Modern era capitalism = mass immigration?

East germany was infinitely better place to live than 99 % of the world yet somehow didn’t receive mass immigration.

El ogro de las americas...

Probably has something to do with people not wanting to live in a nation populated entirely by informers to the literal STASI.

I choose STASI over mass immigration.

BASED DDR poster

As said before people wasnt to move into good countries. It is purely one-sided migration movement that is further empowered by capitalists wanting cheap labour as they have no allegiance to nation states, only capital.

still not an argument

Yes, but it's more than that. Mass immigration was technologically unfeasible until very recently due to limits on transportation (speed, size, etc.). That's why human phenotypes are so varied - you don't get different races of people without them living in isolation for long-ass periods of time.

Capitalism is only interested in one thing: attaining profit. Part of attaining maximum profit is having a cheap labor force, paid low enough to keep alive, but not so low that it dips into slavery (but don't kid yourself for a second, if corporations had their way - no questions asked - they'd reinstitute slavery in a heartbeat.) Since people in developed western nations have achieved a certain level of "uppitiness" about things like "living wages", "trade unions", and so forth, you need to import massive amounts of people from somewhere else to do the work instead.

Everyone wins. The immigrants get to live in a situation that's better than their home country, the corporations get more money, the shitty jobs get done, and the progressives can pat themselves on the back for making the country more ethnically diverse (even if it means supporting a system that ultimately leads to the creation of a cattle-class and a hyper-class, which is literally the diametric opposite of leftist doctrine).

Yep. Look at the original anglosphere labor parties in america and australia and british columbia.

White australia policy eqpecially was a socialist struggle from the beginning against liberal capitalists importing chinamen as scabs and cheap labor, kanakas to work as modern serfs in the sugar fields, indian coolies,...

It was a fight against the degradation of workers, a struggle to obtain honest wages for honest work.

The nativist herald site has great information.

>Is mass immigration a product of modern capitalism?
No, it is a product of Judaism. Look at Japan. Look at Korea. Highly developed, capitalist nations, yet they have seen little to no immigration in recent years. Look at countries in Europe. Where are the largest Jewish communities? France, Britain, Germany, Sweden. Where is mass immigration, especially from non-white countries, the most common? France, Britain, Germany, Sweden. Where are the fewest Jews in Europe? Eastern Europe, Portugal, Finland, Iceland. Do these countries suffer from mass immigration? No.
All of these countries have adopted modern capitalism. Yet only some of them have adopted mass immigration. The only thing that connects them, a pattern that extends to the United States, is the population and influence of Jews.
>Inb4 Nazi! Rayciss! Anti-Semite!

>The immigrants get to live in a situation that's better than their home country, the corporations get more money, the shitty jobs get done, and the progressives can pat themselves on the back for making the country more ethnically diverse

See: California

Yes. If I'm a business owner in the capitalist West, it makes the most financial sense for me to import cheap labor from the third world and undercut local labor market rates, thereby increasing my own profit margins. This is also why so many jobs have been outsourced to India and China and will continue to do so.

Leftists always had the best arguments for restricting immigration, too bad any attempt to limit immigration for valid economic and environmental reasons is automatically deemed racist.

Attached: 9780226190655[1].jpg (853x1280, 98K)

Why is American economics so cancerous?

Mass immigration is part and parcel of living in a capitalist society.

>Capitalism makes good countries

haha

El Scienca Loco

>It seems as though capitalism itself drives these demographic shifts and transfers

See: Japan, South Korea

The people that want mass immigration act like it's some kind of force of nature, in much the same way druggies and lolbertarian goons act like there's no actual way to reduce drug usage "because they'll get the drugs anyway"

>The Scienca Loco

I don't get it.

>Imagine being this brainlet

>It's Da jooz mom
Go back

>valid economic and environmental reasons is automatically deemed racist.
Almost no economist opposes immigration, the free movement of people improves the coordinating power of the free market.

>He believes in economics
lol at your life capitalist cuck

Many capitalist countries like Japan do not have mass immigration.

I meant economic arguments in favor of labor's purchasing power.

>And this is why that's a problem.

sorry but your post has too many layers of subtext and meta irony and I don't know what you mean by this

Unless they finely succeed and make humanlike ai, it's not gonna last after a while

That's only a problem if you think infinite economic growth in a finite world is necessary or desirable. What's wrong with stasis?

>many
>one

Just google "Japan" and "age" or "immigration". The media establishment is hounding Japan to take in more immigration. There is definitely a sociological push for more immigration, they just happen to resist it.

>MUH GDP

It's only an issue in white capitalist countries. No one is rushing to immigrate to Mexico or Brazil or South Africa.

Most economists don't have any skin in the game when it comes to mass immigration so I don't give a fuck what they think about it.

Literally not an argument.

>capitalists are the REAL cultural marxists

"no."

el goblino...

Attached: 7DA037F6-7D29-45E2-AF6A-EAE61F0B866F.jpg (597x492, 99K)

Japan has 3 million immigrants and received 250,000 in 2017.

Most are westerners, not stinky poo in the loo's or ayrabs

What you mean by “cultural Marxism” is just postmodernism, and postmodernism is bourgeois

But they are, literally all major banks and corporations promote mass immigration, transgenderism, radical feminism and so on.

Think of the "mad scientist" archetype.
Different user btw

Mass immigration of low income workers does not result in a net increase in government income, so it would in fact make it more difficult to deal with their aging population.
Is it capitalists pushing for this?

dunno why this would be news to anyone, they are honest about it

bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395

Name one thing wrong with my argument Shlomo

>makes a thread about current day politics
>starts it off with "historically speaking"
every time

>South Korea
>little immigration
Anaon they import Philiponos and SE women in great amount. Also its shithole.

This

Attached: 2_map416 (1).gif (416x281, 14K)

>Chad is the only only county in Africa getting a lot of immigrants
Truly the Chaddest African country.

Because it has an enormous financial backing. "Think tanks" like the Cato Institute, AEI and Heritage Foundation receive a lot of cash to pump this ideology out there, day after day.

>No one is rushing to immigrate to Mexico or Brazil or South Africa.
But those are capitalist countries too.

>racist
It is deemed racist because the right makes it so by implying immigrants from brown countries are bad people and lazy, when in reality they're the ones doing the dirty jobs that Ameriwhites refuse to do because of a variety of reasons. Additionally, both the right and the left are in bed with corporation and refuse to do anything both the companies that knowingly seek to hire illegals; the left does nothing and the right seeks to punish then immigrants themselves, this is pure folly.
Thirdly, there is no movement to ease the immigration process for workers with temporary citizenship. People who have already proven themselves to be fit citizens and have gained legal access into the workforce shouldn't be facing deportation.

Because it serves as base for human traffickers to smuggle immigrants into Europe through Libya.

>No one is rushing to immigrate to Mexico or Brazil or South Africa.

Uh yes they are retard.

>Argument from authority

Thing is those unions Banned non-white membership and then they complain about non-white scabs?

>France, Britain, Germany, Sweden. Where are the fewest Jews in Europe? Eastern Europe, Portugal, Finland, Iceland. Do these countries suffer from mass immigration? No.

There are literally 10.000 Jews in Sweden nigger. Compare that to 50.000 in Hungary, 200.000 in Russia

No side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on mass immigration.

Capitalist systems will encourage it on when there's a demand for cheap labour and people willing to do those jobs somewhere.
The mass immigration into Europe right now has little to do with this as the migrants are largely considered unemployable.
Socialist/left wing parties have an incentive to import such people who will be dependent on the state. If they get the vote, then they will essentially be forced to vote left.

Ultimately the real main prerequisites are just wealth and a culture that is sufficiently welcoming. You can definitely be really fucking capitalist and still have a reasonable immigration policy.

The immigrants are only bad in the sense they bring far more problems than they 'fix'. They also change a nation both politically, culturally and genetically irreversibly.

It is a symptom and the cause is capitalism (not a communist, but I hate capitalism as an abused tool).

I would say the left doesnt "do nothing" as much as it sees it as an opportunity to bring in free votes and gain a bigger voter base. In the US this has somewhat failed short term, since they flock to cities which already have their voter base. But long term, politically, it is in the lefts favor. Left encourages it, Conservatives dont try to stop it.

>In a proper capitalist society
NOT TRUE CAPITALISMS

Nice, exactly the same time as I said the same thing.

Whats worse, is very few people actually get to vote on the matter. With immigration largely being forced upon people with no option to say no/reverse it. If this does nothing to make people rethink how the democracies of their nations function then our countries places in the hegemony deserve to be usurped by China.

Did you completely miss reading the first sentence of that post?

>Did you completely miss reading the first sentence of that post?
Their ruling classes are white.

>South Africa
>ruling class is white

You need to get better sources than your 40 your old set of encyclopedias.

Saying that modern era capitalism = mass immigration ignores that massive immigration from Europe to the new world when mercantilism was still the dominant economic philosophy. Or hell, the massive immigration from Europe during the pre-modern capitalist era of the United States. It's not as simple as the equation you give.

>usurped by China.

Lol Chian is extremely overhyped.

>genetically irreversibly

That is extremely impossible user.

>massive immigration from Europe to the new world when mercantilism was still the dominant economic philosophy. Or hell, the massive immigration from Europe during the pre-modern capitalist era of the United States

Not really the same thing at all.

literaly paid for youtube propaganda,
primordial teir bs.

Yeah those two instances were massive as fuck.

Current European immigration is tiny compared to it.

>Many capitalist countries like Japan did not had mass immigration.

They do now. Japan is importing hundreds of thousands per year.

Read a book nigger.

>read a book by an (((economist)))

No thanks.

>There are literally 10.000 Jews in Sweden nigger.
20.000 actually Schlomo

>Compare that to 50.000 in Hungary, 200.000 in Russia
Hungary is plagued by gypsies, and Russia by Muslims. The main difference there is that these countries had their Jewish elite liquidated by Hitler/Stalin.

>stormtard intellectual

No they aren't. Not in any meaningful numbers.

See

This is so precisely correct. It's important to remember that conspiracy theories aren't the only mechanism by which people in positions of power get more of what they want.

So basically Ted was right and industrial society needs to be destroyed.

>mercantilism was still the dominant economic philosophy

Not much different from late stage capitalism when you get down to it.

>Historically speaking, is mass immigration a product of modern capitalism?
Probably. I guess the Soviets could've decided to accept refugees from, say, war-torn USSR-aligned African countries, but nothing like this ever happened. The closest thing was when the Soviet Union accepted the children of Spanish republicans during the civil war there, but there were only a few thousands of them. There were also foreign students and diplomats, but that's it.

>There are literally 10.000 Jews in Sweden nigger. Compare that to 50.000 in Hungary, 200.000 in Russia
Russia has huge muslim population and a huge muslim immigration.

Not quite. It means we must come to understand the perils of modern civilization which gives us everything yet damages us like a "golden cage" or a harmful addiction. In the past people learned virtue in the face of crises, now we must practice those same virtues to avoid creating a crisis.

It is humanly possible, the Amish have managed it. If we cannot convince the majority of people we can still practice them ourselves and be better able to withstand the crisis.

Immigration was always present theough history. People always moved to places they considered they had better opportunities, especially during times of conflicts, overpopulation, persecution, poverty, etc...
The only difference is that now we have the technology to move massive amounts of people across borders. It’s not something inherent to capitalism.

So immigration rates were the same between the USA/Western Europe and Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc during the Cold War?