Godstud wrote:So, it's capitalism that's to blame for mass immigration, and not globalization, the "left", or anything else. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Where do you think the ideology stems from?
It serves to legitimize such things, globalization has been legitimized under neolbieralism. Even after it failed to adhere to it's ideology in bringing prosperity to third world and instead raped them of their wealth rather than provide capitalist investment. People still retain that globalization is a positive thing, that we just need to soften it, because they're like social democrats that think we can make a nicer capitalism if we just reform it. Which I think is rather dubious, see ''
The post-Washington Consensus: the unraveling of a doctrine of development".
When people speak of the left they of course speak to different variations of liberals who subscribe largely to a lot of similar assumptions about society, capitalism and the economy, though disagree thoroughly on the most effective route to their idealized principles.
Because liberals are idealists about certain things, whether its the moral consideration of how refugees are treated without considering implications of what certain policies towards them would do, putting morality over reality. Or have the others that if pushed far enough through economic crisis often end up being something comparable to fascists of the past and think that they can resolve economic problems by racial or national unity and reform the capitalist system just a little bit.
Globalization is simply capitalism switching from protectionism to free trade where more powerful economies crush the weaker ones, flooding them with their products. Because it was realized that didn't need militarizes to keep such countries stuck in the same way that one doesn't need to always have police beat up workers, they fall in line due to economic circumstances.
One needs to consider the International Financial Institutions that are controlled by capitalists and effectively run by the most powerful of capitalists in capitalist countries.
http://clogic.eserver.org/4-1/ollman.html15. Virtually everything our Government does can be placed under one or another of these headings, just because it is not really our Government but their Government, controlled by the capitalists and bent on serving their interests. This applies as much to foreign policy as to domestic policy. As more and more investment, lending and sales take place outside our national boundaries, American capitalists require the same kind of help from the Government around the globe that they have always received inside the country. "Imperialism" is the name given to this imperative--and it must be grasped as an imperative--and the sum of policies associated with it. One hundred and even fifty years ago, this usually took the form of militarily occupying foreign lands to ensure their total compliance with the needs of our capitalists.
16. More recently, in the stage of capitalism that has been dubbed "globalization," it has been found that the same goals could be attained just as effectively and with less opposition by using chains made of loans, investments, so-called aid (mostly to buy our products and to ensure a friendly military), and even culture. Convenient help in putting these chains in place is provided by such world (sic) organizations as the I.M.F., the World Bank and the W.T.O., all of which are dominated by the American Government, and, therefore, by American capital. In this strategy, it is very important that the rising middle class in these unfortunate lands come to mirror our own. Then, with all the parts in place, it no longer makes much difference if the man who calls himself President or Prime Minister is a local product or not. He cannot help but deliver what our capitalists want.
And immigration agitates class warfare, because it is makes abundantly clear that the capitalist class doesn't do shit in the interest of it's own people, but in its class interest. This is how there can be disillusionment with democracy, because realize that it ain't a democracy for the people despite the historical trend of expanding universal suffrage. Free trade and more accessible labour that are cheaper is to the direct benefit of the capitalist class, don't get confused by the impression of substantive difference when the dominant discussions and interpretations are all liberals which is perfectly fitting for being a sucker for capitalism in practice by being blinded by appeals to certain idealistic assumptions embedded in such an outlook. Whether it be about the capacity of capitalism to provide certain things and sustain them or whether it be based on treating every individual ideally as a justice compliant rational entity.
http://www.panarchy.org/engels/freetrade.htmlTo sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim of the free-traders who imagine that the more advantageous application of capital will abolish the antagonism between industrial capitalists and wage workers. On the contrary, the only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out still more clearly.
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
...
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
And to the quote at the end, one might then go SEE! The Marxist's support this sort of shit! But one is misunderstanding the nuance of it, in which we don't actually have the power to stop the immigration unless we take over the capitalist class. Even fascism is the middle class getting of the chain and biting their masters. That simply realize that this is how capitalism functions and has historically function if one examines the rise of capitalism, free trade and displaced masses due to economics was something going on in Karl Marx's time.
The Communist Manifesto, By Karl Marx and Frederick Engels with Related Documents, Edited with an Introduction by John E. Toews. p.19 "Revolutionary Expectation"The signs of approaching crisis in European politics and society that marked the years between 1845 and 1848 were certainly not easy for contemporaries to read as items in a single story or dimension of a unified historical process. Events such as the calling of the first United Diet in Prussia, the organization of political resistance to the French Monarchy (in the form of raucous reform "banquets", or demonstrations), the extraparliamentary agitation by British Liberals to repeal the tariffs on imported grain, the successful revolt of the liberal cantons within the Swiss Confederation in 1847 suggested the emergence of a new surge in the ongoing battle to create, reform, or solidify the political and legal in-situations of middle class liberalism.
Political agitation by more inclusive populist movements, such as the British Chartists or French and German democratic radicals, who represented constituencies outside the privileged circle of established constitutional politics, pointed towards a process of democratization that would undermine privileges of wealth and education through broader definitions of citizenship and use the powers of the state to mitigate the social effects of free-market economics and industrial production. Political turmoil fueled by nationalist sentiments in Austria's Polish and Italian provinces, as well as national gatherings of German leaders of the liberal and radical opposition movements, raised the specter of cultural nationalism as an organizing principle of popular mobilization and political community. At the same time, the vast migration (and thus sudden visibility) of destitute populations into the cities, because of devastating food shortages and the collapse of traditional artisan production and cottage industries under the pressures of free trade, indicated the existence of economic and social problems that could no longer be resolved within the political frameworks of the existing regimes.
These problems aren't new to capitalist mode of production and while those of a liberal ideology might feel they oppose it, they have one sided analysis and idealized views that misunderstand capitalism and even its historical precedents and it's direct and unsustainable limits.
Marxists simply accept as a that while capitalist class rule that they will take in such people, because its profitable. Only idealists want to treat the world as if it already were some workers paradise and speak of the free movement of labour as if it serves our interests, clearly idealist fools who work on principle without any consideration of its application and implication in reality.
Hence why the historical precedent is that socialists countries don't allow the free flow of people like capitalist ones, to which could get into the debate of what sort of implications and ideological justifications were used for such things. Where one can simultaneously speak that its as much to stop a brain drain as socialist countries are economically isolated from the rest of the word as capitalists are hostile and they don't wish to invest in education for people to just fuck off to America. Just as it's not to allow others to come in and destabilize the fabric of society because of the actions of capitalist imperialism. That socialists if they are of the Marxist stripe don't share '
the saccharine-sweet sentimentality of our bourgeoisie'.
Such liberal moralism comes from internalizing ideology that legitimizes the market rather intensely. Capitalist class may have the sense though that if they piss off the lower and middle classes too much that they'll destabilize society and it'll be on, they may lose a direct confrontation if they can't effectively co-opt people into having a reactionary revolution.
Its my impression that Marxists tolerate such suffering as they see it as inevitability of capitalism that if we truly want to address the problem rather than with petty reformism, then we should enact socialist revolutions and quit messing around with ideals and really consider what the conditions of possibility are for actualizing ideas like no one should be starving or getting screwed by imperialist wars. Because anyone who says they care about such starving and has a good grasp on capitalism and how these many things relate, realize that pure intentions are meaningless, people feel the consequences of our actions and it's the inaction to work to transcend capitalist economy that in practice makes us perfectly happy with the state of affairs. Because if one is confronted with such a conflict then one needs to prioritize what is most important to them, liberals in the broadest sense think they can keep capitalist, simply tweak it a little and everything will be perfect forever until of course the inevitable crisis at a future point in time.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
- By skinster