A response to plastic chewer and rapistcel

[Caesercel]

This was supposed to be a reply but I think it can be it's own thread

The working-class of a hegemonic power derives interest from foreign exploitation, not from the importation of labor into their countries

An American receives around a thousand dollars of additional consumption of which the Chinese worker is deprived from due to the financial system
(derived from the trade deficit funded by unsustainable foreign investment and dollar manipulation)

However, if that worker were to emigrate to America and outperform him, he's depriving him of his previous economic status
The capitalist class benefits from lower labor cost and a bigger labor pool, as well as the internal conflict of the domestic and immigrant populace

In that sense, the Trumpian reaction was a structural necessity due to the ever-growing contradiction of the domestic and imported working class

It isnt true that inmigrants do certain works because natives dont want, they do It because its more worth it for company owners to hire them, which is logical because in their native countries the salary is a missery. Without inmigrants companies wouldnt have other choice that paying more.
Its actually the great capitalists who get actual benefit from inmigration.

To me this distinction becomes more meaningless the more I think about it (or atleast it should be meaningless). Workers are workers and the interests of all workers are tied together. The problem are not immigrants, the problem is the system which allows cheaper wages to be paid in the first place. Sure, in absence of such, immigration wouldn't exist because what's the point. But the flipside is that this means Capitalists can lower wages even in the absence of immigrants. This is evident in historically third world tier living conditions for the working class in the west until socialism became popular. No immigrants were present then to lower wages. Immigrants are "depriving" local workers of nothing that the capitalist system doesn't want to deprive them of in the first place.

It's obvious that no material harm is indirectly caused by immigrant workers to local workers that isn't first directly caused by the Capitalist system. Worker strife, as you pointed out, benefits the Capitalists but not in the way you think. It's not a factor besides the lower labour cost, it CAUSES the lower labour cost. This was my my point in the first place that anti-immigration isn't really about sending them back it's about lowering wages. And it must be pointed out that not just the dominant capitalists but the bourgeoisie as a whole and even some of the "middle" class locals materially benefit from cheap immigrant labour. And yet they will keep reaping the benefits on one hand and decry immigration on the other. MAGA is not the American worker's party, it's the American big business party. The only fools here are the workers who lose materially because THEIR local MOSTLY WHITE Capitalists overlords can chose to pay lower and THEY WILL DO EXACTLY THAT. Yet instead of questioning the system itself workers will continue to worship the free market and blame it all on immigrants.

From this analysis the obvious solution seems to be for workers of all backgrounds to come together and strengthen socialism. As long as there is some shithole out there with excess working hands willing to work for less, western working class wages will never be safe. Thus it would logically follow that everyone should have a good share of the pie for that to never happen. Instead of fighting to send immigrants back they should fight to increase wages for everyone including immigrants. There is a reason it goes, "workers of the WORLD unite"

 

[Rapistcel]

This was supposed to be a reply but I think it can be it's own thread



To me this distinction becomes more meaningless the more I think about it (or atleast it should be meaningless). Workers are workers and the interests of all workers are tied together. The problem are not immigrants, the problem is the system which allows cheaper wages to be paid in the first place. Sure, in absence of such, immigration wouldn't exist because what's the point. But the flipside is that this means Capitalists can lower wages even in the absence of immigrants. This is evident in historically third world tier living conditions for the working class in the west until socialism became popular. No immigrants were present then to lower wages. Immigrants are "depriving" local workers of nothing that the capitalist system doesn't want to deprive them of in the first place.

It's obvious that no material harm is indirectly caused by immigrant workers to local workers that isn't first directly caused by the Capitalist system. Worker strife, as you pointed out, benefits the Capitalists but not in the way you think. It's not a factor besides the lower labour cost, it CAUSES the lower labour cost. This was my my point in the first place that anti-immigration isn't really about sending them back it's about lowering wages. And it must be pointed out that not just the dominant capitalists but the bourgeoisie as a whole and even some of the "middle" class locals materially benefit from cheap immigrant labour. And yet they will keep reaping the benefits on one hand and decry immigration on the other. MAGA is not the American worker's party, it's the American big business party. The only fools here are the workers who lose materially because THEIR local MOSTLY WHITE Capitalists overlords can chose to pay lower and THEY WILL DO EXACTLY THAT. Yet instead of questioning the system itself workers will continue to worship the free market and blame it all on immigrants.

From this analysis the obvious solution seems to be for workers of all backgrounds to come together and strengthen socialism. As long as there is some shithole out there with excess working hands willing to work for less, western working class wages will never be safe. Thus it would logically follow that everyone should have a good share of the pie for that to never happen. Instead of fighting to send immigrants back they should fight to increase wages for everyone including immigrants. There is a reason it goes, "workers of the WORLD unite"

I'm against immigration more from a racial than an economic standpoint. What I said earlier was more in response to the argument that immigration is necessary and that any re-immigration measures would cause an economic collapse. For your example, you had to go back to the 19th century, even though in my country, for instance, during the 1990s immigration was minimal and living conditions were similar to, and even better than, they are now in certain areas like housing. In fact, during the last few decades, the real purchasing power of the population hasn't increased.
What I'm trying to say is that certain political sectors use the argument of immigrant workers as an excuse to justify racial replacement.
Being a communist, you not only don't believe in races but you believe in class struggle; I advocate for class collaboration. The mere fact you are race denier means you dont give a shit about racial replacement, which is actually my key point about this thing.

 

[Caesercel]

I'm against immigration more from a racial than an economic standpoint.

Maybe so. But it's still possible for racially motivated anti-immigrant sentiment to have the same effect of creating strife and lowering wages for everyone.

For your example, you had to go back to the 19th century, even though in my country, for instance, during the 1990s immigration was minimal and living conditions were similar to, and even better than, they are now in certain areas like housing. In fact, during the last few decades, the real purchasing power of the population hasn't increased.

I am going to make a post about my opinion on this at a later time.

.
What I'm trying to say is that certain political sectors use the argument of immigrant workers as an excuse to justify racial replacement.

I don't think any such political sectors exist. Racial replacement, independent of material outcomes means nothing. One could argue that replacing white people benefits the elites in the sense that whites are more socialist and less poor so replacing them will bring profits(to give this a racial twist). But by that logic brown immigrants are not the real problem, instead existence of poverty and a lack of socialism is the real issue.

Otherwise nothing truly is gained from removing (or not removing) pale skinned people from the planet.

.
Being a communist, .

Heh, I wish. Actual communists who advocate and act for anything other than concessions are killed here.

; I advocate for class collaboration.

I pointed out in my Dialectical Materialism post why such a thing isn't logical. This has nothing to do with some mindless phobia but material interest (like racism, though racism itself is material whether people believe it or not) . Material interests of capitalists and workers are skewed because of their relative positions.

 

[plastic chewer]

You're looking at this issue through a far too idealist of a lens

Workers are workers and the interests of all workers are tied together

The immediate, objective interest of an American white collar and Chinese blue collar worker are in complete contradiction

The American benefits materially as long as his state sustains hegemonic, imperialist power which empowers it to exploit foreign labor
The Chinese would benefit from his state ascending in status enough as to finally be able to end wage suppression

You look at state apparatuses as some monolith, as if they were all subservient to and in service of the same, global capitalist class
This is completely reductionist, the contradiction between separate capitalist classes will be a bigger impetus of the revolution than the contradiction between the capitalist and the proletariat in the modern, globalized age

Worker strife, as you pointed out, benefits the Capitalists but not in the way you think. It's not a factor besides the lower labour cost, it CAUSES the lower labour cost.

What causes lower labor cost is the tolerance of impoverished immigrants to abhorrent living conditions
Despite having meager wages, they send a substantial part of their earnings back home, thus living in even greater squalor
(This applies to first-wave migration, currently ongoing in the Middle East and the model which was initially present in the West
However, greater tolerance of material scarcity is also the determinant in the second-wave)

This was my my point in the first place that anti-immigration isn't really about sending them back it's about lowering wages.

You're completely ignoring the superstructural aspect of it
Importing swathes of impoverished, illiterate immigrants into established Western working class communities obviously socially derails them

There are vast contradictions between a cohesive community of uneducated foreigners and the atomized, individualist nature of Western cities

From this analysis the obvious solution seems to be for workers of all backgrounds to come together and strengthen socialism

Another form of reductionist sentimentalism and idealism

While his analysis of history is astute and coherent, Marx's predictions with regards to the future have obviously been thoroughly disproven
'Workers of the World' won't be 'uniting'

The final change in the status quo of societal organization will occur once automation and technology eliminate material scarcity
It will be a mechanical process necessitated by the substructure, violent revolution of the underclass will solely be a byproduct of it