young men specifically are fleeing Syria

Some do.
But the entire population can't be fighting material. And if you have other responsibilities, like family obligations, it might not be an option.

Sounds like a side debate I don't really want to wade into here. Create a new thread if you want.


Not my problem. They will not invade my homeland while being too cowardly/incompetent to fight for their own.

Non white go home.

Who exactly are you to say again

Yes, user, I am really frowning upon it


But most of them will go back on their own when the crisis is over. Calm down.

Fight for themselves in the SDF under the YPG/YPJ/whatever battalion they really want.

I can't blame them from trying to run away from the war, it's the most selfish decision. If they have the right to make that decision, I have the right to make the selfish decision to send them back.


Guest workers going all the way back to the sixties were supposed to leave too. They never did. I'm afraid they will not leave until the streets turn into rivers of blood


But who are you

Your forefathers came from somewhere else too. Anyway, guest workers are more inline with trad. immigrants, people who have to unexpectedly flee due to say an earthquake or war are a different dynamic.

Quit being so melodramatic. If that's what they wanted they would have stayed in the warzone.

what group
under what allegiance
what if they don't really have any particular cause to rally themselves on, apart from surviving?
ok, but then you have to establish that it is indeed the most rationally 'selfish' option to simply categorically refuse refugee status etc. from Syrians fleeing the conflict. Fuelling the mess with more manpower is going to make it spill across borders and cause other direct and indirect challenges to internal and external security. Not to mention the disillusionment and alienation felt by much of the population should a western nation outright abandon individualist values.

Race war is coming the invaders will be chased to the sea.

But who are you

Don't give a fuck. Shitskins out.

You're all talk tough guy.

But who are you

Also consider this, the drain of the populace from the Syrian crisis is helping to defeat ISIS.

By leaving, and taking their labor, taxes and everything else they are actively resisting ISIS.

They literally are ISIS and will help trigger rahowa and Ragnarok

But who are you and what are those

You're a weirdo

They are fleeing Islamic extremism, in fact.

but user, in you at least pretended to care
why can't you keep up appearances 3 posts down?
also syrians are hardly black (if that's what you mean by 'shitskin') by any definition
shouldn't they be 'based phoenicians' or 'based assyrians' by some Holla Forums definition anyway?

Who are you

They will perpetuate Islamic extremism, they already are in fact.

That's extreme 😎

Non white, non whites out!

Also I didn't care I was merely asking a rhetorical question.

They have been involved in terrorism and are on a continent wide rape spree.

but what control do you have over other people and who are you🙂

That's extreme 😎

In other words, you admit you have no real argument.

I accept your defeat.

I vote.


Shitskin go home

How's that working out for you?

I'll non-rethorically tell you to fuck off then, what on earth are you even trying to accomplish here?

10/10 bait really caught me

Woah woah woah back it up! 😡


Shut up baboon person.👉👳💩


Unga bunga

He's spouting gibberish and posting emojies now.

Can he sink any lower? Let's find out.

Shitskin says what?

Don't even bother replying to my post subhuman, I will not read it.

Looks like a Gaul👨🏼


This is hilarious. What a horrible thread.

it won't be a problem when global communism takes over and we transcend 'culture'.

Iabor arbitrage should end and I don't give a fuck that it will hurt OECD proletariat
some things just need to be done whatever the cost

because japs have a capitalist mode of production?
because japan economy crawls ever since their real estate bubble burst in the 80s?
where is your JAPAN MIRACLE now?
where is all the "JAPS GONNA TAKE OVER THE WORLD" bitching?

I'll tell you where
down the shitter right there with their economic growth index

and don't delude yourself, japs already let more migrants in, and they will let even more migrants in in the near future because their old farts just don't want to fucking die

you're a fucking brainlet
state of tech is a function of funding
it is a common knowledge that private entities don't fund fundamental research
it is also a common knowledge that if labour intensive production process is cheaper than a capital intensive production process, capitalists will use labour intensive process if they are rational calculating actors

also, General Motors had an automation program in the 80s after all the labour action in the 70s to deal with the risk factor of labour action
it flopped because required investment was huge and their competitors were just outsourcing production
but the tech was there they said
really makes you think

What did he say?

except for some huge monopolists like AT&T with their bell labs

He started out as a semi-reasonable if misguided nativist but when it became clear his arguments lacked substance he resorted to ooga-booga nigger jokes. You didn't miss much.

Please post a print-screen if the posts are still visible on your end. I love to laugh at these intellectually dishonest Holla Forumstards getting BTFO.

Sorry, I gave him a bunch of (You)s earlier today so I'm reiterating from memory.

One pathetic part was when he made Nazi masturbation fantasy noises about pushing the invaders into the sea, ect. Then a few posts later he claimed the most powerful thing he could do was vote.

fuck off Holla Forums, there comes a point where you have to admit that your hatred of brown people isn't logical, and is just you being retarded.

Lurk more, faggot. People with what could be defined as an "accommodating" opinion of immigration are clearly in the minority on Holla Forums and pretty much every thread about the issue quickly spirals down into reactionary shit-flinging as Holla Forums transfuges and other assorted "former" right-wingers "turned" leftists join the dance.


nice "logic"

Bix nood moffugen

and that's the admission of defeat

Mod keeps deleting my posts because I'm right.

Shitskins out!

I said is not was. At this point theres accelerating returns and no amount of cheap labor makes automation unprofitable. Muh 80s? Like automation weren't happening then all over puh leeze. Yeah, DoD does it all or whatever, just shows automation is a military imperative not just economic, another reason why they can't give it up for a second.

Did you believe what they told you in Econ 101?

Respond to the point by point takedown faggot

Hahahaha that post, that idealism.

Nature will destroy you.

Or that a class of ideas and cultures is coming and meta concepts like post-christain egalitarianism don't fly when everyone remembers at base it's about who has the biggest stick and who uses it.


Not incorrect. The amount of ecological damage already done as well as the now unavoidable damage to come will push industrialized civilization past its collapsing point - though the ideas and idealism he exposed aren't bad suggestions in themselves.

Better to organize and have community when you need it than do nothing and have no one when shit goes sideways. It is better odds at survival, if only for another day, if nothing else.

That post was meant for Nazi flag, who's apparently back.

I messed up the >>[numbers] part.

Was he simultaneously pretending that his views on immigration aren't motivated by racism?

They are motivated by racism. Why should I make pretend otherwise?